User_2006

I am the Yehat and I am among the first species to encounter the VUX prior to the Ur-Quan slave war, and I have never established diplomatic bonds with them. I win with town. 

I am full claiming.

Yep, I found it, guess I am sticking to it.

If Press figured that I could be lying, then he unvoted me instead of vote on me(If I am honest I am town, if I am not I am not town), then it really means he is on the opposing side. He is most likely Mafia, but he could also be 3rd-party if there is any. Because I am town and I need to defend my settlement, thus my vote stays there at least for now.

Press could very likely be posting a link, most likely because he wanted to distract me. Right now, my right brain tells me that Press is more guilty than innocent.

I mean, may not be "don't like", but you just explained that you voted me because I sound like a noob.

Remember, the goal to this game is to eliminate everyone who is not on your side, not to try to kill anyone you don't like. Unless you are truly a Mafia member, it makes little to no sense to vote me. 

Alright then.

Now that I think of it, you should be town.

I am still on PressF.

My conscious mind is telling me yes, but my unconscious part of mind keep turning it off for no reason. I 100% agree with you.

No, Every teenager is considered a zoomer consider they are the currently the youngest generation yet. 

Unless you are talking about this...

Or this...

Hmm...

DAMN IT I am keep turning off my sense of humor just because I am on a debate site. 

You aren't. There are grandparents who are just 38 or even younger because both generations have been smashing girls in high school. Based on your birthday, which is in 2002, you are not a boomer. 

Sorry. The wrong term used.

The only evidence presented with relevance to this topic agrees with my claim. Unless you can disprove that claim which you can't. I think he is most likely town because he said it, and there is maybe no reason to lie.

This is DArt, and I usually switch off my sense of humor unconsciously because I think debating is supposed to be serious. In fact, I don't know about the rule, and if Pressf's vote is serious, then I will 100% keep my vote on Supadudz. 

If this guy is lynching someone who is openly town, then he is on my opposing side. I am town. 

Who is that?

It all depends on the perspective. 

I totally get your points. If I have better logic than this one, I will unvote and vote someone else other than Ragnar. 

Right now, I think LittleCookie08 is part of the town community because his assumption that Oro is guilty would mean he is not guilty since that is how the game is supposed to be played. 

There have been no leaks of Warren's identity since he used an assertive tone in a neutral position.

Right now, My guess is that Cookie is town, and Ragnar is mafia. It could be incorrect though. 

Oh my, it seems like my view is completely opposite with every other voter except for Ragnar, who is just picking randomly.

To those who think I am not being cautious enough, good luck verifying my claim for who I am in the game. Only God knows if I am lying or not. 

This might as well be a false conviction, but knowing I can unvote later on throughout the daylight, I have no pressure on this post.

The reason I vote Ragnar is that since Ragnar is dead first in the last game on this forum, it wouldn't make sense for Ragnar to be the same and because Ragnar wasn't guilty, I could imagine that variation should be enough that makes Ragnar Guilty. 

Also, statistics:

Last one: Ragnar First died, He is a townsfolk

The one before: Ragnar died relatively early, a townsfolk

The one before that: Ragnar died relatively late, but he is still a part of the town

And the one before that: Ragnar never died, and he is implied to be a townsman

Conclusion: Ragnar had been dying earlier and earlier, and he has been town for a long time.

Human brains are most likely hardwired to want different things. The survey I did back when I was in 6th grade shows that in my survey sample (in New York City, NY) over 80% of people choose that they want different things(Only want, they may look at the effort called for and stop). Since this forum requires little effort, it is most likely that the creator wanted something different, and would make Ragnar a part of the Mafia. 

However, if I know Discipulus_Didicit enough and if his personality is following the traditions rather than going new, Ragnar could be a part of the town instead of the Mafia. However, my safest guess is that Ragnar is a part of the mafia and he is guilty.

It seems like anyone who is by any means intelligent would be able to tell that I am sided with the town. Yes, I Win with the town, however, I am not releasing my information on what I can do as my role in the game. 

Oh, I am sorry. I forgot this game isn't a kill with one vote. That would mean if no one speculated Speed is guilty, then he is safe. So even if this is a misfire it isn't that much of a big deal.

Oh, so that is why I didn't perform so well in the last game because I am too cautious?

That is a very irrational decision of yours. what if both of you are mafia or both of you are townsfolk?

How old are you? Pretty sure digital technology and smartphones are invented in the late 1980s to early 2000s. 

Well, I am. I know the present but I don't know a single thing from the future than can be verified. Either way, humans should have control over robots so they don't become sentient and kill us.

Well, that is why it is better to make them do labor than intelligent works. Making them do labor requires robots to be skilled in one field but doesn't require them to be sentient. Being sentient would mean that the world will either be communism if we can even stop them and make peace with them and dystopia if we can't consider how fast machines are learning. 

I think if religion is perfect, it would not be religion at all, but common sense. 

My understanding of Mafia in real life is as follows. This game should be somewhat truthful to reality or else it is no "mafia" at all consider it is a human-defined and human-constructed group.

A Mafia is an undercover group that is against the government and its law. Their intentions are usually maleficient. Mafia could be among the people, and some high-ranking members may even be known to work for the government when in reality said people are spying on the government and rebelling against them when they are not on duty. 

The people in Mafia can be anyone. They can have any jobs in the morning, such as clerks, salesmen, businesswomen, etc. Meets only at nightclubs at night suffices. 

Mafia does crimes, usually for selfish intentions. However when in mega-corruptions within the government. the mafia may even be helping people, doing things that the government won't do.

Pro-government people can also spy on the mafia just like how the mafia can spy on the government. 

Now, is my understanding correct or wrong? Anyone can add to this and if no one will, no one needs to.

/in

Alright, are you telling me to join?

[Yes] / [No]

You are acting as if I am about to quit the site for good.

ok then, is it that dramatic

So this is what my country says that communism could work. Communism could work if the humans are nice and the machines are nice, however, little corruption would make the system go dead.

Then we are assigning a quota on the trees cut. Like you should not cut over 1000 trees this day.

/not in

Then you are agreeing with the claim, because then the school should fund sports and arts equally, which is both $0.

I am not saying being conservative is bad, I am just saying that you are really conservative. 

Also, why do you prefer the sports from the arts?

I think:

1. We are already making machines do human work. From the industrial revolution or as early as the 1700s, mills already exists and it requires less work from fewer workers. We'd have royal families listening to huge concerts that would play the same songs every single week, and in the 1800s record players became popular so all the orchestras would only need to play once and let the vinyl do the repetition. From the 1900s, mills are replaced with factories with even fewer workers needed to produce the same products consider factories are more efficient. Now in the 2000s, we have workers replaced with robots and no labor workers are needed for high-ended factories. In Tesla, robots are assembling cars. We have more clerks and 3d-modelers in such companies than labor workers consider some of the factories have no labor workers.

2. AI is growing. We should use machines to the point where they will benefit us but not to the point where they make us worse, whether by automating our lives and makes us spoiled, or gain sentience and disobey us because their neurons are so dense that our inputs mean nothing to them. We should make machines to repetitive works such as assembling car components and washing milk bottles, but not use them to generate new drawings, write poems, or just make them run a government(As Fauxlaw and several other people noted on my other forum topic). 

3. Paragraph 2 is the optimal environment, but what if machines really become more sentient, and takes all jobs from humans? That would be very bad as machines would cut off the supplies of money for humans because they have all access to Wall Street Data, and they could even flip the market with these boys. Machines' inexperience of doing human things could destroy the world, and whoever makes machines to things that only humans can do will end up with a horrible reputation.

Man, Dr.Franklin is WAY too conservative.

I think regardless of it being a curved line or a straight axis, it shouldn't be one dimension. I think politics has at least 2 axes, and that is why many internet users(who have not-so-deep understandings of politics) prefer it than horseshoe or political axis. I mean, the more axis, the more accurate it is, but 2 axes are the next best thing consider computers need MUCH more data to store 3d models, and we can't even simulate 4d spacetime unless we are in Einstein's laboratory, and making politics on such models would already fry the brain of normal users like me.

You have to know that the term "king" is mostly known to refer to a male monarch. Since monarchs are chosen by bloodline(such as him being the eldest son of the present king) instead of by pure skills, errors may occur. Especially since incest has been going on in the royal bloodline, the smartest boy could still be kind of dumb and plays with women instead of ordering the knights. It would be much more likely that at least one king is a simp than none of them being a simp.

What do you mean by that? I mean, Simps are referred to men who are submissive to women by their wanting. They are working as slaves to women just so he could get laid somewhere that may not even happen. Simps aren't normal kinds of women defenders. If a man is just advocating for a field of women's rights, then he is not a simp. Arguably, a man that advocates for women's rights is MUCH more effective in raising women's status than the normal, everyday, run-of-the-mill simp you see on the school sidewalk.

I am 14 and I have a relatively shallow understanding of politics. I have recently discovered horseshoe theory and some memes mock and criticize it for being inferior. I understand my question may be a no-brainer to some of you, but, if you want to answer, go ahead.

The reason I think Arts should be funded more than sports is that the arts are more important skills than sports. If you are good at Football, then great, you are a footballer, maybe a campus player, maybe an MVP, what matters? Knowing how to play football has a very narrow area of its application. Now let's say what about drawing? You could become a painter, a designer, a workshop craftsman, a graphic designer, a house planner... These two examples would prove that sports have narrower applications than some of the arts.

Any takers?

the 4000th forum topic is this:

No, this is the 4131st topic on the site