Large Normal 211: Scientific Mafia

[Flubbernugget]

That's a really strange post considering you have a very high volume of trolling right now.

I think pine's initial town read on you came when you were solely trolling, too.

[Pine]

No. Bad Growlithe! Constant trolling without contributing is funny, but not Towny.

No u

This was worded ambiguously, which is my bad. *Nosferatu* is the one failing to contribute positively, not you. You're trolling in a good way.

Srsly bro, go ISO Nos for me. 43 posts, zero constructive content. Dat scum.

PE: Flubber, Fire is being constructive with his trolling. His mockery is incisive, his sarcasm reveals actual opinions, etc. There's a big difference

[Firebringer]

That's a really strange post considering you have a very high volume of trolling right now.

I think pine's initial town read on you came when you were solely trolling, too.

No. Bad Growlithe! Constant trolling without contributing is funny, but not Towny.

No u

This was worded ambiguously, which is my bad. *Nosferatu* is the one failing to contribute positively, not you. You're trolling in a good way.

Srsly bro, go ISO Nos for me. 43 posts, zero constructive content. Dat scum.

PE: Flubber, Fire is being constructive with his trolling. His mockery is incisive, his sarcasm reveals actual opinions, etc. There's a big difference

I understood it the first time actually.

I agree it’s not townie but I think it’s townie from nos tbh

[Nosferatu]

Srsly bro, go ISO Nos for me. 43 posts, zero constructive content. Dat scum.

accurate

[Gamma Emerald]

No. Bad Growlithe! Constant trolling without contributing is funny, but not Towny.

No u

This was worded ambiguously, which is my bad. *Nosferatu* is the one failing to contribute positively, not you. You're trolling in a good way.

Srsly bro, go ISO Nos for me. 43 posts, zero constructive content. Dat scum.

PE: Flubber, Fire is being constructive with his trolling. His mockery is incisive, his sarcasm reveals actual opinions, etc. There's a big difference

You know what I wanna have a chat. Talk with me about why you scumread Flavor.

[Pine]

Lots of things? It's not just the claim, though that's part of it. It's an established scumtactic to claim Miller. Ascetic seems to be a common modifier this game, as we've seen several mentions of it, so I think he's some kind of Ascetic scum who didn't think through the ramifications of the Ascetic interaction. The claim was a mistake, obviously, but I think it was a mistake from the scum side of things.

More than that, though, it's the other little things. The way he's reacted to being wagoned stands out. Instead of scumhunting and gamesolving his way out of being suspected, he's focused on his detractors and their suspicions, relying on reputation and allies to aggressively discourage the wagon. I mean, you saw how he tried to buddy up to me, both at my first suspicion of him and now recently, and you saw how TIAM got bullied away from voting him.

He's not really producing much that's worthy of merit on the scumhunting front, and what reads he has stated seem governed by whim and the social side rather than active logic.

So yeah. It's a complex scumread. Not a "lolclaim=scum" read.

I could go for a profil lynch though, if wagoning that will get some momentum.

[Pine]

In fact, let's do that. I want Flavor lynched, but the wagon is stale and stalled. If your vote isn't working for you it's worthless.

VOTE: Profil

Let's see what happens here.

[Gamma Emerald]

Lots of things? It's not just the claim, though that's part of it. It's an established scumtactic to claim Miller. Ascetic seems to be a common modifier this game, as we've seen several mentions of it, so I think he's some kind of Ascetic scum who didn't think through the ramifications of the Ascetic interaction. The claim was a mistake, obviously, but I think it was a mistake from the scum side of things.

More than that, though, it's the other little things. The way he's reacted to being wagoned stands out. Instead of scumhunting and gamesolving his way out of being suspected, he's focused on his detractors and their suspicions, relying on reputation and allies to aggressively discourage the wagon. I mean, you saw how he tried to buddy up to me, both at my first suspicion of him and now recently, and you saw how TIAM got bullied away from voting him.

He's not really producing much that's worthy of merit on the scumhunting front, and what reads he has stated seem governed by whim and the social side rather than active logic.

So yeah. It's a complex scumread. Not a "lolclaim=scum" read.

I could go for a profil lynch though, if wagoning that will get some momentum.

While I will say any suspicion of the claim is fucking stupid the rest actually seems logical. What you seem to be saying is that his reads are more political than actually motivated by solving. I can kinda see it that way.
For the profii read I think the most recent point is pretty fair but it's not really that big because it could be he actually believes it might help. I could see several explanations for the vote, from pushing activity and being useless with his vote to the aforementioned theory to a lazy distancing play. I'd like to hear your thoughts on his other things he's said.

[Egg]

Catching up is hard...

[Pine]

I've said plenty on Profil, Gamma. ISO me, CTRL+F. If there's something specific you want an opinion on, say so.

[Firebringer]

I could join that new fresh and sexy wagon

VOTE: Proffii.

[Gamma Emerald]

only other ting seems to be his pushing of my absence which kinda pinged me but I haven't looked into it much after lazily townbinning profii

[TwoInAMillion]

If a lot of pro town players are for it than I am for it.

VOTE: Proffii

[Firebringer]

U were just voting with him 2 minutes ago

[TwoInAMillion]

The needs of the many outweigh the needs of the few.

[Gamma Emerald]

The needs of the many outweigh the needs of the few.

the fuck does this even mean here

[Flavor Leaf]

Wait, does Pine still think my claim was real? Honey, I’mma claim five more times this game.

[Flavor Leaf]

Also, @Gamma and anyone else

Pine just described me literally in every game, regardless of alignment.

[Pine]

OK, I followed my own advice and ISO'd myself with CTRL+F "profil'. You're right, it's a little sparse, but that's mostly because it's based on a few small but salient points. I just ISO'd profii in its entirety (learning in the process that I'd been misspelling their name, my bad,) and there is absolute

balls

for content. Like 2/3 of their posts are procedural, or naked votes, or asking isolated questions out of the blue to someone. In other words, it's exactly what you see when someone is trying to look busy and engaged, but is actually just treading water. It's the forum version of active listening. "Yep.......mmmhmmm......how did that make you feel.......really?......Hey what do you think?" The only thing worth taking note of is the readslists in 355, which I will here quote in its entirety:

right probably spreading myself a bit thin across multiple games, apologies. Here we go though.

Archwing: please post more - side note, archwing answers the initial query over multiball, i think ill note this as i have an idea...

Beefster: vla

egg: I like the initial reads and picking up that TiaM reacted badly, i agree here. Following my multiball idea, it appears Inferno picks up the multiball idea, I want to find the root of this discussion...

Firebringer: i always find the short sentence style players hard to read. noting 273 for scum teams reference. Oh the cop claim - pushing Flavour, LUV or NSG. 2 members of the hood, why not Gamma or Inferno?

Flavour Leaf: I just simply dont trust this slot until it's PR'd in some way. I played a game with FL once and a couple of players just sheep'd his day 1 reads in twilight based on rep - no offence but I can't believe anyone can be such a mafia genius so I'll give you some time. Unless you are mechanically proved town, i wouldnt take this slot to lylo however.

Flubber: not done a great deal so far. Would have to look again if Gamma dropped dead right now but other than that... i await content (not a criticism, I know I'm not doing great on that front)

Gamma: I got bored of clicking the links but some of the ISO seemed ok with me. I would suggest maybe some kind of brief title, followed by link, followed by thoughts E.g My scum read on player X 1 look at the stuff in the post it's so obvious - etc etc- in this era of clickbait i want to know what I'm getting before i get there, the comments need to be more succinct before you earn a click from me. Sorry.

Inferno - right 142 this seems to be the start of the multiball theory. I know the mod has non-confirmed it. I wonder if this is a scum player who thinks their scum team is underpowered. I also think from my experience of him in a newbie game recently (1851 positivity on my wiki) says to me Inferno is switched on enough to not give the game away after that day vig gambit. Also - he was town in that game and got triggered at a lot of what I'd call fairly routine scum hunting, doesn't seem to be the case here, I'm thinking this slot rolled scum...
Also the random PR reveal concerns me. He knew in the newbie game to keep quiet with his PR and one of the above ISOs said no scum day chat in the rules, so this might have been for his scum mates





infact Im happy enough with that to just lay the vote down here, if I go any further, I will start trying to create conf bias so let's go...


VOTE: Inferno

That's essentially an entire page worth of saying "I dunno" about half a dozen players, then concocts a weak case to go after low-hanging fruit.

Profii=scum

PE: Not really, but I think it *might* be based in part in truth. It's circumstantial on its own, but fits with other evidence.

[Pine]

Also, @Gamma and anyone else

Pine just described me literally in every game, regardless of alignment.

Then be better at Mafia.

[Flavor Leaf]

@Gamma- how can you kinda see my reads as political? I stated a town read on Firebringer, and stated I no longer think Pine was scum.

I don’t really have any scum reads right now, so I’m just kind of waiting until I see something I find scummy.

I’m paranoid of LUV.

[Firebringer]

I get to be Town leader tomorrow Pine.

[RedFlavor]

VOTE: profii
Yeah this is better

[TwoInAMillion]

The needs of the many outweigh the needs of the few.

the fuck does this even mean here

With this week’s DVD release of Star Trek into Darkness, now is a good time to evaluate or reevaluate the oft-stated Star Trek claim, “The needs of the many outweigh the needs of the few” (or “the one”). This claim is made in various scenes in the films, including in the latest one. Let’s first consider some instances and the relevant contexts.

In The Wrath of Khan (1982), Spock says, “Logic clearly dictates that the needs of the many outweigh the needs of the few.” Captain Kirk answers, “Or the one.” This sets up a pivotal scene near the end of the film (spoilers follow).

With the Enterprise (ship) in imminent danger of destruction, Spock enters a highly radioactive chamber in order to fix the ship’s drive so the crew can escape danger. Spock quickly perishes, and, with his final breaths, says to Kirk, “Don’t grieve, Admiral. It is logical. The needs of the many outweigh . . .” Kirk finishes for him, “The needs of the few.” Spock replies, “Or the one.”

In the next film, The Search for Spock (1984), the crew of the Enterprise discovers that Spock is not actually dead, that his body and soul survive separately, and that it may be possible to rejoin them—which the crew proceeds to do. Once restored, Spock asks Kirk why the crew saved him. Kirk answers, “Because the needs of the one outweigh the needs of the many.” This is, as Spock might say, a fascinating reversal of the message in the previous film.

How can these ideas be reconciled?

We find an answer in the next film, The Voyage Home (1986). At the beginning of this film, Spock’s mother, who is human (his father is Vulcan), asks him whether he still believes that, by logic, the needs of the many outweigh the needs of the few. He says yes. She replies, “Then you are here because of a mistake—your friends have given their future to save you.” (The crew had broken the law and had gone on the run in order to rescue Spock.) Spock says that humans are sometimes illogical; his mother answers, “They are, indeed!”

Later in the film, when crewman Chekov is in trouble, Spock insists that the crew save him, even at risk of jeopardizing the crew’s vital mission to save Earth and everyone on it. Kirk asks, “Is this the logical thing to do?” Spock answers, “No, but it is the human thing to do.” Although Spock reaffirms his claim that the needs of the many logically outweigh the needs of the few, he suggests that sometimes we must do the “human” thing, not the logical thing, and put the needs of the few (or the one) first.

So Spock, Kirk, and Spock’s mother have affirmed the idea that acting logically and acting “human” can be at odds—and that acting logically means always putting the needs of the many first. This is the alleged reconciliation of the apparently conflicting ideas with which we started.

But this logically is not a reconciliation at all.

In logic, (a) there can be no divide between acting logically and acting human; and (b) as Ayn Rand discovered and explained, the needs of the individual are what give rise to the need and possibility of value judgments to begin with.

Our capacity to use logic, to integrate the evidence of our senses in a noncontradictory way, is part of our rational faculty—the very faculty that makes us human. Obviously, we also have the capacity to be illogical, but that is because our rational faculty also entails volition, the power to choose to think or not to think. We also have the capacity to experience emotions, which are automatic responses to our experiences in relation to our values. (Various other species have an emotional capacity as well, but our values are chosen, so even on this score we are substantially different.)

Our emotions, though real and important, are not a means of knowledge; they are automatic reactions to experiences in relation to our value judgments. Our means of knowledge is reason, the use of observation and logic.

In regard to the Star Trek example, the reason Kirk was right to help Spock is not that doing so was “human” as against “logical”; rather, he was right to help Spock because, given the immense value that Spock is to Kirk, both as a friend and as a colleague, and given that the mission to help Spock was feasible, helping him was the logical and thus human thing to do.

In this case, Kirk’s emotional ties to Spock aligned with his logical evaluation of Spock’s value to him. It is possible for a person’s values to be out of line with his rational judgment, but in such cases his rational judgment remains his means of knowledge, and his emotions should take a backseat until he reassesses his values and brings them back into line with his logical assessment of the facts.

Once we see the relationship and potential harmony between reason and emotion, we can see that Spock’s claim that being logical is (or can be) at odds with being human makes no sense.

What of Spock’s claim, “Logic clearly dictates that the needs of the many outweigh the needs of the few”? Logic requires that some evidence be offered in support of such a claim—but Spock offers no evidence in support of this. He just asserts it. Which “many”? Which “few”? “Outweigh” on whose scale? For what purpose? To whose benefit? Why is his or their benefit the proper benefit? Spock does not address such questions; he simply asserts that logic clearly dictates his conclusion. But it doesn’t.

Far from being an expression of logic, Spock’s claim that the needs of the many outweigh the needs of the few is an arbitrary assertion and a restatement of the baseless moral theory known as utilitarianism, which asserts that each individual should act to serve the greatest good for the greatest number. (For a critique of utilitarianism, see my essay on the moral theory of Sam Harris, TOS, Winter 2012–13.)

subscribe-now-porWhat logic actually dictates is that if human beings want to live and achieve happiness, they must identify and pursue the values that make that goal possible. As Ayn Rand points out, life makes values both possible and necessary. We need to eat—in order to live and prosper. We need to wear protective clothing and find shelter—in order to live and prosper. We need to pursue a productive career to gain goods and services—in order to live and prosper. The principle holds true in more-complex cases as well. We need to build friendships to gain a wide variety of intellectual, psychological, and material benefits—in order to live and prosper. We need to experience great art to see our values in concrete form—in order to live and prosper. The pattern holds for all our values. Logically, the only ultimate reason we need to pursue any value is in order to live and prosper. (See Rand’s essay “The Objectivist Ethics” for her derivation of this principle.)

How does this principle apply in the Star Trek examples? In the case of Kirk’s dangerous mission to help Spock, Kirk logically concludes that, given the full context of his values, saving his dear friend is worth the risk involved.

What are we to make, then, of Spock’s final actions in The Wrath of Khan? Does he sacrifice his own life and values in order to serve the needs of the many? No. Khan, piloting a damaged ship, sets off a device that will soon cause a massive explosion that will destroy his own ship along with the Enterprise and its entire crew. Captain Kirk says to his chief engineer, “Scotty, I need warp speed in three minutes or we’re all dead.” It is at this point that Spock leaves the bridge, goes to engineering, and enters a radiation-filled room in order to repair the ship’s warp drive. As a result of Spock’s actions, the Enterprise speeds away to a safe distance from the explosion—but Spock “dies.”

Spock does consider the needs of his friends and shipmates in making this move. But he does not thereby sacrifice his own values or even his own life. His only alternative is to die with the ship anyway. Instead of dying and having all of his shipmates and friends die too, he chooses to uphold and protect the values that he can and to uphold his commitment to serve as a Star Fleet officer—a position that he chose knowing and accepting the risks involved.

Although in this case Spock must pick the least bad of two bad options, he makes the choice that best serves his interests and thus his life.

The only principle consistent with logic and thus with humanity is that if we want to “live long and prosper” (as Vulcans often say) we must use logic and pursue our life-serving values. Fortunately, contrary to Spock’s occasional illogic, this is what he actually does. And this is why so many people love him. It’s only logical.

https://www.theobjectivestandard.com/20 ... f-the-few/

[Flavor Leaf]

Also, @Gamma and anyone else

Pine just described me literally in every game, regardless of alignment.

Then be better at Mafia.

I win games and have a fantastic scum record. most people here have a crazy scumBoon story.

And I’m a late game town powerhouse.

Have only been lynched like two or three times as town in the past three years.

I’d say I’m doing pretty okay.