curr3nt

What about the people who do not like contracts? You want to make me set up a contract with every business I wish to use? Apartment, phone, cable, internet, gas stations, restaurants, groceries, book stores, movie theaters, gaming stores, clothing, shoes, electronics, pet stores, vehicle, any store in a mall, all the various insurance types along with all the utilities, road, medical, vision, dental, banking, retirement, police, fire, military, disaster (I live in Florida), parks, sidewalk, trash, jails/asylums, FDA type stuff, schools, scientific research, environment protection, CDC, disability, charities for poor and the DRO. (I'm sure I missed some things)

How many DRO are you envisioning? I wonder how much they would charge for their services. It would have to be enough for them to cover the admin costs and any dispute resolution required. Obviously the larger ones would be able to charge less. The more people involved the more likely they would already have contracts set up with other businesses new clients would want. The larger ones would work a bit like insurance too. The ratio of paying clients to mediation would drive cost and likely favor larger DRO. Would DRO have the option to reject clients? If so they could get rid of any that cause more mediation then they are worth. Would DRO be required to work with other DRO? If not a DRO that has a lot of large companies as clients could refuse to do business with smaller DRO that they do not like. What would happen if the DRO of the utility companies that handle your house or allow another to subcontract decide they do not like your DRO? What happens if the farmer's DRO decides it doesn't like your DRO due to a mediation decision in another case? Wouldn't it be in the interest of business to group up for more leverage? The bigger they are the more bargaining power they have. Wal-Mart comes to mind for some reason. You really think DRO wouldn't do the same? The larger DRO threatening to stop business with smaller DRO unless they get their way?

I got a little confused thinking the DRO's would be running everything but I think some of the principals hold. For each of those, instead of DRO insert a different private company. So every month or whatever billing cycle is set you would have a seperate bill for everything that taxes cover now? That is even worse then the DRO handling your billing. Without a government to stop them, parent companies will start buying up everything they can that will make them money. Just imagine the "bundled" package savings you could get! Actually I think it would make more sense for the DRO to handle your billing so they can keep up with what is going on with their people. How else are they going to keep up with all the contracts they need to maintain? If you want a new service your DRO would have to get a contract with that business first anyways. ----- Paying a private company could become as bad as taxation too. What if you are against a certain medical procedure but all the private healthcare companies support that procedure. Your paying insurance could be funding that procedure since all the insurance money is lumped together. Or say there is a couple healthcare companies that you agree with but they are less popular so have less funds to cover the care you want. Would the military be privatized too? Would that be protection insurance? If you do not pay then other nations could invade your home without threat of retaliation? It seems a lot of things would move from taxation to insurance since not everything the government provides is needed all the time. You'd just be changing from paying one place to having to pay multiple places and keep up with what those places are doing. ----- Also individuals would have to pay for the DRO too. Pay for the mediators and all the administration for contracts. How many DRO are you imagining there will be to get one that every person will be happy with? Since you would not want anyone paying for a DRO that supported anything they were against. Or would you be happy with DROs that made you pay for less things you do not support than our current government?

My calendar says Monday... probably a good thing I'm not playing. Just writing enough to say that I can be moved to backup and I'm somewhat paying attention and shutting up now before anything actually happens. ---edit--- Also, you forgot the roster and roles. Might want to get them posted while they will still be on page 1. ---edit 2--- Hopefully others will refrain from posting until you do so.

Did anyone ask how these DRO's would wage war? Or does the DRO idea require worldwide acceptance and an end to war? ----- UtF, you seem willing to give money to a DRO as long as it was used the way you want. Would you have an issue with paying your taxes if they only used your money for programs/services that you supported? (Pardon this next train of thought...I work around accountants and it is month close.) You want an itemized statement of programs and services that you elect to pay for? With the idea of charities. Maybe you want to help the poor but another only wants to help poor single mothers. Say you do not want to help poor minor criminals but another does want to help. Do we group programs or list out individuals since it is wrong to require people to pay to help someone they do not want to help. Is the charge elective or based upon need? If elective then what happens to the sub-section no one elects to help due to indifference or lack of resources. (Each person can only help so much) If need based then how is the individual charge determined? What if the need exceeds what a person wishes to pay? For road maintenance do you choose to pay only for roads you use most of the time? Is the charge elective or does the DRO charge based upon need or your use? If elective then do you also pick what work you allow the money to be spent on? You ok with paying to fill in potholes but not additional warning signs? You willing to pay for speed and safety enforcement? If so how much? Healthcare, you willing to pay for just your needs or you willing to pay for insurance? If you are willing to pay for insurance then what procedures are you willing to allow your money to cover for others? Water, electricity, schooling, property development, DRO accountants ... What if you are against paying for accountants? How would you ever get billed or pay for anything? ----- So even with DRO you will either end up paying for something you do not agree with or you will be buried in paperwork. Or you could be like most of us and pretend the government uses the taxes we pay for what we want. The wars are being funded by the crazy taxpapers.

I'm one of the mean ones. rawr

31% of the time meant that in 100 tests with 5+ people around only 31 tests saw someone (at least one not all 5+) getting help. Simplifying it to 1 person in 5 helping out 31% of the time would be 31/500 = 0.06 people helping on average. In the bystander experiments I've seen all 5+ people didn't go to help only one to maybe a few. ---- One thing I do not recall seeing is what happens when two people with different DRO have a disagreement? Which DRO is used? I think it likely that a person is going to want the DRO that is more likely to side with them. How do you choose? If it is defendants choice then you are forcing the accuser to go to a DRO they might not want to use. Same if it is the accusers choice. Or you end up forcing them to pick the same one.

HEY! I think you stole that frome me. And I stole it from someone else I'm sure...

Come on backups! I'd rather watch this one. Still worn out from the last one...

JK Rowling: Shadow7 Random House: Akriti 1. PEACE 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8. 9. 10. 11. 12. 13. Backup 1. 2. 3. Backup of backup 1. curr3nt

Q, the funny thing to me about that comment. I would have laid that all out if I was a goodie too. Once I think I have enough to nail most of the roles down I'll usually put it all out for everyone to see. Hence why it was so hard to defend against Trunx, "Why are you still alive". If I was a goodie the only reason I can think of to being left alive is the baddies have a better target or they want to use the "Why are you still alive" to try to lynch me. It is odd but the best defense as either a goodie or the baddie is the truth. The difference between the two defenses is how and when you say it. (Least that is my opinion)

Unable to start topics in the Baddie thread. Maybe I should filter out some of the stupid things I said first... eek...just remembered a few things I said that might be best left hidden... I might see about cut and pasting the important bits if Shadow/Nox are ok with that.

How do you do that?

How far into reading the BTSC are you? Looks like we can invite 3 more into it. If anyone else wants to review what the baddies were thinking.

Anyone that read any game I have been in would have been suspicious if I didn't do that. To play mafia you have to try to act similiar in each game. And with the way I play...I'm going to die a LOT. Baddies CAN mess with me by keeping me alive though... ----- As for Trunx, don't be harsh. His main mistake and a little bit with a few others is being so sure of what they suspected. Unless the host confirms it you can't be 100% sure of ANYTHING. Even if something is likely note the alternate scenarios. In case something doesn't pan out later you will need to backtrack and take the other scenarios paths. ----- And now I'm going to try to go for the night...

Taking off for the night but I'll be around tomorrow sometime.

grats...and GO TO BED YODELL!

Trunx was pushing me hard... how do you defend "Why aren't you dead?" Hopefully enough baddies will leave a few "experienced" players alive for this tactic so that it becomes easier to defend eventually.

I think Rookie set it up that goodie and baddie btsc can be opened to public

Wow...we got lucky that Psychosmurf left. We went with Yodell as Fluffy since being Snare would lessen danger of trying to lynch him. Baddie night actions N1: Kill Klue; Spy Aaryan N2: Kill Aaryan; Spy Akriti N3: Kill Akriti; No Spy

Uhm... Yodell wasn't Hermione.

Ok... The Hero (Wesley) is chasing after three guys that kidnapped his love. He beats the swordsman He beats the strongman He is now against the brains. The conflict Wesley sets up is guess which glass of wine the poison is in. Brains picks one to drink and Wesley will drink from the other. The Brains goes through a bunch of scenarios of why each cup would have the poison. Beating the strongman means not afraid so poison te cup in front of you. Bet the swordsman so would be canny enough to try poisoning the cup in front of Brains. And a few others things. Brains then distracts Wesley and switches the cups. Brains picks the cup in front of him and they both drink. Wesley tells him he chose wrong. brain gloats that Wesley only thinks he chose wrong. Brains dies. Both cups were poisoned and Wesley had built up an immunity to the poison in his past. WIFOM. Using things you think you know to try to second and third guess your enemy.