Duderonomy

I for one welcome this evaporation of Russian wealth for a useless purpose. Especially if Ukraine gets peace because of it. Resources are not limitless, and it's better they burn them in the Middle East than have them available for us. Syria is currently a shitshow on all sides, and it's better we let their own people take care of it. If ISIS causes trouble outside of Syria, bomb their leaders and then leave. Repeat as needed. I just wish Bush & Obama had been smarter and less handcuffed about foreign policy *sigh*.

http://i.imgur.com/3V6kSs8.gif

Nope, we are now at even odds to hit a primed tree or arsonist, which results in a neutral result or better for trees. And you just moved further from the circle, buddy. Vote: Lyner

You got nukes to participate in said nuking? I for one, cherish my nuclear weapons and choose wisely who deserves to eat one. They aren't family pets, boy, no matter how much you keep stroking them. Buy in bulk and nuke in bulk. Glass those fools. What the hell do you plan to spend a multi-year warchest on? It's not like you're earning interest. By the time I get done, I will send all my proof of purchases in to get a leather jacket. do you want to eat one Wouldn't be the first and won't be the last, muchacho. For you, nuking me will be the greatest day of your life. For me, it's just a Tuesday.

You got nukes to participate in said nuking? I for one, cherish my nuclear weapons and choose wisely who deserves to eat one. They aren't family pets, boy, no matter how much you keep stroking them. Buy in bulk and nuke in bulk. Glass those fools. What the hell do you plan to spend a multi-year warchest on? It's not like you're earning interest. By the time I get done, I will send all my proof of purchases in to get a leather jacket.

The reason for me not me unvoting should be obvious, plus I hadn't fully thought through all the permutations until I made that long post. Everyone seemed to be voting and seemed to think lynching was important, so I did. When I really sat and thought about it, I realized that I should have unvoted on that Saturday, especially since it would've made me more prime-proof (not completely, but more). Oh, the arsonists COULD prime R2V, but it'd decrease their kill count. It'll be interesting to see if the arsonists ignite anyone early. If they do, combing through the ashes' posts should make for some interesting speculation on why they were so important that the arsonist felt they needed to go. The ashes, of course, can't speak anymore so there is that.

How are parents supposed to know if their children have guns or not? I mean, my parents are relatively involved in my life but they have never set foot in my house, and even if they did come here on a regular basis, I would just have to keep the study door closed and I have enough space to store enough rifles for a company of infantry. Ultimately, compared the UK to USA. Since 1990 total deaths to mass shootings? 29. In the last 9 months the USA has had 379. You have to seriously ask yourself what is wrong here. Constant mass killings. What is different? That is a very important question-so it is strange that the US congress won't fund studies into answering that question. The first answer is the most obvious-way way more guns. Guns that are very easy to obtain and free to carry. But if you don't like that answer you can always look at some other things. The UK also has free at the point of delivery medical care, including a proper Mental Health Service. But whatever you think the answer is, the question comes back to, what are you going to do? First thing I'd mention, looking at total deaths is not very beneficial. The U.S. has a higher population than the U.K., so of course it will have more shootings. Looking at shootings per capita using your totals, we get 0.45 per million U.K., 1.18 per million U.S. About double which is still a problem, but not quadruple, which appears from the totals. Your odds of being shot in a mass shooting in the U.S. is 1/12,000,000. Your odds of being the victim of a medical mistake is much greater: 17,600/12,000,000. I think medical mistakes are a much more important issue simply due to the numbers and wish the media would spend more airtime on it. Once we get medical mistakes down, we can start working on gun violence.

I'm actually a fan of the movement by victims to get mass shootings out of the press. A lot of these nutjobs are looking for notoriety, and the media celebrating their attacks often spawns copycats. Same reason suicides tend to go in waves. I still maintain that the answer is better mental health care. If you start stigmatizing it by preventing those who seek help from getting guns, they'll simply not get the help.

While we may not vote this round, I'm still inclined to give my vote on who will go next round. Anyone who doesn't give an opinion is likely scared of getting lynched, which means a likely arsonist. Trees should not be scared of giving their opinions or being lynched, since they can win even if lynched. I'm leaning toward Lyner and Electric Mango for the next round. Electric Mango has been really quiet, which makes me suspicious, but Lyner did pile onto Road2Victory at the last moment, which is a total arsonist move. I've also got a funny feeling about iSocialism. However, I'm not going to act on it until I get more proof.

3 weeks of actual fighting. 12 weeks of whining on the OWF.

Yeah, the only role-claim that would ruin the game is the arsonists outing themselves. It's in everyone's interests to claim tree, especially the fireman who is a huge target for the arsonists. Even if an arsonist outs himself, the game is still going so long as the other arsonist is hidden. So who wants to ogle some trunks? Check out that rytidome. Yowser http://media.mnn.com/assets/images/2012/01/paperbark_maple.jpg.638x0_q80_crop-smart.jpg

Lyner, I appreciate the hard numbers and I'll look over them more carefully later in the day, but they stand up to initial scrutiny (or at least the edits do). What they fail to take into full account are the impact of the primed trees. Lynching a primed tree is neutral for both sides and changes it from a "when do votes do the most harm" scenario to a "when do votes do the least harm" scenario. When odds get to 1:1, it's much more advantageous to act with the information we have up to that point. Also, I'm assuming that ties go to mafia, unless remainder is fireman (unlikely). Odds of a vote being neutral or better for trees (aka primed or mafia) Day 1: 2/9 vote baiting for info Day 2: 3/9 Day 3: 4/9 Day 4: 5/9 with 4 non-primed trees left, best time to vote Unfortunately, we now live in another scenario: Day 1: 2/9 lynch Day 2: 3/8 Day 3: 4/8 with 4 non-primed trees left, best time to vote If we hit mafia on Day 3 which seems likely to me at this point, we'll get this Day 4: 4/7 with 3 non-primed trees and 1 mafia left, vote Day 5: 5/6 with 2 non-primed trees and 1 mafia left, vote (this is based on the most likely scenario) Day 6: 4/5 with 1 non-primed tree and 1 mafia left, vote Day 7: Ignition, mafia wins Hitting a primed tree won't be reported, so I can't really model it properly. If we hit a non-primed tree on Day 3, we accelerate the timeline by one day. So I'm not advocating a completely no-lynch strategy. I'm advocating an optimum-lynch strategy when we have the most info. All of that said on Day 4, I'm probably the best candidate for lynching, if I'm the greatest threat to the mafia, because I'm the most likely to have been primed and thus not hurt the trees.

I laid out the chances in one of my prior posts, Lyner. Did a decision matrix and everything. If you can't address raw numbers and probability except through wild accusation, I think you're definitely arsonist at this point. It's important to note that the rules state mafia can only prime one target together. Killing one mafia without killing the other is not super advantageous for town. We've got to flush out both. Voting will become more advantageous in the next round, when we're just as likely to hit a primed tree or arsonist as a non-primed tree. Lynching primed trees doesn't hurt town. Lynching one mafia does help by removing their vote, but it's better to see who they ally with and who they vote for. When you're certain and nail one mafia, then you can look at their history to flush out the other one. To make things more clear Round 2 Voting Decision Matrix Mafia Primed Not Primed Proposed Lynch (trees killed) 1 1 2 Chance 2/8 1/8 5/8 5/8 lynching choices are bad for trees. Round 3 Voting Decision Matrix Mafia Primed Not Primed Proposed Lynch (trees killed) 1 1 2 Chance 2/8 2/8 4/8 4/8 lynching choices are neutral or good for trees. That's a 50-50 shot, that can increase if you have better analysis on who is an arsonist. Don't forget that there's also a firefighter running around out there. If he/she can block even one priming, it vastly improves the tree's chances and will throw a major wrench into the arsonists plans, since they never know if a priming is blocked and the act of ignition can decrease their kill count to 0 for that round.

Me is sad The sudden change in effort and view is interesting, feels like a different person than yesterday It's an interesting read and all, but I disagree on the vital points: Advocating no-lynch when there is no detection role from the town side, and there is an advantage of tree-stumps? Only scum would try to actively do that. Another faulty point is the illusion that the more rounds we have then the more chance of town winning. With less trees, the chance of us getting a scum is getting higher too. We get more useful data if we lynch everyday instead of the random data we received if a no lynch happened. I had zero info on the first round, not even prior games to refer back to. My goal as a tree (of course everyone is a "tree" at this point) was to flush out arsonists without harming my side too much. Voting in that round was about vote-baiting arsonists. I thought R2V's behavior fit an arsonist, I was wrong. I'll use that info in later games. More info is better than less. More rounds yield more info through posts. More posts give better patterns. And this post of yours makes me more suspicious. That's also why I agree with Electric Mango that shorter and less informative posts arouse suspicion, because it could be someone afraid to tip their hands. Speculation is half the fun, and only the arsonists lose by speculation. I explained my actions above. R2V was the first "third vote" (aka a vote that meant someone would get lynched). I'll remember next time that he's more interested in fun than strategy. Oh, and I'd still like to see your vote R2V, even if it doesn't count. You're the only known honest player here, and your opinion could sway a few votes. Plus you have more experience with this game than I do.

I'll be changing it eventually, anyway. That's largely a placeholder ATM. Still, I'm assuming that Duke Nukem played optimally at his role, and that a new player will continue to do so. Blah blah blah, its fun how dead men can talk You win if we kill all of the arsonists, right? So you can still win even as a stump. Bonus is you are the only person in the game I can really trust. I have updated my circle to include you. Okay good, I feel like the last person who voted for me had something to say? Well, Lyner certainly is outside the circle of trust. Well worth discussing his role in all of this. He certainly seems to be a more opportunistic voter, while I'm on the fence about Electric Mango.

I'll be changing it eventually, anyway. That's largely a placeholder ATM. Still, I'm assuming that Duke Nukem played optimally at his role, and that a new player will continue to do so. Blah blah blah, its fun how dead men can talk You win if we kill all of the arsonists, right? So you can still win even as a stump. Bonus is you are the only person in the game I can really trust. I have updated my circle to include you.

I'll be changing it eventually, anyway. That's largely a placeholder ATM. Still, I'm assuming that Duke Nukem played optimally at his role, and that a new player will continue to do so.

Alright, given that my last post is likely to make this a no lynch round for trees (strategy) and arsonists (bluffing), let's shake things up with some analysis in a post I like to call: Duderonomy's Circle of (Mis)Trust Reasons to think a player besides me is an arsonist (weighted points) Lynching Vote (3) Advocated Lynching (3) Voted (1) Too Quiet (1) No vote (-1) Advocated Non-Vote (-2) Stump & Tree (-10) Alright, let's total some scores Commander Shepard(-1+1) Duderonomy (-10 because if you can't trust yourself who do you trust) Duke Nukem (3+1) Electric Mango(3+3) iSocialism(1) Lyner (3+3) Rafay (1) Road2Victory (-10) Robert2424 (-1+1) That leaves us with the following categories Outside the circle Electric Mango, Lyner, Duke Nukem Looking inside the circle iSocialism, Rafay Edge of circle Commander Shepard, Robert2424 Center of circle The always right Duderonomy, Honorable Road2Victory Please make baseless accusations now.

Not necessarily in this game as you can prime all targets and light them up all at once..... But you have to prime them one at a time. If mafia only depends on priming, then they get 1 tree a round max. If they prime & lynch, then they get 2 trees a round max. True, they'll lose the occasional primed tree, but that only drops them to 1 tree a round, which they would've gotten, anyway. Let me see if I can come up with a decision matrix. Pardon the formatting. Mafia Decision Matrix Mafia Primed Not Primed Proposed Lynch (trees killed) 1 1 2 Chance 2/8 1/8 5/8 The mafia lynched scenario is the worst case scenario, and then they want a no lynch. So there's a 2/8 chance of that. The primed but also put up for lynch scenario is neutral for them; a lynched and primed tree doesn't affect their kill count per round. The not primed tree put up for a lynch is a best case scenario, because it means 2 trees are killed/set up for a kill in one round. There's a 5/8 chance of that if they can get enough support for a lynch in the second round. Odds are greater than even that mafia wants a lynch in the second round for optimal kill count. Trees should be concerned with keeping as many players around as possible. Why? Because the more players, the more winnable rounds. The more rounds, the more opportunity to ferret out mafia. Tree decision matrix Winnable rounds played starting at 9 players 1 player killed/rd 6 2 players killed/rd 3 Given that we've just killed a non-primed tree, we've gone down to 5 winnable rounds (aka 4 more winnable rounds). That decreases every time we kill a non-primed tree. It goes up every time we kill mafia. Now this assumes that mafia and trees know how to play optimally and that no tree has special knowledge on who is mafia. I haven't played enough with you guys to know who plays optimally and who just lynches people without concern for strategy.

You wound me, good sir. Of course, you've also been voting for me since day 1. I'm more inclined to be suspicious of anyone that was the 3rd vote last time. It's more advantageous for trees to not lynch anyone until they have a good notion of who is mafia. On day one, you have a 7/9 chance of lynching someone on your side. Hence why I changed my vote away from you so that I would not be the lynching vote. It's advantageous for mafia to always lynch someone, especially if they know who the other mafia is. That's why I'm concerned with EM & Lyner. Of course, players don't always play perfectly, and I don't know enough about past behavior to predict your playstyles. And of course there's the various mental games you can play by not voting optimally, but going through those gets tedious.

Brave Road2Victory, the tall always get cut down in their prime. To mourn, I shall vote no lynch.

I apologize if I assumed you had religious reasons for the abortion debate. As I said, it's nearly impossible to attack abortion in total without resorting to religion. I will treat it as a public healthcare debate, instead. We've had arguments about public healthcare before. Considering the fact that the Constitution itself enshrines a right to life (for citizens, when their life starts), it's hard to understand why someone considers some form of public healthcare unconstitutional when capitalism itself is not even mentioned in the document (note, I support capitalism for most endeavors). Most of Planned Parenthood's services are centered on public health. This includes pap smears, mammograms, and yes, contraception, which prevent far more costly diseases. Cancer caught early is cheaper to eradicate than cancer caught late. STD and pregnancy prevention is far less expensive than miscarriage and medication. Life's beginning has been discussed by people far more specialized than I on such things, and been determined to be X months before normal birth. The main reason U.S. healthcare is fucked is that no one can afford prevention, and only seek help when things have gone so far that it takes dozens of trained professionals to cure them. A lot of conservatives have this myth that everyone can and should be a rockstar CEO making hundreds of thousands of dollars who has no worry about healthcare costs. We need people at the bottom, often more than the people at the top. I've met dozens of idiot MBAs who are just salesmen with a fancy degree. Good ones go into finance or understand that productivity requires loyalty to their workers, as well as their executives. Taxation has been fought hard and long from the Whiskey Rebellion onward, but there are cases when it is necessary. The tax burden for most U.S. citizens is the lowest it's been for the last thirty years (including the vaunted Reagan years). Corporate welfare is causing the deficits, not public welfare. Public welfare is nothing compared to the tax breaks and incentives given to corporations. Just because it's done before tax collection, does not make it any better. We've talked about truly flat taxes, as well.

So you're saying Obama would shut down the government to protect taxpayer funded abortions? It's already clearly illegal what Planned Parenthood is doing, and only lacks an FBI investigation before many of them go to prison. Isn't it amazing how completely in the dark most people are about the law? They have been hiding behind birth control and cancer screenings for decades. Can't we find another organization to fund that isn't an abortion mill? This is the fault of an irresponsible, and complicit media. The Tea Party only wants a responsible, honest, and law abiding government under the US Constitution. I don't see how that is a bad thing... unless of course, you're a traitor. You'll be using that "socialist" word again soon. Please don't distort words from their accepted definitions. That's how cashiers who have pissall power and no political leanings get called Nazis. Scare words mean fuckall to this argument. The Constitution was intended to be a living document, as shown by the mechanism for amending it. While it definitely was not specific enough, the founders did their best with the understanding that they had. A major reason Southern states have much longer constitutions is that they recognized this drawback and had the time to address it after the Civil War. Over the years, accepted tradition has had different branches of the government interpreting the document to varying degrees. While the Supreme Court's role was not written into the Constitution, it has precedence in English Common Law and was accepted by the founders in the nation's early years. On abortion itself, it's a viable contraceptive method that has been accepted by society at large. This was reflected in the Supreme Court decision. Any argument against it almost always requires a call to religion or religious logic, which the founders specifically separated from the government in an amendment. Life does not begin at conception, and determining anything after that requires far more expertise than either of us have. I'm willing to trust that government officials have consulted enough scientists and ethicsists (NOT religious leaders) to come up with a viable answer. Planned Parenthood is the widest available network of free clinics in the United States. While their founders had horrible ideas founded in their eras, many companies have had horrible ties over the years (like Ford's direct support of the Nazis and dozens of companies that profited from slavery). They have severed their culture from the past and now serve the community to the best of their ability. I have served volunteer security at Planned Parenthood to keep nutjobs from attacking women that only want to protect their health. No one has a right to stop a necessary medical procedures. Childbirth can easily result in the mother's death, and should not be forced onto unwilling women no matter how much you enjoy religious grandstanding.

Boehner's resignation was a shocking move, and there's been some talk of a possible scandal behind it. Maybe he did what Hilary should have, resign from political life rather than let all the dirty laundry out into the open. But Hilary has always been far more ambitious than him. It's more likely that he resigned to delay a government shutdown. Basically, nuking Republican organization in Congress from orbit rather than damage the economy. If that's the case, then he really had no leadership left and needed to go, anyway. We're looking at a shutdown in December, which will poison voters against Republicans. They'd be better off laying low until the election is over, but no, we're looking at another 4 years of a democrat in the White House. All because of the Tea Party.

I'm following the Monty Hall strategy. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4Lb-6rxZxx0