Ken Masters

Ryke. If you're going to bother voting on someone, please explain carefuly your reasoning behind it. As I said before, flip-flopping for the sake of flip-flopping takes you nowhere. You quoted a post of mine, but instead of, you know, discussing it or something, you voted for me. WHY????? I tell you what I got from that. It was a message saying "this post is clearly scummy, and you, reader, should clearly see why I'm voting for Spinal, regardless if I explain it or not because it's SO obvious". But then you back pedal saying you voted because Elemina did so (that, mind you, was quickly withdrawn once I demonstrated how flawed and useless that thought process was). That means that you're even worse. You have no thoughts of your own, so you hopped on a vocal player to appear so. You ask people "What do you think of X?" not to generate an actual discussion, but appear as a content creator, while actually just inflating a post count with deflective questions. To me you're scum, yes, because your behaviour is extremely harmful for the town. I can understand Elemina. His methods might not be what I feel is correct, but at least he voice his own opinions. No Mafia player would be crazy enough to go full aggressive in 10 posts. You, on the other hand, didn't even attempt to pressure me further once tou read that Ele had resigned his vote on me. For now, you're the best lynch for the Town at my eyes, and that won't change until I get a better target, or you convince me WITH YOUR OWN CONTENT that I'm in the wrong ##Vote: Ryker

Banned for all caps

I'm affraid I'm not the best person to ask about this place's meta. I'm still fairly new and Ken Masters is still somewhere kicking inside my brain asking me to do something rash and stupid, so there's that. And I hope you understand, I would never say publicly what I'm expecting from the Mafia. That's giving free tips for them to avoid me and the rest

Reactions can be garnered without recurring to flawed assertions. On top of that, it sacrifices your credibilty for no reason other than show. Over aggressivness is fine when justified, not 2 hours into the game, when some people still havent posted. I know Town has a tendency to grow stale, that's a problem most Mafia communities face. But a wake up call can be garnered without recurring to self-immolation >.>

It's wrong because: A) Gutfeelings can easily be biased and manipulated by Mafia. B) Gutfeelings are not based on factual evidence C) Gutfeelings can't fight a real argument unless you use the Fallacy of Ignorance (which usually leads to immediate defeat) And I'm not voting because I like to place my votes with care and meaning. If I vote, it means I really think that person should go. That doesn't happen when you flip-flop all around and accuse everyone, Mrs Elemina. And I haven't found a real, possible lynch target worth my full atention. No, even though I heavily disagree with your ways, I do not think you're inherently scum, nor do I think Rainbow is. Suspicious? Maybe. But what's the point of voting a suspicion? Absolutely none.

Rude ;_;

Okay. I will try to be as clear as possible. Calling someone "scum" based solely off RVS assumptions and lack of votes literally 10 posts into the game, is bollocks. I didn't use my vote so far because I like to vote what I think deserves to be voted, which is why you didn't see a RVS vote from me, but a rather a shitpost in replacement. Achieved the same effect without the need of casting a vote for the sake of casting a vote. Now, the real issue is how you jumped the gun and immediatly stablished "scum links" via RVS. It means you have absolute no ground to throw shade at anyone, because it's all a very uninformed assumption mostly driven by gutfeelings. You see, what you accomplish by throwing shade at people this early on with no base to it, is harm the Town progress, because we now have to explain to you why that kind of behaviour is useless to us. You can bark all you want, but if you don't have the factual bite behind it, then you'll get stomped by people less compassive than me.

Yes

Is it because I'm 2spooky4u? No really, kinda early to have a readlist of 3 people. Especially considering I posted once until now. That is, if you do have one. And don't bring me that "not telling by now" shit because that's usually stalling for time until a good reason appears. On other things Had Rainbow not said a word about "pls no lynch" I'd be fine with dissappearing for a full day, because life's a bitch sometimes. Buuuut.... he did, so there's that to take into consideration. No free passes today, sorry :/ I would like to know the reasoning behind the 3rd Green Poet vote aswell. Not a common thing to se around. I think these are good starting points for now. Productive day 1? Is that possible? O.O

Tfw Green Poet once again random votes for me. If you're that into me you just have to say it and we can start a relationship ;)

While I agree on Hunting for reasons other than directly feeding is a completely natural process, it's not predation. If there's no feeding on the prey, then there is no predation.

Two different beast we're talking about. 1- Blah the Prussian's argument, 2- My argument 1- Blah's argument comes from a human perception of the morality behind killing animals, which totaly applies here because he's debating a social construct with another social construct. (Social constructs being a social mechanism, phenomenon, or category created and developed by society; a perception of an individual, group, or idea that is 'constructed' through cultural or social practice) 2- My argument speaks on a wider range regarding mass extinction and the process behind it. Here social constructs doesn't apply and are not valid arguments against my statements for reasons I already explained. You have been replying me as if I were Blah the Prussian, which leads me to believe you didn't quite grasped the huge difference between his way of attacking the discussion, and mine. Which is fine, because it's easy to mix things up when you're replying to a bunch of people! But of course, it's not a valid excuse to use against an argument.

It wasn't an insult, though? I'm sorry regardless. I should have probably worded that in a more aproppiate way. You got the "selfish" part of my post with a different train of thought, but it's okay because you are unable to de-atach your views from our social constructs (which is fine! That's a normal thing for humans, lol) But when we talk about things that trascend humanity, we have to plug the "I'm a Homo Sapiens" switch off. Now, the process of applying morality, (a human social construction) to things like evolutive forces, is selfish. It puts our perception of things one step above ancient neutral forces to further expand our illusion of control and make you feel safe. The ilusion of control is what makes us say "but we can change and save X species". We have no control over natural selection. We can (as a species) somewhat change our behaviour patterns (and we have done so), but never to the extent of achieving complete control on what's going to happen on this planet and it's inhabitants. Saying that we hurt the planet is a selfish thought. 1- It personifies the planet as a life form that can be "hurt" 2- It puts our perception of what "hurt" is above the positive connotations for other species 3- It applies a human construction (good and evil) to something that should never be catalogued like that (an evolutive force) All in all, what I want to let clear from this is that humans changing the world trough any possible mean, is a natural process. And as such, it isn't inheritly good or bad, because it's far above it.

Before this is used as an argument, daily reminder that 99% of all life forms that ever existed on the earth are extinct... and yet, here we are. Extintion of species is something that happens. If an animal can't adapt to the new conditions, then it will be naturally selected to disappear. Humans are that condition, AND YES, it's a natural one. All of what a human does is a natural act. Morality is irrelevant when talking about evolutive forces. So no, the world will not shed a tear if rhinos are a gonner. The ecosistem will adapt to the empty space, and continue on. Would it suck? Sure, because Rhinos are cool. But it has no real weight on the grand scheme of things. On the chance of "Harm to the planet" argument comes up: Again, morality is irrelevant. Human are a change factor on the ecosystem, but that isn't inherintly bad or good. For example, before the Cambrian Era, the sea floor was covered by microbial mats. By the end of the Cambrian, burrowing animals had destroyed the mats in many areas through bioturbation (the reworking of soils and sediments by animals/plants), and gradually turned the seabeds into what they are today. As a consequence, many of those organisms that were dependent on the mats became extinct, while the other species adapted to the changed environment that now offered new ecological niches. It was one of the biggest "cataclism" on Earth's history, but surprise surprise, life continued on. Humans are not the last step on this planet's ladder, things will come after us. Frankly, thinking that the way the Homo Sapiens behaves as a species is hurtful to the planet, is simply put, a delirious cry of selfishness.

Anytime is fine by me. If it' late on the night I can always setup an alarm, though don't expect 100% coherent answers from me :P

Path of Radiance. Missed a capital! My B

^Imagine Serenes Forums in poR before it was revived. That would be this place if every post was a race to gain likes like it will happen if a like system was in place. I'm sick of hearing "OMG x person died in The Walking Dead and it was brutal!" on every social media platform. I get it, it was shocking and shit, but it's a zombie series. You're supposed to expect that. It's like going to see Nightmare on Elm Street and be surprised and horrified that some teens got killed.

Confirming!

Soren is the FE personification of 4 chan. A racist teen that plays smart to not get beaten irl. He likes black and fire and shit. Edgelord.

Care to explain why you think Marth and Ike are better than Sonic/Cloud/Diddy Kong? I'm really curious! :)

-Cloud -Lame mode Sonic -Diddy Kong -20XX -Mario

I'm pretty sure you can feed babies with your butt too.

Came for the butts. Stayed for the politcal correctness debate.

I played it for a bit because I'm a fan of dogfighting games. However I'm not a fan of terrible balancing, so that turned me off after a while :/ Cool game, though!