Posts

Sorted by New

Wiki Contributions

Comments

Skilled players catching on to you is irrelevant. That was exactly my problem after I got a bit of experience: I could easily catch evil but no one would believe me. On the other hand if you can "capture" an enemy player you can pretty much brute force the result regardless of other people's actions (unless there are other good manipulators). Also consider that you'll often have to pocket an allied player just to get them to play "correctly", it's not something you necessarily have to do to an enemy. 

Assessing players becomes relatively easy after some practice, they basically fall into a handful of categories: 

  • Blanks are troll/AFKers, nothing you can do about them
  • Noobs either will do nothing or play randomly, ignore them early in the game if you're evil (and don't kill them), if you're Town tell them what to do ONCE then ignore them if they won't follow you (if they ignore you the first time you will never convince them anyway)
  • Logicals are good at understanding what's going on, if they are on your team they will easily cooperate, if you're an enemy they will believe any lie you tell them as long as the lie is compatible with the info they have (and they will act accordingly).
  • Socials are good at controlling the stage, they are "loud" and successfully demand attention/action, though they are usually bad at deduction. If they are aligned with you talk to them in whispers only and let them control the public (they are usually "arrogant" and won't share control of the public stage); if they aren't on your team it gets diffcult: try pointing a finger at someone and see if they take the bait, bussing can also work in these cases
  • Quiets are people that lie low, basically pretending to be Blanks/Noobs. They are the most difficult to control, some of them are really really good. When picking someone to control these should be your last choice.

Never played mafiascum, is it active? Does it have a lot of players? 

Never played Mafia myself but I was one of the strongest players a few seasons back in Town of Salem. The best skill is the ability to quickly assess which are the players that can be easily manipulated. That is the most OP skill but it is conditional with playing with people of variable level, if you play with skilled people only, then strategic killing/hanging becomes vital and you can easily smell the fakes as Town 'cos their actions are poorly aligned with their words. 

As a Mafia the most useful tactic is to waste time or push really hard for some random Townie, since Town usually has a small margin of 1/2 days so an early advantage can snowball very easily.

The Eskimos live in the Arctic tundra. The !Kung live in the Kalahari desert. They have so little violence because there is so little to fight over.

Debatable. Other primitive societies that lived in deserted areas where extremely violent.

The original article doesn't really addresses the differences of state vs non-state societies, yet this binary characterization dominates the entire reading. Some interesting examples seems to have been conviniently left out. The entire article is mostly derived from a single essay (sources look good, though).

Still, I would generally agree that violence has decreased with the advent of modernity.

I didn't mention any country because you didn't ask for any. Anyway, it seems we aren't having a very productive conversation so I'm gonna stop here.

have a good day

Mind if I ask you why are you so interested in arguments? I already provided empirical evidence of the opposite of what you suggest, doesn't that beat any opposing argument?

I can easily flip your argument around: In a free market workers can ask for whatever pay they want, since they want to be paid as much as possible for as little work as possible, eventually the owners will be left with very little profit, just enough to survive. 

What makes this argument wrong and yours correct is not evident to me; both are disproved by empirical evidence.

Probably: private unions for a category of jobs would do collective bargaining agreements with employers (if necessary). In all other cases, people would just negotiate their work value.

"if a country has minimum wage laws, removing those laws will in fact tend to reduce wages."

You say so, but you don't justify that statement in any way. When the poster wrote: "Without the minimum wage law, lots of people would probably be paid significantly less."

I assumed they meant that the lack of MWL would push to sweatshop like conditions, my observation proves that it is not ture. The reverse (MWL pushes away from sweatshop like conditions) can also be proven false, as there are plenty of countries with bad economies and MWL where people live in miserable conditions. 

Libertarians see government intervention as bad because, to them, it is a self-interested third party, and as such, will make decisions that benefit itself mostly.

Many Libertarians believe in self ownership and therefore think government power is illegitimate and that they can't make decisions for others.

There's a few countries without minimum wage laws that have way better average wages than the US and many others, I believe this fact already invalidates some of your observations. 

For libertarians workers unions would be ok, as long as they're not government sponsored (they're a type of private government), while government intervention is pretty much always seen as bad since they are not considered a legitimate way to solve market issues (wages are a market issue)

Chemistry & Chemical Reactivity (Kotz, Treichel, Townsend)

Load More