Poll: Are you satsfied with the way the mafia community is run?

[Dr. Javelin]

The schedule isn't a problem. Good things come to those who wait.

 

[Bop1996]

Well, Uniju is saying that Turb didn't make a mafia that he wanted to sign up for because of the schedule.

Didn't we already cover this? I proved that the only reason Uniju hasn't played in the mafia he's calling Turb's mafia is because of the restrictive schedule. Now unless you can point out that my premises do not lead to their conclusions, a flaw in my premises, or an ambiguously defined term or proposition, you have not refuted my argument. Unless you can do this, the restrictive schedule is proven responsible for Uniju's non-participation in Turb's mafia.

 

[Nabber]

Are you saying we should remove the schedule so Uniju can participate in Turb's mafia?

 

[Bop1996]

If that's the logical conclusion you draw from what I've proven, then yes.

 

[2257]

So let's logically analyze Nabber's position here:
(i'm sorry if i'm putting words into your mouth this is the only way i could get it to be logically valid so i could refute your premises. if what i've said is a poor statement of your position then go back and rethink your argument again)

Nabber's Position

Proposition: IF Turb should have asked to put her game on the schedule, IF Uniju had wanted to sign up for one of Turb's mafia games, THEN he would have signed up for Turb's completely themeless mafia back in February.

A = Turb should have asked to put her game on the schedule
S = Uniju had wanted to sign up for one of Turb's mafia games
W = Uniju signed up for Turb's completely themeless mafia back in February
1. A⊃(S⊃W)
i guess? the wording is ambiguous but otherwise i cant figure out where line 6 comes from

Proposition: IF Turb had asked to have her game on the schedule AND Uniju had signed up for Turb's mafia, THEN Uniju would have been able to sign up for and play Turb's mafia.

B = Turb had asked to have her game on the schedule
O = Uniju would have been able to sign up for Turb's mafia
P = Uniju would have been able to play Turb's mafia
2. (B⋅W)⊃(O⋅P)

Proposition: IF this mafia was the mafia Uniju was referring to, THEN Turb should have asked to have her put game on the schedule.

R = this mafia was the mafia Uniju was referring to
3. R⊃A

Assumption: This is the mafia Uniju was referring to.

4. R

Therefore: Turb should have asked to have her game put on the schedule

5. A (3,4 modus ponens)

Therefore: IF Uniju had wanted to sign up for one of Turb's mafia game, THEN he would have signed up for Turb's completely themeless mafia back in February.

6. S⊃W (1,5 modus ponens)

Therefore: Uniju would have been able to sign up for and play Turb's mafia.

7. O⋅P (does not follow)

A Logical Refutation of Nabber's Position

Proposition: IF this is not the mafia Uniju was talking about, THEN Uniju would not have been able to sign up for and play Turb's mafia.

8. ∼R⊃∼(O⋅P)

Proposition: IF this is not the game Uniju was talking about, THEN the only reason Uniju has not played in Turb's mafia is due to the restrictive schedule.

N = the only reason Uniju has not played in Turb's mafia is due to the restrictive schedule.
9. ∼R⊃N

Fact: This is not the game Uniju was talking about.

Evidence:

@Uniju: Turb's cancelled mafia.

That's not what I was talking about

10. ∼R

Therefore: Turb should not have asked to have her game put on the schedule.

11. ∼A (3,10 fallacy of denying the antecedent)

Therefore: The only reason Uniju has not played in Turb's mafia is due to the restrictive schedule.

12. N (9,10 modus ponens)

Therefore: The rest of Nabber's argument is of indeterminable truth value, while the only reason Uniju has been robbed of the fun of playing in Turb's mafia is the restrictive schedule.

M = Nabber's argument is incomprehensible nonsense
13. M⋅N

Quod Erat Demonstrum

so did i understand that right? because if i did you definitely have a problem in line 11

 

[Superchao]

hugepost

 

[Specific Neptune]

I'm still confused about what is going on, the past ten posts made little sense to me. Are you all arguing about whether the Mafia community is bad, because someone didn't get to participate in one mafia?

 

[Bop1996]

*logic*
so did i understand that right? because if i did you definitely have a problem in line 11

unfortunately, i think you did

since there were so many conditional statements, i kept looking for a way to avoid winding up denying the antecedent and still have it make any sense at all, but i apparently failed at that

of course, i have no idea if i stated nabber's position correctly, so i can't really tell whether i needed to go through all that to begin with

(but seriously thank you for going through that, i thought i was going to have to get pi to look through it with me and figure out if i did it right)

 

[2257]

well

youre welcome

it's much more fun than the kinds of logic problems i normally do, which not only involve letters of the alphabet i don't care for like ち, but also eschew obvious principles like modus ponens in favor of nearly useless ones that no human being could ever comprehend

 

[Specific Neptune]

I'm still confused about what is going on, the past ten posts made little sense to me. Are you all arguing about whether the Mafia community is bad, because someone didn't get to participate in one mafia?