MAFIA 75: TROUBLE AT THE PRECINCT [HIDDEN]

[BesharamSabi]

I love how I get so much shit for being wrong yet if you really think about it I'm just as wrong as all of you

Jokes >>> facts

Did you see me trying to see if scum eden would do this case?

If you removed my positioning and stance right now, would anyone even care as much about what Eden is doing or would they think it's a joke?

You're thoughts that scum~eden wouldn't do this seem misplaced because really Eden didn't stick his neck out when he made the vote on Bona. If anything, he got 'caught' when he decided to engage with me as poorly as he did.

I would have brought it up about eden changing his stance on Bona.

So what is the scum motivation of him moving to Bona and not sticking to the easy miss kill that is snowy?

[BesharamSabi]

All of this is supposed to be view under the guise that eden doesn't make suboptimal moves

But then his track record as town pr says otherwise.

No, it isn't suboptimal I am discussing.

It's blatantly noob PR moves if he's actually the cop here. Noobs are the ones that rush with excitement when they get their first guilty scan.

I. Mean eden is known for suboptimal moves as town pr

Remember his last game and how he outted himself being cop

[President Eden]

I’m just frustrated in a meta sense because being sussed is whatever, people have bad reasons for it all the time. Lord knows I do! But it’s a real slap in the face when someone you’re pretty certain is your teammate just refuses to even entertain the idea that you might be attempting to resolve the disagreement in good faith. Maybe people can point to times where I’ve done this to them recently as their actual teammate and not simply been right about them being mafia, but I really do feel like I give my teammates a fair chance to show me where I’m going astray. I can very reliably be counted on to waver even on suspects that I’m locked in on correctly for good reasons because I’m always worried that they might actually be on my team and I’m just ignoring good reasons to listen to them.

That worry doesn’t always show. I was pretty harsh with Byz by the end of the day because I felt like he kept slapping my hand away and doubling down on distortions and lies. I’ve been pretty harsh with people before, like Chaqa, because I felt similarly. And, of course, if I’m constantly worrying about being wrong then I don’t get to banter about being right, and that’s no fun.

But this whole issue means a lot to me because I think a lot of people don’t try nearly hard enough to bridge the gap with their teammates and that we actually see a lot of town collapses here because of it. People get lazy and pick an answer that kinda sounds good and they don’t engage with the person to figure out why the answer is wrong and then lo and behold, mafia have inexplicably come out with a W despite all odds. Plus, it makes the games really fucking nasty and toxic.

How were you trying to resolve this in good faith? I honestly felt you were doing the opposite this entire time.

I don’t get you man.

Good faith merely means sincere, you don’t even have to think I’m right, just that I meant what I was saying. If you’re telling me that you can’t even envision how I might have meant what I was saying then this whole thing is hopeless and also proving my point that trying to talk to someone that doesn’t want to hear it is pointless.

[Jamiet99uk]

How were you trying to resolve this in good faith? I honestly felt you were doing the opposite this entire time.

I don’t get you man.

Good faith merely means sincere, you don’t even have to think I’m right, just that I meant what I was saying. If you’re telling me that you can’t even envision how I might have meant what I was saying then this whole thing is hopeless and also proving my point that trying to talk to someone that doesn’t want to hear it is pointless.
[/quote]

Explain how this statement was sincere:

...to now voting him and apparently having a case but he cannot share the case because Bona might outwit him with his ~savvy~ responses.

Because I spilled hundreds of words about it this afternoon which you still haven’t read.

When you absolutely had not written hundreds of words about your Bona read, which is what Worcej was questioning you about?

[Jamiet99uk]

Fuck these fucking quotes dammit.

[Jamiet99uk]

Without the quotes:

@Eden when Worcej questioned you about your odd switch of read on Bona, you initially claimed to have "spilled hundreds of words" about it. This wasn't true and your interaction did not appear entirely sincere in light of such. Could you explain?

[Chaqa]

Fuck these fucking quotes dammit.

https://i.imgur.com/ALg8wNC.png

[Chaqa]

I'm going to go suffer through re-reading the Eden-worcej thing to see if I'm missing something

[Jamiet99uk]

Fuck these fucking quotes dammit.

https://i.imgur.com/ALg8wNC.png

Exactly what I did, but thank you.

I should just use the Preview each time.

[Rumi Tobari]

My second remark is that our intellectual powers are rather geared to master static relations and that our powers to visualize processes evolving in time are relatively poorly developed. For that reason we should do (as wise programmers aware of our limitations) our utmost to shorten the conceptual gap between the static program and the dynamic process, to make the correspondence between the program (spread out in text space) and the process (spread out in time) as trivial as possible.

I can't tell, is this all pro-GOTO or anti-GOTO?

I've always been in the "GOTO isn't bad, you just need to dot your is and cross your ts and be 100% certain nothing's going to break" camp.

[Chaqa]

Fuck these fucking quotes dammit.

https://i.imgur.com/ALg8wNC.png

Exactly what I did, but thank you.

I should just use the Preview each time.

Ah yes, so it was the gremlins that broke your quote.

Quote problems are 100% and purely a skill issue, unless you quote an already broken quote, then it's probably still a skill issue.

[Jamiet99uk]

My second remark is that our intellectual powers are rather geared to master static relations and that our powers to visualize processes evolving in time are relatively poorly developed. For that reason we should do (as wise programmers aware of our limitations) our utmost to shorten the conceptual gap between the static program and the dynamic process, to make the correspondence between the program (spread out in text space) and the process (spread out in time) as trivial as possible.

I can't tell, is this all pro-GOTO or anti-GOTO?

I've always been in the "GOTO isn't bad, you just need to dot your is and cross your ts and be 100% certain nothing's going to break" camp.

Let us now consider how we can characterize the progress of a process. (You may think about this question in a very concrete manner: suppose that a process, considered as a time succession of actions, is stopped after an arbitrary action, what data do we have to fix in order that we can redo the process until the very same point?) If the program text is a pure concatenation of, say, assignment statements (for the purpose of this discussion regarded as the descriptions of single actions) it is sufficient to point in the program text to a point between two successive action descriptions.

[Rumi Tobari]

My second remark is that our intellectual powers are rather geared to master static relations and that our powers to visualize processes evolving in time are relatively poorly developed. For that reason we should do (as wise programmers aware of our limitations) our utmost to shorten the conceptual gap between the static program and the dynamic process, to make the correspondence between the program (spread out in text space) and the process (spread out in time) as trivial as possible.

I can't tell, is this all pro-GOTO or anti-GOTO?

I've always been in the "GOTO isn't bad, you just need to dot your is and cross your ts and be 100% certain nothing's going to break" camp.

Let us now consider how we can characterize the progress of a process. (You may think about this question in a very concrete manner: suppose that a process, considered as a time succession of actions, is stopped after an arbitrary action, what data do we have to fix in order that we can redo the process until the very same point?) If the program text is a pure concatenation of, say, assignment statements (for the purpose of this discussion regarded as the descriptions of single actions) it is sufficient to point in the program text to a point between two successive action descriptions.

We can repeat the same actions and inputs until we reach that point. If its a streamlined process rather than a series of option 1-x menus, its also possible to just add a GOTO to bring us to the stop in question.

Additionally, from a debugging standpoint, I've always favored printing "testValX" in console with X being an identifier of the GOTO in question, or writing them out to an external text document so I can clearly document what exact sequence of GOTOs the program was going through before it hit the stop point.

Once the problematic GOTO in question is identified, its simply a matter figuring out what to change in the code to fix the program so that it runs smoothly.

[Jamiet99uk]

The way the Bus Driver interacts with the name tags is a bit broken in this setup if you ask me, because it occurs to me that the Bus Driver can *choose* which person's name tag they steal, and which person they give their original name tag to.

Maybe I am thinking about this too much. Meh.

[Jamiet99uk]

I can't tell, is this all pro-GOTO or anti-GOTO?

I've always been in the "GOTO isn't bad, you just need to dot your is and cross your ts and be 100% certain nothing's going to break" camp.

Let us now consider how we can characterize the progress of a process. (You may think about this question in a very concrete manner: suppose that a process, considered as a time succession of actions, is stopped after an arbitrary action, what data do we have to fix in order that we can redo the process until the very same point?) If the program text is a pure concatenation of, say, assignment statements (for the purpose of this discussion regarded as the descriptions of single actions) it is sufficient to point in the program text to a point between two successive action descriptions.

We can repeat the same actions and inputs until we reach that point. If its a streamlined process rather than a series of option 1-x menus, its also possible to just add a GOTO to bring us to the stop in question.

Additionally, from a debugging standpoint, I've always favored printing "testValX" in console with X being an identifier of the GOTO in question, or writing them out to an external text document so I can clearly document what exact sequence of GOTOs the program was going through before it hit the stop point.

Once the problematic GOTO in question is identified, its simply a matter figuring out what to change in the code to fix the program so that it runs smoothly.

The unbridled use of the go to statement has an immediate consequence that it becomes terribly hard to find a meaningful set of coordinates in which to describe the process progress. Usually, people take into account as well the values of some well chosen variables, but this is out of the question because it is relative to the progress that the meaning of these values is to be understood! With the go to statement one can, of course, still describe the progress uniquely by a counter counting the number of actions performed since program start (viz. a kind of normalized clock). The difficulty is that such a coordinate, although unique, is utterly unhelpful. In such a coordinate system it becomes an extremely complicated affair to define all those points of progress where, say, n equals the number of persons in the room minus one!

[Rumi Tobari]

The way the Bus Driver interacts with the name tags is a bit broken in this setup if you ask me, because it occurs to me that the Bus Driver can *choose* which person's name tag they steal, and which person they give their original name tag to.

Maybe I am thinking about this too much. Meh.

No. I fully agree with you. Night events are an order of operations problem: BCFSD
Bus trades on swap
Cop trades on scan
Florist trades on delivery
Strongman trades on kill
Doctor trades on heal

Neon claimed the flower delivery. So assuming that is true, it means Neon has drag's original tag, and the Strongman now has Neon's.

But on the subject of your thoughts that Bus Driver is broken, do you feel it would be less so if Bus came after Cop or Florist in the order of operations.

[President Eden]

https://i.imgur.com/ALg8wNC.png

Exactly what I did, but thank you.

I should just use the Preview each time.

Ah yes, so it was the gremlins that broke your quote.

Quote problems are 100% and purely a skill issue, unless you quote an already broken quote, then it's probably still a skill issue.

Maybe? There’s certainly something that causes pushing the “Quote Post” button on phone to mess up. That “something” could well be user issue but each of my snafus with it this game have been because I pushed that button, saw the quote going where I thought it needed to go, and then didn’t check the quote itself to see where it may have populated incorrectly.

[President Eden]

I'm going to go suffer through re-reading the Eden-worcej thing to see if I'm missing something

It is the most boring (from an outsider) or frustrating (from an insider) TvT that ever TvT’d. More power to you I guess.



Relatedly, worcej and Sabi have entered “do not kill” territory with me alongside Rumi. I remember some other names but I fell asleep before posting.

[Rumi Tobari]

The unbridled use of the go to statement has an immediate consequence that it becomes terribly hard to find a meaningful set of coordinates in which to describe the process progress. Usually, people take into account as well the values of some well chosen variables, but this is out of the question because it is relative to the progress that the meaning of these values is to be understood! With the go to statement one can, of course, still describe the progress uniquely by a counter counting the number of actions performed since program start (viz. a kind of normalized clock). The difficulty is that such a coordinate, although unique, is utterly unhelpful. In such a coordinate system it becomes an extremely complicated affair to define all those points of progress where, say, n equals the number of persons in the room minus one!

I lack the explanatory skills to really go into my thoughts here like you are (and honestly, I have to reread what you're saying several times to grasp it), but I do understand the point you are attempting to make. GOTO is much more practical in smaller programs where problems and conditions are easily recreated rather than multi-function processes where doing so might not be as practical.

I used GOTO more in the beginning of my programming experience (C++) because some flavor of disability related comprehension issues had initially kept me from figuring how to write loops. (and I wouldn't master it until Java). But because I understood what the loops were intended to do and how they were intended to place the end-user in the text-based UI menus I was writing, GOTO wasns't an impractical solution.

But if I'm reading and understanding correctly, you're trying to express that as programs grow larger and more complex in scope, a GOTO becomes harder and harder to obtain meaningful data in the event of a programming error and thus is no longer practical to use? If this is what you're trying to express, then it is a point I can agree on.

[Jamiet99uk]

@Rumi: I'm actually just quoting sections from the "Go To Statement Considered Harmful" letter / article by Edsger Dijkstra that Ghug keeps quoting for some reason. My knowledge of programming is quite limited.