Welcome to Inkbunny...
Allowed ratings
To view member-only content, create an account. ( Hide )
AlexReynard

The Game Anyone Can Win

I've had an idea for a video game.

It's called 'THE GAME ANYONE CAN WIN'.

This is how it works:

The game is played on a simple rectangular field. The player starts at one end, marked 'START', and all he or she has to do is cross the field to the other end, marked 'END'. Then he or she will win.

You play as a small stick figure, holding a gun. You have ten hit points. Your gun causes ten points of damage with every shot.

In the middle of the field is a large tank which completely blocks the player's path. The tank's turret moves back and forth, firing an endless stream of bullets at the player character, which he or she must dodge. The player character must keep in constant motion to stay alive. Every ten seconds, the tank pauses briefly and the player has one chance to shoot it. The tank has one million hit points.

There is no pause button.

The game would be a flash-based web game, completely free to play, although you would need a Paypal account in order to register. Although the game is completely free, it would charge a small fee of one dollar for every ten minutes of play.

At the bottom of the screen are three buttons which can help the player win. These buttons are labeled 'Health', 'Protection' and 'College'.

When you click the Health button, you receive armor that makes the player completely invulnerable to bullets. This costs five hundred dollars.

When you click the Protection button, a second character will appear on screen. It will fire at the tank with a gun that causes one million points of damage with each shot. This costs five hundred dollars.

When you click the College button, the player is sent a code which increases their gun's power to one thousand damage points per shot. This only costs two hundred dollars.

If you are hit by one of the tank's bullets, you will only take one point of damage, so you can still continue playing. However, the game will pause and a dialogue box will pop up, requiring you to pay twenty dollars for medical expenses. This dialogue box will appear every time you take one point of damage. (This dialogue box will not appear if the player lives outside of the United States.)

When you defeat the tank, it will explode, clearing the player's path. When the player makes it to the area marked 'END', the screen will change to a message that says, 'YOU WIN'.

If however, the player loses, the screen will change to a message that says, 'YOU DIDN'T TRY HARD ENOUGH,' and the game will restart.

Judging by how some people think we ought to run our country, all of this is completely fair.





(BTW, if anyone out there would like to try to actually turn this into a real game, let me know. I would be utterly fascinated to see how people would react to a game like this.)

EDIT: I know a lot of people didn't realize it, but this journal is not about video games.
Viewed: 242 times
Added: 6 years, 8 months ago
 
FoxxyFluff
6 years, 8 months ago
OMG lol
Cloud006
6 years, 8 months ago
WTF!! LOL!!
ROFLMAF!!
you my fried are evil!
Gedrean
6 years, 8 months ago
I see this completely free + one dollar every ten minutes... how is that completely free?  That's contradictory.

I think I see the point you are trying to make, dear Alex, but using that logic you are actually hurting your own case, it seems.  You cannot claim it is completely free then charge a dollar per ten minutes.  Unless you restate it to say that the game tells you it is completely free, then does such, that makes more sense to your case.  But stating it as an absolute "The game is completely free" is stating it as a universal statement, to the outside observer (say some universal entity observing this without any connection), rather than presenting that statement to the gamer (who has the connection to the game) then charging them the $1/10 mins.

Again I kinda see where you're going with this.  Kinda.
Gedrean
6 years, 8 months ago
Though I wouldn't mind building this game just to profit off it. ;)
AlexReynard
6 years, 8 months ago
>I see this completely free + one dollar every ten minutes... how is that completely free?  That's contradictory.

YES, IT IS.

That's the whole point, that the game is monstrously dishonest and rigged in favor of the rich. I'm attempting to draw a parallel here.
DraculJOSHI
6 years, 6 months ago
Never played D&D online, didya?

It's free... except that you have to pay for the ability to get your character above level 3, any equipment that is worth a thing AND certain party-options... yeah, totally unrealistic >.>
caramelthecalf
6 years, 8 months ago
Hey do you work for Activision, they would love your game idea!
AlexReynard
6 years, 8 months ago
From what I've heard, Zynga's already making it.
Zagroseckt
6 years, 8 months ago
if it was Zynga it would take you 3 hrs to move 1 step and you would have to mine for menirils to make bullets wich you could only make 5 of them unless you got 9 friends to play the game and send you gifts wich they would have to pay for.
AlexReynard
6 years, 8 months ago
It's stuff like this that has made me increasingly suspicious of most video games nowadays. It used to be I just didn't want to play them because I know I waste too much of my free time anyway. Now, I'm worried about becoming ensnared in some godawful psychology experiment without realizing it.
DraculJOSHI
6 years, 6 months ago
you don't need videogames for that. Nowadays EVERYTHING is a psycho-experiment... especially internet surfing...  which you clearly do...
OsirisPM
6 years, 8 months ago
If anyone made the above game, they'd be sued.
AlexReynard
6 years, 8 months ago
For what? At least with this game, no one's forcing you to play it.
Bachri
6 years, 8 months ago
As much as I would love to agree with the point you're trying to make, I have to say that every point is spot on.

Wait, what?
PeachClover
6 years, 8 months ago
I see you recently bought a game for your iPhone...
AlexReynard
6 years, 8 months ago
Actually, I have neither an iPhone nor games for it. After writing this, a friend told me how frighteningly similar it is to some games already in existence though, like Cow Clicker.
MasterTomcat
6 years, 8 months ago
So, what does the tank represent?
AlexReynard
6 years, 8 months ago
The general struggle of life, I suppose.
MasterTomcat
6 years, 8 months ago
In that case, I'd like to propose a different version:
First, we need to remove that $1 fee. Fighting a tank can be funny, but paying for it is unfair.
Second, the goal should not be to cross the entire field, but to go as far as you can. No matter how far you get, it is you and only you who can tell if you tried hard or not. The fun is in playing.
And third, about those three helping buttons, they should let you into multiplayer mode. In this mode, you can choose other players to help you fight. And instead of charging you $500, each player is free to charge you as much as they want for their help. This way, if you don't have much money, you can ask for help from "cheaper" players. And, as everyone would like to be chosen, they'll try not to charge too much, otherwise no one would call for them.
In your turn, you should be able to charge other players too. This way, you can make money and ask for help from others too.

There's people who consider this second game style as a better one. Maybe you'd like it too.
AlexReynard
6 years, 8 months ago
>There's people who consider this second game style as a better one. Maybe you'd like it too.

But see, those changes would completely ruin the entire point of the game.

This essay isn't about video games. A lot of people haven't realized that. The Game Anyone Can Win is a representation of America's economy, taken to extremes. It gives all the advantage to the rich, while the poor are told that their chances are as good as anyone's, yet the system is monstrously unfair to them, and is designed to be that way. Fun is not part of the equation. The game is meant to demonstrate how horrifyingly broken the game itself is.
MasterTomcat
6 years, 7 months ago
And my version of the game is one alternative to improve American economy, based on principles that the Founding Fathers would approve. There's hope. American people must not forget their ideals of freedom which were the basis for the building of this great nation.
AlexReynard
6 years, 7 months ago
I get that, and I agree with your ideas, but why not come up with your own game instead of inverting mine until it's unrecognizable? I think your ideas would work better if they started from a completely different game metaphor. Mine is built to be unfair from the ground up; it's too broken to ever work properly by design.
MasterTomcat
6 years, 7 months ago
I guess you made this metaphor because you had problems like this in real life, am I wrong?
AlexReynard
6 years, 7 months ago
Not quite. I came up with the idea because I was trying to explain to a friend of mine, who was starting to believe some really wrongheaded ideas about economics, why the system he was defending is inherently unfair and broken. A video game made a good metaphor.
MasterTomcat
6 years, 7 months ago
Oh, now I understand. I thought you were just complaining about politicians.
AlexReynard
6 years, 7 months ago
When politicians go on about how wonderful a policy is that supports the rich on the backs of the poor, I expect that from them. They're paid off to say shit like that. They're just licking their master's hand. But when the people who have the most to lose from these policies strenuously defend them, it feels like grinding noises and black smoke are coming out of my brain.

"As a rat, I fully support the policy of letting pythons live in our cage! They'll keep us safe from our enemies!" >.<
MasterTomcat
6 years, 7 months ago
I understand. I feel exactly the same.
Alfador
6 years, 8 months ago
Roads. The bullets are cars. It's comparatively easy to dodge them. If you fail, though...
AlexReynard
6 years, 8 months ago
That's not bad, actually. How many people spend a good chunk of their life slogging through traffic?
ProjectDemise
6 years, 8 months ago
Horribly true.  But if I knew anything about programming I totally would make that game, just to piss people off :)
AlexReynard
6 years, 8 months ago
You'd probably make some friends of Objectivists and Reagan-style capitalists. Assuming they thought the game was in support of their ideas (which seems very possible).
ProjectDemise
6 years, 8 months ago
I dunno about that.  Just, sometimes I feel like being an asshole.  And I'm broke, so raping money out of people would be a win.
draconicon
6 years, 8 months ago
You have an interesting way of pulling concepts and people into odd imagery.
AlexReynard
6 years, 8 months ago
Thanks. I tend to think visually, but I like to write, so I've had to get good at conveying stuff through similes and metaphors.
draconicon
6 years, 8 months ago
You are quite good at it, gotta say. I wish I were half as good.
AlexReynard
6 years, 8 months ago
Eh, practice. For me, it's just a matter of, 'I have a complicated idea in my head I'm too dumb to convey with pretty words. What does it remind me of?' And then usually something will pop into my mind and I'll tweak it until it works. That's the big thing; go over your metaphors internally before you say them, because you don't want them to be destroyed by a bit of logic.

"I eat pieces of shit like you for breakfast!!"
"...You eat pieces of shit for breakfast?"
Nightwind292
6 years, 8 months ago
Ok, what you do is whip up the game, but have it just run up a bill... and when you "win" it presents the bill to you.

None of the prices are ever displayed until you win.

Get it on kongrigate, build achivements (win game for less then X dollars type) and you might even qualify for one of the rare "impossible" badges.
SenGrisane
6 years, 8 months ago
I wanna laser ^^
AlexReynard
6 years, 8 months ago
But, see, that would make the game more fun. That's not the point.
SenGrisane
6 years, 8 months ago
Well, not when it would be mounted in your behind and you have to bow down to shoot ^^
AlexReynard
6 years, 8 months ago
But what would that represent? This whole thing's a tightly-crafted metaphor. If you're gonna change something there's gotta be a reason.
SenGrisane
6 years, 8 months ago
Oh I'm sorry ^^

Just a huge lazor fan :P
AlexReynard
6 years, 8 months ago
SenGrisane
6 years, 8 months ago
Woah. Trippy ^^

Thanks :3
RedReynart
6 years, 8 months ago
XD Hey alex,

Lets make it then sell it on the apple I store. =D Well be millionairs in no time at all.

But you know something strange? There are already several games out there just as you discribed. There Mostly "Free To Play" games MMORPG's infact take a large majority.

So how does it work? Its free to get the game that is true, so you are downloading a client. But when you play you will soon find its impossible to actrully win the game or with MMORPGS level up. The creators will keep content away from low end users so you can play in certain maps,area, or have the weapons you want because your level is low. You try so hard to level and find out you spend hours to make litteraly .001% towards the next level.

Oh this seems so unfair, So introducing the item shop where you can get double the experience or the weapons you want for a very "small fee" So "Pay to win" and keep on playing =D
___________________________________

Games that are like this that I have played are:
SilkRoad Online//Silkroad R
Perfect World
Combat Arms
World of Warcraft (Never played this and never will)
Eve Online (never played this one either and never will)

Notice when alot of these games have the word ONLINE in them they are most likely like this.
What I dont' understand is games like this and people don't play them anymore instead they have bots to level up their character as they do something else. They never play the game. I played these games and there all impossible unless you dump all your cash into it. And when you then realize that what fun is the game? Its stupid to even bot. ITS A GAME. Why do you want to be some stupid high level character when you should be able to play the game and not feel out of place.
______________

What I hate now is that all games are becoming this way where exclusive content is being held because you have to pay for it even when you paid for the game. Introducing Steam. Thank Valve for F***ing everyone.
Alfador
6 years, 8 months ago
World of Warcraft doesn't do that. All subscription fees are presented right up front to the user. The only premium services available for an extra fee as you describe are a) cosmetic rewards such as cool-looking exclusive mounts or pets, and b) convenience services, eg. offline guild chat via your phone or tablet. They have repeatedly stated they will never sell WoW gear or anything that gives a combat or leveling advantage for real-world money.

Even the upcoming real-money auction house in Diablo III (NOT coming to WoW) isn't buying items from Blizzard--you're only buying them from other players.
RedReynart
6 years, 8 months ago
XD everything you said is pretty much as I said its still if you want to be ahead and/or have something exclusive withheld by the creators. You must pay. The examples you gave are Mounts, Clothing or armor,Pets, or guild Chat. So there you go.

I think it is stupid also how you buy the game online then need to rebuy it again and again each month or how ever the subscription goes. And I am shure that there are many levels of it too. The more you pay the more you get. And no, not all the charges are up front. Because again after you paid for it at the store you have to pay again if you want to play it.
Alfador
6 years, 8 months ago
" RedReynart wrote:
XD everything you said is pretty much as I said its still if you want to be ahead and/or have something exclusive withheld by the creators. You must pay. The examples you gave are Mounts, Clothing or armor,Pets, or guild Chat. So there you go.


Wrong. As I clearly said, you do not get "ahead" in the game by having premium items. They're there for LOOKS. Or in the case of guild chat, convenience. You do not need to buy sparkly pony mounts or trading card pet biscuits to play competitively. No top-notch arena team or raiding guild bought their high-item-level armor for real money.

And I never said clothing or armor. You're changing my words and using me as a straw man. I really don't appreciate that.

" RedReynart wrote:
I think it is stupid also how you buy the game online then need to rebuy it again and again each month or how ever the subscription goes. And I am shure that there are many levels of it too. The more you pay the more you get. And no, not all the charges are up front. Because again after you paid for it at the store you have to pay again if you want to play it.


NOPE. I never said "all the charges are up front." What I said was that the subscription DEAL is presented to you, straightforward, when you make the purchase. When you buy the software, you buy the right to hold an account with them and a month of play time. The terms of the purchase lay out the monthly fee--which is the only fee you'll ever have to pay to play.

The subscription model pays for maintenance of the servers you play on. You're not just paying to be able to play the game, you're paying to have a world to play in at all. There are not "many levels of it," and if you're so sure, you obviously didn't do any actual research. The only time anyone pays a different monthly fee for World of Warcraft is if you get a slight discount for buying many months at a time. And if you have a problem with bulk purchases being rewarded with a lower unit cost, well... you should probably retake that there economics course. 8)
RedReynart
6 years, 8 months ago
"and/or have something exclusive withheld by the creators. "  To Quote myself. Re-Read this line. Items with held from the creators includes anything sold after the one recives the game. This includes cosmeticic items Such as Weapons,Armor, Pets, Invintory Items, Exp Bonuses, New playing fields, So on and so on. This doesn't mean that Wow has all of this but includes this catagory of payment.

"All subscription fees are presented right up front to the user" To Quote yourself: Only after you pay for the disk.

You shure seem to defend this game alot. How odd seeing how this intire journal is made to bring to light such scams in the gameing world. No offence here but a game that you constontly have you dump money into isn't a game worth playing. I don't care what the excuss for it is. Its not worth it.

Games are ment to be played. Have fun, not worry when ones subscription will run out.

AlexReynard
6 years, 8 months ago
>How odd seeing how this intire journal is made to bring to light such scams in the gameing world.

Actually, no it isn't. This essay is emphatically NOT about video games.
Alfador
6 years, 7 months ago
Though I'm done arguing with that guy directly, I want to point out one thing. I wasn't arguing against his opinions on pay-to-win games. I was pointing out the flaws in FACTS that were grounds for him including one particular game in that category. When I, who've been playing World of Warcraft for almost seven years now, correct the facts he got wrong, he, who had admitted to never having played the game at all, says "No, I wasn't saying that, you're really agreeing with me." That, my friend, is the sound of goalposts being moved at the speed of sound.

And then asks why I am "defending" the game. As if I were a drug addict arguing that it's not so bad, really... no, I'm correcting his FACTUAL MISTAKES.

You'd think that someone who hadn't ever played WoW would, y'know, take someone who's been playing for years at his word on basic facts of the game. Nope! XD
ZephonTsol
6 years, 7 months ago
I think what you're trying to say here is that buying *power* in game is wrong. And you'd be correct in that. Games that offer players more power over another simply because they have more available funds is something that should be avoided.

However, I took the liberty of scanning up your comments and you'd mentioned that a game you played (but then later said you'd not played) is World of Warcraft. To be entirely honest, I'm not sure you can really make an accurate judgment of a game (or anything for that matter) without having done it/tried it. It's EASY to pass judgment from the outside, sure. Anyone can do that by applying their opinions to their viewpoint.

But to have an accurate and, more pointedly, *truthful* opinion, you need a basis for comparison. I feel like your argument would've been much more valid had you actually played the game first before trying to give your opinions. It's like a politician saying that they think being in the Army is easy. It really isn't. (Look up John Kerry's famous blurb about how if you drop out of college or are an idiot, the Armed forces are for you)

I've played a long number of games in my life. Some had subscriptions, some didn't. The ones that didn't eventually shut down because no one wanted to pay for a sub and the company went under. Blizzard has a really fair price for a monthly subscription ($17 a month) and if it's to upkeep servers and pay employees, well that's reasonable. The online store is not anything that they hold a gun to your head and tell you that you *need* to buy it.

They sell vanity items. Mounts that work across your entire subscription (so you don't need to buy one in game). Pets that are cute and nifty. There's even a plushie that comes with it's own in game pet avatar. These are all on the payer's choice. Never once has Blizzard ever offered it's players access to powerful weapons like Shadowmourne (at one time the best weapon in the game) or full PvP sets for money. That would unbalance the game and would be, as some games are, not a lot of fun.

Which is your point, right?

I agree that you might be right, that we could get away from the current trend of "MUST BUY POWER". But not all games do this. And I think you might want to look closer at Steam. It's not quite as bad as you may think it is.

If you intend to reply with this, please, choose your words and think about your statements. I've stated this before and will state it again:

WoW only has a subscription fee. That's all that it needs for you to be able to play and enjoy it. Everything else is cosmetic and for fun/niftyness. This is not my opinion nor is it based on any opinion. It's the simple truth. You pay for the game, you get some free time, and if you don't want to play anymore, you can be done. If you like it, you subscribe.

At your own choice.
RedReynart
6 years, 7 months ago
You should of went down a bit further before replying back :P since I said alot more.

When it comes to WOW, I havent directly played it. Trully play to lvl 20 then pay each month isn't free to play especially if you paid for a disk. Maintence or not. I played Battlefield 1942, Battlefield 2, Age of Empires I,II,III; Novalogics deltaForce. All these games I paid for a hard physical cd and was able to play free online. Still am able. So really what is the catch with WOW when the cost of the cd should be for the play of the game.

Also Blizzard is disfunct as of 2002. Here is a little history. Universal became Universal Vivindi which merged with Activision Disfunct Universal, Merged with Blizzard, and then the same year disfunct Blizzard. So now only Activision exsists. The only reason you don't see Activision placing their logo's on all the new movies is to not create confusion.

ZephonTsol
6 years, 7 months ago
Kind of.

It's called Activision-Blizzard now. Yes, Activision bought up the company, but they have the Blizzard company name there because that was one of the signing deals. Blizz keeps their name and most of the creative control. This happened in 2008, 2009, I believe.

I'm...not sure what you mean by the word disfunct since that's not a word any dictionary recognizes. Did you mean defunct?
RedReynart
6 years, 7 months ago
Defunct yes. I just have another spelling of it :P

Im pretty shure that Blizzard is defunct. I know Blizzard North is https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Blizzard_North

I used to like activision but they changed major since the 90's and In truth have killed alot of the game industry. Especially after the two merges.
ZephonTsol
6 years, 7 months ago
Yes, Blizzard North went defunct, you're correct. Blizzard's main offices are completely still in service and operating under their name. B-N was responsible for making Diablo 1 & 2 and many of those employees have moved on to working on games like Hellgate (an mmo that was free-to-play and died pretty quickly into it's lifespan for maintenance issues) and Torchlight (which has done reasonably well for itself aside from being a Diablo clone and, thus, not an MMO).

I think you're being a bit unfair and a bit more fatalistic than you should be. Activision holds a large part of the market, but it's not all doom and gloom. Many companies continue to release quality games at fair prices, both standard and subscription based. Blizz *must* be doing something right because the common gamer knows full well when they're being fleeced out of their money (and jump ship thereafter...the Star Wars MMO has seen it's share of subs losses because there wasn't a lot of content). Most people are smart enough to know that if they want to pay continually for something, it's because they enjoy it. I pay for WoW because I enjoy playing with my friends and the game is, despite what some may think, pretty solid.

It'd have to be seeing as how everyone copies it trying to find that one silver bullet to kill it. And they can't.

Anyways, I stand by my point. You have your right to your opinion about a game and no one will demand you see theirs unfairly. But ensure that you have a basis for comparison about your hatred or love for something before you start railing on it. It sure LOOKS easy to throw a football 60 yards. I know I sure as hell can't. The same basic idea applies. There may indeed be more to it than you think.

What might be a better option is to say instead of the game being awful or the company out for you?

"It's not for me." No explanation needed, no expository paragraph about why. That one statement is perfectly acceptable.
RedReynart
6 years, 7 months ago
I get what you are saying and I am not saying any one company is out to get me, oh no..

What I am saying is that Activision has come under alot of new policies which in turn has made very poor decisions. Including games.

As for games today many gamers don't move on out of one companies games because gamers are focused more on graphics than they are on game play. Examples of this are , Skyrim, Call of Duty, And at a time Ghost Recon. The point is that there is very little substance in all of these games and alot of the games were rushed for release. Bethesda alone stated that it was on porposely holding back the release of the creation kit because they didn't want to give the impression that the users should "finish" the game since there are still large amounts of bugs and well it is an imcomplete game.

But alot of gamers out there dont see games for content rather than graphics. There is only one modern game that broke alot of people away from the graphic trend for gameplay and that is Minecraft. Then I see mods for realistic water and bloom effect with high res textures and *face palm*
DraculJOSHI
6 years, 6 months ago
I get call of duty, I am not a fan of it myself and find it ridicolous how some people enjoy it. But it's completely fine and from what I have seen, it's been a fun experience to play with others, so the focus lays on the multiplayer, something I can't get into for the life of me.

To TES skyrim... ARE YOU SERIOUS?
do you really think that one can put 200+ hours of SINGLEPLAYER gameplay into a game that doesn't have a lot of content?
sure, the main storyline is a little bit blood-force-trauma and takes about 8 hours.
But with all the sidequests, the guildquests, the fetchquests and the individual character buildup there's definitively a lot of content. Not to mention the houses and the ability to collect shit for the compulsive people XD
If you play a TES for the main story, you are playing it wrong. since it is more like a classic tabletop RPG
DraculJOSHI
6 years, 6 months ago
OUCH!

that was so wrong, it physically hurt me!

The games you counted, were all OFFLINE games withe NETPLAY compatibility... not MMOs... It's really amazing on how little you know about game structure and design!
DraculJOSHI
6 years, 6 months ago
you're pretty stupid...

a normal game you buy, install on your PC and play there. done.
a normal game is played by nobody but you or a few people.

a MMO you can't play that way. MMO worlds are so big, they would not fit on a reasonable computer, that's why they are on servers.
a MMO is played by thousands or even milions of people... simultanously I might add. Which needs a server

now, servers are expensive, that's where the subscription comes into play. The electricity for a server-farm alone is significant business.
RedReynart
6 years, 6 months ago
First don't insult me or even try to. Its just weak.

Secondly I will reply to you in various aspects on one coment then leaving several shorter ones on all your points.

The main topic and focus of the convosation was games in general and I hit on many points myself as the convosation grew outward.

The first point was how alot of Online games and MMO's would claim to be free then would latter charge you after you already paid for the original game or how games would be hard and difficult to play unless you paid for certain boasts from the creators. Pathetic indeed.

The Second point was how alot of gamers today want nothing more than Graphics and no substance. And I did list games that followed this path. The point wasn't if it was a MMO or Coop. It was on games with little substance.

Thrid. I still find Skyrim to be a poor game in substance. I will explain why I say that.

The graphics by far are very impressive. Though you need to see that its not the modle detail nor the textures that make it appear impressive it is the way light is rendered by the engine. If you were to see the details in the textures and modles. It is quite poor to be honest and moding for the game you need to make shure you have a very limited poly count just to import it into the game. I know this from personally moding the game.

The story isn't impressive as I though it would be. With all the tension that built up that you will be the savior of the world I expected much more tension as time passed on. More dragon attacks on towns and a growing major battle for all of the world. Instead you end up going in alone and in a matter of seconds its all over. -.- And when it is indeed all over there is no big change. Everyone is still fighting each other.

Game Play. Ok Not much has changed really from oblivion your magic has been replaces pretty much by the shouts and the true magic can now be cast with your hands by equiping them like weapons. You can still do what you want when you want and explore a vast world. The problems is that alot of the world is barren. If not for theiving many houses I wouldn't of collected as many items like books to read up on the lore which some how seems like I am living in a medieval WWII.  In Oblivion if I went to any town there were book stores, cloth stores, grocery, jewlery, newspappers, pawn shops, fish stores, hundrends of inns scattered between each towns so you were never far from a bed. Skyrim there is only one place to buy books and that is at the mages colledge and only one mages colledge too. There is only one cloth store that I know in Solitude. And no newspapers or inns scattered about like in oblivion so the world is quite barren.

The menus have changed alot and just made it a bit of a mess to quickly find all the items you just picked up. The map is both awesome to look at but the function is horrible as you never can see the roads or know for sure where you are esactly.

Side quests are quite boring as there something to do and something to give reason to explore but the pay off is a bit low but for a bit of gold when just pickpocketing a key from a shop owner would be more profitable.

Guild quests aren't as interesting either dispite haveing some nice benifits in new gear, all the guilds are "Shadows of their former selves" And that is litteraly what they say in the game. Seriously play it. Trying to return a guild to its former glory I would of loved if done with creativity. Most off all the assassins guild quests was boring as there were no special conditions. All you had to do was go up to your target, say you are here to kill him and he will attack first then all you do is attack in defence and done. No strategy.

Mage Guild quests were predictable that you would be betrayed and after finding this "eye" Someone would go mad with wanting it for them selves.

Fighters Guild, Correction the Companions Guild ....(Continued)
RedReynart
6 years, 6 months ago
The Companions was a bit odd but a bit predictable too as you can draw conclusions form the talk around the hall.

The thieves guild wasn't  as predictable though as it was a cliche on betrayal. The entire part with the nightingales was as if an entire story unto itself. And that is what through me off.

Houses isnt anything new to the TES franchise. And decoration them and living in it been there since morrowind and hasn't changed much. Though a few houses are a bit waistfull on space Hjerrim for one.(spelling I know :P ) I can fit so many more containers in there. <.< If I can figure how to do so in the editor I will.

I will grant the game that adding in things like cutting wood, mining ore, creating armor, and cooking was a bit creative though after the game ends and you already got the best armor in the game and so forth. There isn't much need anymore to create armor unless you are doing it for more gold and even then what is the point ? What are you going to buy? So its a give or take.

It would of been nice for a game of this type to be more involving with problem solving. Puzzles and trapdoors and such. But most dungeons are strait forward and after you get to the end you fight some boss (if a quest) and then get a treasure in a chest or quest item. =/

The game does seem rushed on many levels and if not for the mod community the game would grow very stale quickly.

Other games of this type can be called are Pokemon and Grand Theif Auto. There all free roam, do what you want when you want type games and with much content other than a main story to keep you interested. One other factor is that pokemon grew into a better game as multiplayer was really something to get excited about (dispite being only for battles) Players could share content and so forth with each other. This is why even when one person done everything in the game possible it still opened up more possibilities. Thank the world for mods and pc games because indeed that is what keeps games like Skyrim and GTA so popular.

Even though I feel the game Skyrim is a bit poor I don't hate it. Not at all. There are a few things I like about it. Graphics are impressive. The World is massive and fun to explore, dispite a bit barren. Interactive things like cooking is fun at times. I like some of the new looks of the armor. Duel weilding and combat is creative, still wish it was better on a few parts(magic).

Again I feel the game in incomplete. Hence the comment when I said that Bethesda was holding back the creation kit release because they felt that they should patch the game first before the release because they didn't want to give the impression to the players that the players should finish an incomplete game. And that is the esact words they said, not me.

I don't find it right when games are a bit rushed because really I can wait to play a game and know it will be great then wanting it now and geting something that isn't so grand. I still have great hopes though as I turned off the boundries of the game and walked into morrowind and cyrodiil and saw all the lands detailed and markers in place as to where the towns are. O.o So what can that tell someone? I hope they will add the two regions. :P

DraculJOSHI
6 years, 6 months ago
"The first point was how alot of Online games and MMO's would claim to be free then would latter charge you after you already paid for the original game or how games would be hard and difficult to play unless you paid for certain boasts from the creators. Pathetic indeed."

No, it is nice enough to be able to play a game to check whether you like it or not. It's normal they need SOME way to get the money the game is worth. now, if they would not give you anything for your money... then they wouldn't make money and couldn't possibly keep the game running, let alone improving because idiots want everything for free. And for the money you usually pay for the hard copy for other MMOs (like WoW, The Secret World), you usually get quite decent gear or even top tier.

And to the TES... Really?... you serious?
Ok, one after the other...
"Few people/places shops etc."
- yeah... you know why? IT'S SKYRIM! If you are familiar with TES, you should know that Skyrim is sort of the skandinavian countries of the series... and guess what! They are lower  and more centrally populated than the rest of europe... just like the game XP
"the side quest are bland and easy to predict"
I have to agree, especially after oblivion but still better than morrowind. And I found they are, for what they are, well executed. Most of the problem with most of these quests are that they are made more for casual fun than traditional RPing. I don't have a problem with that, though I prefere it the other way.
Some of them were actually a lot of fun to me, like recollecting the shards of Dagon's Dagger which I had in Oblivion.
"Magic underpowered"
Well, it's not that it is underpowered, it's in fact the strongest way to attack people especially Dragons. But it's a little inconvenienced by how and where to find magic which I think is actually a good thing. I think Magic was way too accessible in oblivion. Also, I think they attempted a "lower magic" setting.

What I find interresting is that the points you make, you make sound like you are some hardcore Roleplayer but most of which are actually standard for real hardcore Roleplayers... Have you ever played a real RPG campain? Like D&D/Pathfinder/Shadowrun/Cyberpunk/Thieves World/Vampires etc? Or even a close to P&P RPG game like say... Ultima 4?
AlexReynard
6 years, 8 months ago
>Lets make it then sell it on the apple I store. =D Well be millionairs in no time at all.

Seems entirely possible. Google "Cow Clicker" to see how easy it is for people to fixate on playing a game to the point where they're blind to the fact that it's designed to be soul-destroyingly unfun.

>So how does it work? Its free to get the game that is true, so you are downloading a client. But when you play you will soon find its impossible to actrully win the game or with MMORPGS level up.

I was trying to draw more of a parallel to the many, many business scams where they'll use the word 'free' as much as they can, then as soon as you sign up, start hitting you with fees. Sure, this game is free to play, but only for ten minutes.

>The creators will keep content away from low end users so you can play in certain maps,area, or have the weapons you want because your level is low. You try so hard to level and find out you spend hours to make litteraly .001% towards the next level.

Sounds like the old line about 'Work hard enough, and someday you could even be company president!' Cut to forty years later where most people have barely advanced at all and will have to keep working into retirement age just to pay off their debt.

>What I dont' understand is games like this and people don't play them anymore instead they have bots to level up their character as they do something else. They never play the game. I played these games and there all impossible unless you dump all your cash into it. And when you then realize that what fun is the game? Its stupid to even bot. ITS A GAME. Why do you want to be some stupid high level character when you should be able to play the game and not feel out of place.

On that, I'll definitely agree. I like games that have an END. I'm apparently in the minority on this. But then, I'm more of a movie guy, so I like more movielike games. Endlessly advancing, purely for the sake of advancing some more, sounds like a nightmare to me.

>What I hate now is that all games are becoming this way where exclusive content is being held because you have to pay for it even when you paid for the game. Introducing Steam. Thank Valve for F***ing everyone.

Actually, I've heard nothing but good things about how Steam does their business. It doesn't sound like they're the ones responsible for this bullshit.
RedReynart
6 years, 8 months ago
When it comes to steam they want you to always have it. Can't play any new games with out it, cant update the games patch with out it. Slows down your pc. Cant play multiplayer mode with out it, lan included.

All and all they withhold all other content but what is on the disk and hold back any new features. You have to have it and I hate it. I am so glad Notch the Creator of Minecraft stated that he too hates steam. Its killing the game industry by taking the business from the developers. Because Steam may be created by Valve but steam is not exclusive to only their games. And their corrupt.

>Sounds like the old line about 'Work hard enough, and someday you could even be company president!' Cut to forty years later where most people have barely advanced at all and will have to keep working into retirement age just to pay off their debt.

So true, So very true.  Only can one say that in the golden age was this ever the case and we long out lived that age. Today with the world in which is over run by war, famine and pestilence, just look at the economy and how we all suffer just to keep the clothes on our own backs. No one can advance because noone wants to have to pay you more. There isn't any money to do so. And where is it all going then? In the pockets of the CEO's And to pleasure their mistresses. Because hell if someone that has worked 40 years deserves a payraise.

>I was trying to draw more of a parallel to the many, many business scams where they'll use the word 'free' as much as they can, then as soon as you sign up, start hitting you with fees. Sure, this game is free to play, but only for ten minutes.

Yeah I know you too well to say it will only be about games. Its about all scams out there. And you see this with everything even award cards at a grocery store there is always some catch you don't know about till you already put pen to papper.

Heck Cell Phone companies are this way always. Yet we can't live with out texting and driving at the same time.(oh yeah Im litteral in oh so many ways) And so we dump all our money into things like this.

If there is something someone wants bad enough, people will try to scam you for it. And we are stupid to fall for it. Even though we know its a scam, we want it, were going to get it no matter the cost. And you see why we are are crying we don't have money.

I think the only people left on this earth when all the S*** hits the fan would be the quakers. No technology and self reliant. Who will try to scam you when they have nothing you want?
AlexReynard
6 years, 7 months ago
>When it comes to steam they want you to always have it. Can't play any new games with out it, cant update the games patch with out it. Slows down your pc. Cant play multiplayer mode with out it, lan included.

To me, that sounds like a decent way to protect their copyrights without installing shitty, malfunctioning restrictions into the games themselves.

>Its killing the game industry by taking the business from the developers.

How is it doing that? I admit, I don't know much about video games, but everything I've heard about Steam *sounds* pretty progressive. If I'm wrong, tell me why.

>Today with the world in which is over run by war, famine and pestilence,

Actually, humanity is (overall) less violent, more connected, safer, and healthier now than we have ever been in our entire history.

>No one can advance because noone wants to have to pay you more. There isn't any money to do so. And where is it all going then? In the pockets of the CEO's And to pleasure their mistresses. Because hell if someone that has worked 40 years deserves a payraise.

That's definitely true. Politicians have been spreading the lie of 'trickle-down economics'. The idea is that if you give all the money to the wealthy, it'll trickle down to the rest of us. No. The wealthy hoard it. The middle class are the ones who spend money. If they're not spending, the economy grinds to a halt like an engine without gas. What horrifies me is how many idiots are getting the idea that the problem is we're not doing *enough* to ensure that corporations have unlimited power while citizens have to scrape by with whatever they can scavenge.

>I think the only people left on this earth when all the S*** hits the fan would be the quakers. No technology and self reliant. Who will try to scam you when they have nothing you want?

I honestly do not think we're getting closer to a global catastrophe. The fact that you and I are able to discuss this, when I don't even know where you are or what you look like, is one of the biggest reasons I have hope that we'll keep on gradually learning how not to be shitty to one another.
RedReynart
6 years, 7 months ago
>How is it doing that? I admit, I don't know much about video games, but everything I've heard about Steam *sounds* pretty progressive. If I'm wrong, tell me why.

Steam is a system you may say, Developed and created by valve to Distribute,Manage Copyrights and Host Multiplayer servers. What they didn't tell you is the fact that the also manage all content from all the games under the Steam Umbrella.

Major companies that use steam are: Valve, Activision, Bethesda, Electronic Arts, Rockstar Games and many others. Under this umbrella is also minor companies such as independent freelancers.

Why is this a bad thing? Because any companies signed to steam, any games through them. Steam holds all rights to content. This hurts the business especially when the games are made for user content. If you love to mod games then you have to use steam and its tools. There is no independence.

Same if there is any new updates for any of your games you have to go through steam. Multi players cannot be lan based unless both parties have steam. This forces the consumer to use steam. Thus any independent companies that once were associated with user content to as another website either to host servers or to be a second means to updating your game will inevitably be shut down because steam is taking away from their business.

Not to mention the back words Distribution policies that hinder all games as users are forced to pay outlandish pricing through the steam store than what would be for a regular store or even not releasing content due to location.

Steam is a powerhouse sweeping up every other company and enforcing its own rules and regulations and the more people use it and go to it for there needs the more it grows in power. And it not a good thing if you enjoy games.

>Actually, humanity is (overall) less violent, more connected, safer, and healthier now than we have ever been in our entire history.

Not entirely true, Because the world is ever more populated than ever before. Crime is higher than it was ever before. War still rages in almost every third world country. Aids is still a number one killer in Africa. With new medicine only comes newer and stronger diseases that grow every day. Just look at Bird Flu and Swine Flu, West Nile, EEE, and Measles is making a come back now too.

Indeed we do seem to be better off but in truth there hasn't been much change. The only difference is that there hasn't been a major catastrophe as of yet but as history will continue to repeat itself it is on the brink of catastrophe.

With the things I hear on the news today I am surprised, and you wonder how much how many things aren't reported.
Locally A woman was chased down by another driver after refueling at a gas pump. She was than latter ran off the road and crashed into a tree while the other drive, a man, drug her out, and proceed to rape and then kill her. WTF!

Locally again a bunch of children were playing in there front yard and some A-hole decided to have a drive by shooting. Hit both children. Only heard about one of them got hit in the ankle don't know about the other.

My point being I don't ever feel safe and I don't' think it is any safer today as it was yesterday or even hundreds of years ago.
How many school shootings this year? I counted 4 so far, probably missing a few. How many idiots have went into church shooting I counted 6 this year.
This world will never be safe. The only reason one will think it is safer than ever before is the fact that no one reports on it. More pressing issues such as the war in Iraq, Syria,Afghanistan,Korea, Iran,. Issues such as Celebrities or Gas Prices. They always get the major spot light. Only when the news knows they can stir mass emotions will they show anything else. Example being the "Hate Crime of the Century" Where a Mexican shot a black boy. The news will not say anything else as if why, when, who. Its only this man and this boy. All to enrage the audience.
AlexReynard
6 years, 7 months ago
>users are forced to pay outlandish pricing through the steam store than what would be for a regular store

Do you mean outrageously high or outrageously low? Because I've been looking it over since yesterday, and most of the games look WAY cheaper than what they'd cost in a store.

>Steam is a powerhouse sweeping up every other company and enforcing its own rules and regulations and the more people use it and go to it for there needs the more it grows in power. And it not a good thing if you enjoy games.

I admit, I don't know much about the game industry. But it seems like you're saying 'They're too big and they have too much power'. Well, if they've gotten big because they're doing things better than their competitors, I don't have a problem with that. From what I've observed myself, it looks like Valve understands the concept of, 'Make the customer want to give you money'. That's a hell of a lot better than big companies who still follow the 'treat the customer like a criminal' mentality. If you're worried that Steam will amass too much power and become like that, that's understandable. But right now, I'm not understanding what they're actively *doing* that's so horrible, other than being big.

>Because the world is ever more populated than ever before. Crime is higher than it was ever before.

NO IT ISN'T. LOOK UP SOME STATISTICS.

>War still rages in almost every third world country.

There are fewer wars in total century after century after century.

>With new medicine only comes newer and stronger diseases that grow every day.

While that's technically true, everything I've seen points to medicine easily keeping pace with emerging diseases.

>Just look at Bird Flu and Swine Flu, West Nile, EEE, and Measles is making a come back now too.

All of those are relatively not-that-bad diseases, whose effects have been ridiculously overstated by the news. Look up the actual numbers of people who die each year from them. Then look up how many people used to die from polio and yellow fever and malaria. Jesus, bird flu and swine flu are no more dangerous than the regular flu!!

>Indeed we do seem to be better off but in truth there hasn't been much change.

If you can compare the advances in technology, cultural understanding, trade, medicine, transportation, etc. that we have today, to what the world was like a mere hundred years ago, and still say not much has changed, then you are willfully blinding yourself.

>A woman was chased down by another driver after refueling at a gas pump.

One bad incident tells me nothing about overall crime statistics.

>Locally again a bunch of children were playing in there front yard and some A-hole decided to have a drive by shooting.

During WW2, Americans killed 672,000 Japanese civilians in two days with incendiary bombs. Before we dropped the atomic bombs on them.

>My point being I don't ever feel safe and I don't' think it is any safer today as it was yesterday or even hundreds of years ago.

If you want to choose to feel that way, I can't stop you. But you are wrong. Today, our food is safer, our medicines are stronger, we wage fewer wars and we are less tolerant of violence. That's not to say the world isn't still a dangerous place. But the news would have you believe that every minor threat is an inescapable doom. Every risk is guaranteed death.

Every day, thousands upon thousands of planes land safely. But if just one crashes, it will be the top story. That right there illustrates exactly how the news makes you fear things you shouldn't; by not telling you the probability of risk.
RedReynart
6 years, 7 months ago
Let me explain Steam in a Nut shell. Because you still are not geting what it is doing.

SOPA and PIPA why do you not support it? Be cause by  becoming overly protective of anti-piratcy it will deem any and all other sites which it feels is not directly through the manufacture, record company, what have you. As being not a copyright share holder and will shut it down. Steam is esactly the same way in the video game industry, It forces all gamers to use steam and trys to shut down all other 3rd party websites,companies, what have you that will try and support the games through user made content. Get it?

>PS I actrully had swine flu. Its no walk in the park compared to regular flu.. It was pretty bad.

>During WW2, Americans killed 672,000 Japanese civilians in two days with incendiary bombs. Before we dropped the atomic bombs on them.
 
Ok I don't see what point you were trying to make here because the topic was about crime rates. And crimes locally

It is true and I think I said this somewhere before that the news will pick a topic as the top story to envoke emotions and fear and they love to play on that emotions and fear. Dispite that. The crimes they do tell are very violent. Dispite once a year or once a month..

And You may say the world has changed alot and it is true on the effect of Technology and Culture. But when it comes to things of war, crime, disease, and so fourth. It has neither gotten better nor has it gotten worse.
AlexReynard
6 years, 7 months ago
>Steam is esactly the same way in the video game industry, It forces all gamers to use steam and trys to shut down all other 3rd party websites,companies, what have you that will try and support the games through user made content. Get it?

Okay, that does sound bad. Do you have any links to articles about them doing this? Like, specific 3rd parties they've shut down?

>PS I actrully had swine flu. Its no walk in the park compared to regular flu.. It was pretty bad.

I'm sure it wasn't. But biologically, the only difference between the two is that swine flu showed up at a different time from the regular flu season.

>Ok I don't see what point you were trying to make here because the topic was about crime rates. And crimes locally

Is firebombing civilians not a crime? Just because it happened during a war, does that change anything? If so, why? Isn't war just a very large collection of crimes?

>It is true and I think I said this somewhere before that the news will pick a topic as the top story to envoke emotions and fear and they love to play on that emotions and fear. Dispite that. The crimes they do tell are very violent. Dispite once a year or once a month..

That's true. But pay attention sometime to *where* these crimes are happening. If the local news reports on something, it may unconsciously feel closer to you than it really is. The Trayvon Martin case has made the local news two nights in a row here in Michigan, and he was shot in Florida.

The thing is, there are not more violent crimes happening in the world. We simply have an increased ability to communicate about them. Nowadays, if a brutal, awful act happens anywhere in the world, the whole world can know about it. And it's also important to keep in mind how many people are on the side of the victims in these cases. How long ago would it be that the majority of Americans would cheer to hear about a black man getting shot? Or a transgender person? Or Americans killing civilians during wartime?

>But when it comes to things of war, crime, disease, and so fourth. It has neither gotten better nor has it gotten worse.

Unless you can show me some proof that's true, I'm going to continue to say that you're dead wrong about this.
RedReynart
6 years, 7 months ago
Steam is threating to shut down the TESnexus that is for shure since there is alot of talk in the forums about that.
Steam has shut down seveal 3rd party sites. I know GameFlood had some scrapes. And now is gone. and if I could dig it up about taking the bussiness away from Flightsims third party users. I would though I have only dead links.  but here is a recent one http://press2reset.com/2011/11/22/unannounced-skyrim-p... Surprisingly its hard to find anything since Steam is not only a name of a company but a form of power. XD

> Is firebombing civilians not a crime? Just because it happened during a war, does that change anything? If so, why? Isn't war just a very large collection of crimes?
 
Its called War Crimes. But yes you are right. Though not always a large collection of crimes. They attack us we attack back its the rules of engagement.

>That's true. But pay attention sometime to *where* these crimes are happening. If the local news reports on something, it may unconsciously feel closer to you than it really is. The Trayvon Martin case has made the local news two nights in a row here in Michigan, and he was shot in Florida.
 
I do, indeed I do. And yes I agree with this and the second part as well.

>Unless you can show me some proof that's true, I'm going to continue to say that you're dead wrong about this.
Well lets start off where to beging there is so much
every year there is war raging everywhere this hasn't gotten any better from yesteryear on the behalf that it never yeilds. Truly we are not facing the wars of yesterday but that doesn't excuss the fact it still exsits.

In ancient roman and greek times war was fought with a sword and the only way to fight was to form colums in which one army will face another and try to keep their flanks gaurded while attacking the other. This was a massive battle of thousands which major losses was always certain on both sides. As technology progressed so did the art of war. But war still wages onward. The only diffrence is technolgy has changed the tactics where mass armies are no longer needed. We have fought the World War, The Second World War, Korea, Vietnam, GulfWar, The Second Gulf War, War on Terror, War in Afghanastan, and that is just the most recent American wars. There is not much time between the wars and war is war it cannot become better when people still die.
There was alot of colateral damage in ancient war but there still is today. Artillery isn't precise, Tomahawks can only fly so far inland and predator drones have several times missed targets and killed civilians.

Crime has not vanished off the face of earth it hasn't become any more or less than what it was back then. We get serial killers back then as of today, jack the ripper was famous back then as what Manson is today. The fact is it still continues.

Disease is all around us, our medical technology has become far advanced from yesteryear indeed and the minor diseases today were the major ones of yesteryear. Fact is that diseases mutates and adapts. Anyone who even took biology in middle school will know. As this is a fact there are stonger diseases that pop up and become the new threat as medicine tries to combat it. Cancer, Aids, Flu are just a few that still thin the numbers. And there modern threats as of yesteryear Yellowfever, Scarletfever and plauge was a common threat.

Yes technology has advanced us but I don't see things getting better as war,crime and disease only seem to adapt to the new world.

AlexReynard
6 years, 7 months ago
>Steam is threating to shut down the TESnexus that is for shure since there is alot of talk in the forums about that.

Hm. I'll look into this stuff.

>We have fought the World War, The Second World War, Korea, Vietnam, GulfWar, The Second Gulf War, War on Terror, War in Afghanastan, and that is just the most recent American wars. There is not much time between the wars and war is war it cannot become better when people still die.

Compared to the past, wars today are shorter, leave fewer dead, and we mourn them more.

>Crime has not vanished off the face of earth it hasn't become any more or less than what it was back then.

STATISTICS?

>Yes technology has advanced us but I don't see things getting better as war,crime and disease only seem to adapt to the new world.

I'm sorry, but your argument still boils down to, 'Because [bad thing] still exists, that's proof that it's as bad as it's ever been.' I agree that we still have a long way to go, and the idea that we'll ever be free of crime or disease is a fantasy. But you're ignoring progress. Everything you've mentioned, we have lowered the risk of over the centuries. How do you think we got to seven billion people on this planet unless fewer of us are dying?
RedReynart
6 years, 7 months ago
WWII 1939-1945, Korea 1950-1953, Vietnam 1955-1975, Gulfwar I 1990-1991, Gulfwar II 2001-20??, War on Terror 2001-20??, War in Afghanistan 2001-20??,

Before you ask, yes we are fighting three wars at once.

World war II- 6 years, Korea- 3 years, Vietnam-19 years, Gulf war I- 1 year, Gulf war II -11 years. Wars fluctuate between how long they last and has allot to do with ethnics, economics, politics.

Now if you wish to compare the English and French war in which France won. 1337- 1453 It was actully a series of wars and not one long war that lasted 100 years. Of course you can make an argument about this but the fact still stands it was a series of wars.

The American Revolution lasted from 1775-1812 of 37 years. American Civil war 1861-1865 of 4 years. WWI 1914-1918 of 4 years.

Here are more statistics https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_military_ca... you can click on their sourses to further research for yourself. Now if this from an american standpoint don't say war hasn't changed much. It would only be in the way it is fought, IE technology, fact is depending on again econimics, ethnics, and politics war will always vary.
 

AlexReynard
6 years, 7 months ago
You're neglecting to mention the single biggest change over time. Look at the total casualties for each of those wars. The current war on terror may have lasted 11 years, but the number of dead can't hold a candle to WWII. With expected statistical deviation, as the centuries progress, even though there may still be lots of wars, the total number of people who die in them decreases.
RedReynart
6 years, 7 months ago
Not entirely. Look at the Revolution to the civilwar it gradually decreases till Boom civil war and it spikes. Then civil war to WWI it decreases till the WWI and BOOM spikes. Then from WWI to WWII it decreases till world warII and BOOM major spike. Then it slips back down again untill today. But so far WWII has been the largest on casualties and still is one of the wars that is more modern since there are still survivors today. But its only in large events we see the highest casualties. Other wise again Politics, Ethnics, And Econimics plays a major role on time duriation and the amount of forces used in the conflict and in turn the casualties.
AlexReynard
6 years, 7 months ago
You're looking at only the history of a single country though, and only for a few hundred years. I'm talking about from the time of humanity's beginning til now, we got really really really violent, then have been gradually calming down ever since. This is a cumulative gradual decrease. WWII sticks out like a sore thumb, but it's an exception, not the usual state of things. You can have a gradual change in things where exceptions still crop up.
RedReynart
6 years, 7 months ago
I choose to stick to American histories since one, I am an american, two you are too I take. And three its easier to follow. But if you wish to I will delve deeper into history.

I cannot account for any ancient war casualties, only what is in the history as written.

If the argument is on violence as you can clearly see from the years of america. There isn't many years of peace. Always a conflict even if the conflict only last but breifly.

Just because war is now fought with a gun and not a sword, it doens't excusse violence. War is very diffrent indeed from back then. But even then, ancient history shadows our own.

Today our empires have greatly established themselves onto the world and left the world with several countries. Back then it wasn't so. As the technology wasn't as advanced it was harder for anyone to gather agaisnt others and stand together. Nations were formed around 7000BC starting in Summer and the Fertile Cresent between the Tiberis and Eurphrates. War was a constand struggle as other tribes fought for resourses of the cresent eventrully leading up to the formation of babylon.

Egypt was trully founded around 5000BC. It was over ran by tribes of the south and great records show that Nubia and Syria were a constont threat. If not for the age of Stone. Than the development of the empire would of been a great struggle. For stone provided use for tools and building of walls which protected their cities.

Rome was founded on 7 hills. When Romus and Remus had a bet to see how many birds they can spot in the day to where to build. You can guess which one won. The visgoths, huns, vikings, celts, mongolians, and persians all posed a great threat to rome as it stood for more than 500years.  Several account speak of the conflicts between Rome and the other Empires and Barbarians.

So what does this have to do with today? Today we face the same tensions as from which the ancient empires did back than. America is a very new nation but has been around for 236 years. Trully not as far as what Rome came. But you can see from each time line of how the wars were raged all the way up to Rome's Ceasar Diocleatian.

Face it. The cold war is still conflict seen today. Everyone eagar to press the button and still is. From Suicide bombings in the middle east to IRA attacks in England. From Pirates in the Carribian, Indian Ocean, Malaysia and south africa. To School Shootins nationwide. Violence is still strong. The only diffrence is the way we address it.
AlexReynard
6 years, 7 months ago
<facepalm> Look, all we're doing is going back and forth here. You keep saying that we've always been violent, which is true. And I keep saying that we're less violent now than we have been in the past, which is also true. I'm showing you an apple and you're showing me an orange. We're not getting anywhere.
RedReynart
6 years, 7 months ago
Indeed we were always violent and I see that you are trying to make the point we are less violent.

I am trying to make the point that we arent any more violent than what we were back then. Bringing the history of war.

What is violence but one mans act of aggression towards another? The dilivery of that aggression has changed. Wars are fought with guns not swords. Strategists use buttons instead of maps and scouts. But the aggression is still there. If I want you dead I am going to kill you by what ever means nessesary. Be it to call a legion of soldiers with swords and pikes or a legion of tanks with cannons and shells.

Violence hasn't changed, So on the behalf of your apple. What is violence? Is it deaths and wounded? There will always be casualties. Or is it the Aggression towards someone? Beit against their belifes, the color of their skin, gender, or prefrence?

War is only a small part of the worlds aggression and the only reason I brought it up was to show that we have always been aggressive and it hasn't slowed down or stoped. If it was true that we are less aggressive than in the past, why then are we always at war and never at peace? Why do we have wars like WWI, WWII and Vietnam that not only spans across years of war but claims so many lives and when that war is over with its no more than a few years and we are at war again??

If we were truly more peacefull than back then wouldnt' we be at peace? That is my point.Yes My orange claims we are always violent but to effect, when were we ever not?
AlexReynard
6 years, 7 months ago
Okay, I think I understand a bit more. It is absolutely true that we've always had the urge to violence. That's because physical evolution is slow and societal evolution is fast.

Humans evolved over a kazilliony gajillion years, and most of that we spent living like cavemen. Our existence was finding food, procreating, and not getting killed by that other tribe over there. So the instincts we developed are the instincts to deal with those kinds of situation. Now, however, we're living in 2012 and those situations are not the reality for most of humanity anymore. Thousands of years ago, being quick to fight could keep you alive. Now it'll land you in jail. We are literally wired to be suspicious, to enjoy violence, and to always be on the lookout for a fight.

Throughout our history, we've let our instincts rule us. But especially in the last few centuries, we've started to finally grow up. The majority of us have realized that society works better when we can trust one another, and we can't do that if we follow our caveman instincts. So most of us are taught from birth what behaviors are unacceptable. The desire is still there, but we're getting better at controlling them. Most of us are likely to think before starting a fight. And though we still have evil, powerful people who realize that they can get more power by sending groups of young men to murder each other with bombs and jeeps and stuff, the average person's morals wouldn't think to do that without an authority telling them to.

Personally, I think the solution is for us to correct something we've had backwards for a long time: sex is not obscene, cruelty is. We've been censoring the wrong stuff all this time.
RedReynart
6 years, 7 months ago
I do agree with you on many points here.

Violence for one being fabricated into our very genes. And even though socity has changed ALOT. That is not only a benifit but the downfall. Examples is that out parents tell us all what is write and wrong. But even when we mature and grow old we still have "parents" Just not blood related. These parents are out government, our preachers, our bosses at work. In other words they tell us what to do and how to act. Because of this we as a socity will always either agree and follow like sheep or disagree and rebel.

The reason that Violence has always been, and the fact it hasn't changed. Probably is due to free will. With out the will to make decisions, how is one to ever act out against what they find wrong? Beter yet how is one to act out agaist another person knowing they are hurting someone?

Yeah totally agree in todays world we censor all the wrong things and we rather try to fix healtcare and ban gay marriage than fix the growing violence in the country.

Violence used to be something to keep you safe from others back in the cave days. Today its more of a pleasure where its due to control and power. Probally due to the fears we lack when sheltered under a modern world it managed to become a pleasure. And with todays socity where one uses that to gain power they try to lead others to maintain it. Hence all the gangs in america and else where.

Were a really messed up race aren't we?
AlexReynard
6 years, 7 months ago
>Were a really messed up race aren't we?

Maybe. But I've been getting really sick of this attitude I've been seeing a lot of lately; that things are so bad we should just hope for the end of the world to end the whole mess. >.< That's the kind of thing radical Christian fundamentalists are supposed to think, not the average citizen. I don't understand why I keep seeing this attitude, which is so out of proportion with reality. The stuff science is doing now makes me tingle with excitement. We're closer to the finish line than we've ever been, yet this idea keeps popping up that we're doing so bad we might as well turn around and go home.

I guess I blame the news. They emphasize the negative so much, and forget to ever tell people how RARE most of the awful shit they report on is. Worst of all, there are real concerns they report on sometimes that get ignored because they've done so much to make people blind to probability.
RedReynart
6 years, 7 months ago
They didn't call it the great depression for nothing. And I don't care what anyone says, what we are in now is not a recession.
When the US goverment has to form a stimulous package to Bail out not only all of the major banks but the auto industry plus more. That isn't a recession. The the goverment is on the verge of colapse  and needs to form a plan to stay afloat. That is not a recession. When Greece is failing and is about to be carried by the winds out of exsistance. That is not a recession.

But its nothing new. Time repeats itself and well welcome to the 70's. The music has now went Hipster(modern hippy) There are protests in the streets and gas shortages everywhere. Even the clothes are now making a come back.

Point being that the 70's had a major depression because of all the funds being drained on war. And that is what is happening now. With the added corrupt banks, wallstreet, and so forth just adding to the nations economic crisis. But the fact is things get better.

I hear ya the world being so down and depresed waiting for it to all end. Or they are angry at everything and take that anger out on everything and everyone. My own father to be one. Its sad.

For anyone waiting for the world to end, you will have one long wait or perhaps not. Some belive 2012 is the year. But really ? is it or just the begining? And remember the begining will span 1000 years. 4 years acording to the norse. And even so there is only one word in all of the bible (for any under the major 3) that speaks of rapture and what it really says is "taken" Yeah doesn't say that doesn't mean our lives.

I thought to as much mention that wouldn't it suck when everyone is disapointed when december rolls around beit the date or not.

But noone should wish for the end. Noone. Want to get things better well do something. But even that has concequences, like protesters geting pepper sprayed and beated.

-----------
As far as crime being rare. Yes and no. Its all proportions. The more the people the more you will see things. There are 8 Billion people on this world. And that is allot of people. With so many in one area its not rare to see car accidents, murders, rapes, stabings and shootings, theif and vandelism. Because there are so many of us the fact is that were spread out wide across the world and that the chance of it happening in our neiborhood is still slim to non. Not to say it  will never happen because It can. Just that the probability is slim. But that being said one shouldn't ignoir the chance and not care. Doing so will increase probability for you makeing your self a target for crime.

Other things will reduce probability like safe driving habbits. Locking your door when you leave your house. COMMON SENCE.
But well that is the news today; "Guess what so and so did in a foreign state or country that doesn't even relate to you but we are going to make a story out of it because its controversial due to sex,religion, or ethnic back ground or this person is really famous and we think its important."

Lame isn't it?
AlexReynard
6 years, 7 months ago
>As far as crime being rare. Yes and no.

I meant more like the provably rare stuff which they love to report on every chance they get. Like airplane crashes, tainted food, missing white girls, shark attacks, school shootings... They make us afraid of shit that is less likely than being struck by lightning.
DraculJOSHI
6 years, 6 months ago
WoW and EVE are not free... well, trial excluded...
ScottyKat
6 years, 8 months ago
LOL that is so wrong XD
AlexReynard
6 years, 8 months ago
Ah, but can you explain WHY it's so wrong?
ScottyKat
6 years, 8 months ago
It claims to be free but supports the rich players with pay content that lets you easly win.
It charges money every ten minits, meaning it limits your gameplay to an increadably slow levels.
(Spiral Knights does that with energy. Limiting how many dungens you can go into by making it cost en to enter them, if you die you spend en to get back up, you have to spend en to make weapons, you can buy en with money, and transfer it into in game money. meaning you cant make any headway or build rare weapons without using en and TONS of money. )
Theres an instant win item that CAN make you win but even then you can loose to someone faster. Meaning your money can be totally useless.

Its  a rip off every step of the way. Even the rip offs are useless because it can get you nothing.
Free MMO's (save for a rare few) are far from free.
AlexReynard
6 years, 8 months ago
That's all true. But it's all a metaphor. I was hoping more people would pick up on what I was going for.
ScottyKat
6 years, 8 months ago
ahhh. i getcha XD
Relee
6 years, 8 months ago
I thought this might happen, Alex. Everyone thinks you're complaining about DLC and Pay to Win games, they missed your comparison to real life. A lot of people are focused on the Mass Effect 3 "scandal".

What Alex here is actually getting at is a comparison with real life, where anyone can succeed if they have enough money, but the poor are fucked. The game is almost impossible without spending huge amounts of money, and if you aren't so rich you can piss away a thousand bucks for a cheap thrill, you're just wasting your time trying when you could be doing something productive with what you do have.
AlexReynard
6 years, 8 months ago
>I thought this might happen, Alex. Everyone thinks you're complaining about DLC and Pay to Win games, they missed your comparison to real life.

<shrug> I'm not too surprised. I'd hoped using words like 'college' and 'medical expenses' would clue folks in, but I can't *force* someone to get a metaphor. People tend to talk about video games online more than they talk about economics, so they're in that mindset.

>What Alex here is actually getting at is a comparison with real life, where anyone can succeed if they have enough money, but the poor are fucked. The game is almost impossible without spending huge amounts of money, and if you aren't so rich you can piss away a thousand bucks for a cheap thrill, you're just wasting your time trying when you could be doing something productive with what you do have.

Well-put. And of course, the game actually mocks you for not winning, and insists on its fairness right in the title. I'd debated adding a line about, once you fail, your programs lock up and you have to continue until you win. But that wouldn't work because people could just turn off their computers (Would that represent suicide?). I do have to massively thank Robby for his idea about Canadians not seeing the medical expenses pop-up. Brilliant.
Blackraven2
6 years, 8 months ago
spot on ;)

Theres only one aspect missing: multiplayer!

Instead of facing the tank alone, you are on the playing field with thousands of other players, that can try to help you or fire at you instead, or just be a nuisance.

And side quests that don't get you forward (but might win you money - I'd say if the game costs 1 dollar every ten minute, a sidequest on average should keep you busy for 5 minutes and give you twenty cent for it - sounds about fair )

Important: you can team up for sidequests, but the big tank is calculated separately for everyone.if someone shoots at it with you and gets it down to 0 (because he has been playing for a year) on his screen it disappears but on yours the tank stays there and you face it alone. Also the hits to it by other people shooting at it with you (teamup) instead of dealing 10 hitpoints to it, the hits get distributed towards their tank and yours. So if you shoot at the tank together with 9 others, every succesfull hit on the tank will only damage it by one hitpoint (but for each of the 10 players tanks)

playing together therefore will look more effective but not be any faster. in fact if ur a good marksman it will bring you down to average

I can see this game already - huuuge success ! ;)

AlexReynard
6 years, 8 months ago
>Theres only one aspect missing: multiplayer!

That defeats the whole premise though, that we should all be rugged individualists who need no help from anyone. Why, if you can't pull yourself up by your bootstraps, what good are you? </sarcasm>
Blackraven2
6 years, 8 months ago
But thats the point of that whole multiplayer scenario - that they CANT really help you, they can hinder you, stand in your way, but the game physics ultimately enforce that where it truely matters, everyone is on his own (against the tank) and trying to help others just hurts yourself (ur tank gets less damage) - its in the system - the game teaches you that you are better of alone (or abusing others help if they do) but you are still fucked ;)
AlexReynard
6 years, 8 months ago
Actually... <spark of inspiration> ...it would fit the metaphor far better if multiplayer mode helped incredibly. If the more people you could gather into one game, the greater everyone's chances of beating the tank and winning. Because that's how humanity actually works. But the game would do everything possible to keep you from figuring this out, like hiding the multiplayer button as a single invisible pixel on the screen, and would insult you constantly if you tried to add other players; calling you a commie and a socialist and a cheater, etc.. But of course, it would be powerless to actually stop you, as it always was. Plus, anyone who'd paid for the College code could email it to all the other players. Ooh, I'm liking this development...
Blackraven2
6 years, 7 months ago
That way you could actually beat the system ;) maybe, a spark of hope can't hurt.

But like in the real world there should still be some disadvantage to teaming up, like whenever you do multiplayer, your team IS more effective agaist the tank, but the tank in turn singles out whoever started the "revolution" and aims actively and only at that individual, making it almost impossible to dodge. then if that one is hit and at hp 0, singles out the first who joined - and so on...

That way it takes skill and courage to start the gangup, but at the same time its the only way to win (unless u have enough money for the "protection") :)

AlexReynard
6 years, 7 months ago
>But like in the real world there should still be some disadvantage to teaming up, like whenever you do multiplayer, your team IS more effective agaist the tank, but the tank in turn singles out whoever started the "revolution" and aims actively and only at that individual, making it almost impossible to dodge. then if that one is hit and at hp 0, singles out the first who joined - and so on...

Sweet Jesus it is gratifying to see someone understand the metaphor so well. This works perfectly.

>That way it takes skill and courage to start the gangup, but at the same time its the only way to win (unless u have enough money for the "protection") :)

Yes, yes, yes, several dozen more 'yes'es. :)
LandonFox
6 years, 7 months ago
> But the game would do everything possible to keep you from figuring this out, like hiding the multiplayer button as a single invisible pixel on the screen, and would insult you constantly if you tried to add other players; calling you a commie and a socialist and a cheater, etc..

People call people names like this to try and make them shut up without using greater force.  The idea is that they are trying to associate them with something that is distasteful.  Since the game isn't specifically about economics or global politics, being called a commie is out of place.  Calling them a cheater would be better.  They are violating the spirit of the game, that which makes the game fun.  They are only hurting themselves.  The game is only making them play alone for their own good.

>But like in the real world there should still be some disadvantage to teaming up, like whenever you do multiplayer, your team IS more effective agaist the tank, but the tank in turn singles out whoever started the "revolution" and aims actively and only at that individual, making it almost impossible to dodge. then if that one is hit and at hp 0, singles out the first who joined - and so on...

Don't give the tank extra fire-power to use against the player who is looking for group.  Make the tank call in reinforcements, of which the players can defend against much more proactively.  This would be analogous to unions and union busters.

How would we put in a "we closed a store down because we thought it would unionize" ala Walmart?
AlexReynard
6 years, 7 months ago
>Calling them a cheater would be better.  They are violating the spirit of the game, that which makes the game fun.  They are only hurting themselves.  The game is only making them play alone for their own good.

Yeah, that does work better.

>Don't give the tank extra fire-power to use against the player who is looking for group.  Make the tank call in reinforcements, of which the players can defend against much more proactively.  This would be analogous to unions and union busters.
>How would we put in a "we closed a store down because we thought it would unionize" ala Walmart?

I think once we get into this territory, we're overthinking it. This is why I still consider myself to be pretty ignorant about economics, because everything leads to denser and denser levels of detail and nuance. Plus, if this game did exist, I'd want to keep it as stark and simple as possible, since it's already a difficult metaphor as is.
BigD
6 years, 8 months ago
Separate government and business in all ways except for protection from force and fraud and the playing field will be level.  Take away inflation, political pull rewards, manipulating things to benefit one at the expense of others, etc etc etc and life will be something everyone has a chance at winning.  So long as the government is intertwined with business, it's inevitable that businesses will be able to  bribe government to use its monopoly on the use of force against others.

Bear in mind that life doesn't come with a guarantee, even with the playing field level, only the right to take action and keep the fruits of said action if its successful.
LandonFox
6 years, 8 months ago
Problem:  Life is a complex iterative system.  That is, the results of each moment are built on the results of the preceding moment.  In systems like this, power tends to concentrate.

Take an area with no government at all.  When anarchy occurs, people start to form tribes led by warlords.  One might say that the rise of corporations is a similar effect.

What I'm saying is that there must be some method in place to break up the centralized power.  In America, this has been one of the functions of government.  Mind you, it doesn't need to be the government that does it, it just needs to get done.
BigD
6 years, 7 months ago
"Take an area with no government at all.  When anarchy occurs, people start to form tribes led by warlords.  One might say that the rise of corporations is a similar effect."

Except I'm not talking about an area with anarchy, which wouldn't be a very welcoming environment for a corporation.  And one key thing to keep in mind with a corporation is that it doesn't hold a legal monopoly on the use of force.  Minus government help, corporations can't make and enforce laws or use force legally, but must rely on the voluntary consent of their customers.

"What I'm saying is that there must be some method in place to break up the centralized power.  In America, this has been one of the functions of government.  Mind you, it doesn't need to be the government that does it, it just needs to get done."

You want to break up the centralized power, limit what the government can do.  No corporation could do what the government has done for decades and get away with it.
AlexReynard
6 years, 7 months ago
>No corporation could do what the government has done for decades and get away with it.

BP, Dow Chemical, Haliburton, Blackwater, Bank Of America, any HMO, the Catholic Church (if you want to get technical)... The fact that all of these corporations are still in business is proof that what you just said is completely wrong. Even though we caught them, what repercussions did they face? They 'got away with it' in every practical way.
BigD
6 years, 7 months ago
"BP, Dow Chemical, Haliburton, Blackwater, Bank Of America, any HMO, the Catholic Church (if you want to get technical)... The fact that all of these corporations are still in business is proof that what you just said is completely wrong. Even though we caught them, what repercussions did they face? They 'got away with it' in every practical way."

Blackwater is still around because there are still governments willing to hire them in spite of their reputation (and they also only exist because the government allows them to do so).  Bank of America got bailed out when they should've been allowed to fall (a nice example of what happens when business and government mix more than they should).  I'm not sure what Dow Chemical has done to deserve a complete shut down (do bear in mind that corporations are just as fallible as anything else, so mistakes they make shouldn't be an automatic death sentence).  BP has a lot of political influence (again, government and business mixing equals bad things), HMOs you'd have to name specific examples (sorry, I don't generalize), and same with the Catholic Church (no offense, Alex, but your hostility to religion is no secret; I prefer to be a bit more objective with such things).

Also, I notice how quick you are to blame the businesses in these matters, yet do you stop and wonder if the government failed to its job?  When a cop is bribed by a criminal not to do his job, who is more in the wrong?  The criminal, who is only doing what is expected of him, or the cop who is going against his duty to the people?  

Please do not take this as a justification for the government to meddle in all businesses, whether they be guilty or not.  It is only when a business commits an immoral act (ie, violation of individual rights) that the government must step in.
AlexReynard
6 years, 7 months ago
>Blackwater is still around because there are still governments willing to hire them in spite of their reputation (and they also only exist because the government allows them to do so).

...So you're agreeing with me.

>Bank of America got bailed out when they should've been allowed to fall

...So you're agreeing with me.

>I'm not sure what Dow Chemical has done to deserve a complete shut down

BHOPAL.

>BP has a lot of political influence

...So you're agreeing with me.

>HMOs you'd have to name specific examples

No, I don't. Health insurance is, by definition, a scam. In any rational system, taxes pay doctors, doctors treat citizens. There's no place in there for insurance companies. They're all no different from deer ticks.

>and same with the Catholic Church (no offense, Alex, but your hostility to religion is no secret; I prefer to be a bit more objective with such things).

So you have no argument against this, okay. Let me explain. By any objective definition, the Catholic Church is a business. Even if we tolerate polluting and stealing pension funds, I don't think Americans would tolerate a corporation who devoted that much energy to systematically protecting rapists. If morality functioned correctly, the Church as an entity would be broken up and its leaders jailed for life.

>When a cop is bribed by a criminal not to do his job, who is more in the wrong?  The criminal, who is only doing what is expected of him, or the cop who is going against his duty to the people?  

BOTH OF THEM ARE IN THE WRONG!!! What the fuck!? "Only doing what is expected of him"!? Are criminals some kind of subhuman beast, genetically incapable of not committing crimes, so we shouldn't expect any better of them?

...And this is your way of saying that, if a business commits a crime, the government is more at fault for not stopping them? THEN WHY DO YOU WANT TO RESTRICT THEIR ABILITY TO DO SO!?

>Please do not take this as a justification for the government to meddle in all businesses, whether they be guilty or not.  It is only when a business commits an immoral act (ie, violation of individual rights) that the government must step in.

So by that logic, cops should only arrest criminals after they've committed a crime, and should not be allowed to attempt to prevent crimes from happening?

I'm trying really hard not to strawman your position, but I honestly can't figure out what the fuck it is. Every argument you've made leads to the opposite conclusion as the one you say it does. Forgive me for being utterly confused.
BigD
6 years, 7 months ago
I'm agreeing with you partly, in that these businesses did wrong.  However, I'm disagreeing with you in that the reason they got away with it wasn't because of having the power to escape the laws, but because the laws weren't applied; instead those who are supposed to punish such actions did not do so.  THAT is the reason

"So you have no argument against this, okay. Let me explain. By any objective definition, the Catholic Church is a business. Even if we tolerate polluting and stealing pension funds, I don't think Americans would tolerate a corporation who devoted that much energy to systematically protecting rapists. If morality functioned correctly, the Church as an entity would be broken up and its leaders jailed for life."

Well, I've looked it up and you do have some merit.  As for why the Catholic Church is still around, first off, I doubt it can be proven that the Catholic Church as a whole (IE, every member from the top of the chain to the bottom) is involved, hence the law can only go after the people who actually do the crimes.  Second, the Separation of Church and State makes it rather difficult for the government to just shut down any church, and you and I both know that whether it was done for good or ill, it would raise a big ruckus politically and legally.  It's a difficult subject and I'm afraid I'm not in a good position to make a judgement call on what would be done.


"BOTH OF THEM ARE IN THE WRONG!!! What the fuck!? "Only doing what is expected of him"!? Are criminals some kind of subhuman beast, genetically incapable of not committing crimes, so we shouldn't expect any better of them?

...And this is your way of saying that, if a business commits a crime, the government is more at fault for not stopping them? THEN WHY DO YOU WANT TO RESTRICT THEIR ABILITY TO DO SO!?"

Alex, would it be asking too much for you to fully read my words before blowing your top?  I said "who is MORE in the wrong".  I never said one is and one isn't.  Yes, the criminal is doing wrong, but unlike the police officer, he is not entrusted by the public to protect them, hence when the police officer does it, not only does he share the criminal's crime, he is also violating the public's trust in him.

And no, I'm saying that when a business commits a crime, the government is also to blame if it doesn't step in.  And I'm not restricting their ability to do so; I'm insisting that it only be applied when it is correct to apply it.  Like it or not, innocent until proven guilty applies to businesses and their owners as well.  The actions of one business is not a guilty verdict on all of them.

"So by that logic, cops should only arrest criminals after they've committed a crime, and should not be allowed to attempt to prevent crimes from happening?"

Whether you like it or not, Alex, the law is meant to be reactive, not proactive.  A suspicion alone is not reason enough to arrest someone, unless said someone lives in a dictatorship.  

Now, there are some methods police can take to help prevent crimes that don't involve arrest (ie, checking businesses and reporting unlocked doors to the owner), but actually arresting someone is going to have to wait until after they commit the crime.

"I'm trying really hard not to strawman your position, but I honestly can't figure out what the fuck it is. Every argument you've made leads to the opposite conclusion as the one you say it does. Forgive me for being utterly confused."

Tip:  Approach it with an open mind, and if you believe differently, bring up your view so we can debate; don't come in with your mind already made up on how the world should work and anyone who thinks differently is automatically wrong.
AlexReynard
6 years, 7 months ago
>However, I'm disagreeing with you in that the reason they got away with it wasn't because of having the power to escape the laws, but because the laws weren't applied; instead those who are supposed to punish such actions did not do so.

I AM SAYING THAT THERE IS NO PRACTICAL DIFFERENCE BETWEEN THOSE TWO THINGS.

>As for why the Catholic Church is still around, first off, I doubt it can be proven that the Catholic Church as a whole...is involved

Not every employee of Enron was involved in their scam, but the business as a whole went under, as it should have.

>Second, the Separation of Church and State makes it rather difficult for the government to just shut down any church

That ay be true. Still, I would like to know if someone's ever done a legal analysis of whether it'd be possible to prosecute the Church as an entity, disregarding that it's in the business of selling religion.

>Alex, would it be asking too much for you to fully read my words before blowing your top?  I said "who is MORE in the wrong".

...And I said that 'more wrong' is irrelevant. Both are at least equally in the wrong. The cop may have violated the public trust, but without the criminal, the crime didn't happen in the first place. Plus, the criminal broke their own social contract not to do harm to fellow human beings. There is absolutely no reason to think either of them is less guilty or that either should face a lesser degree of prosecution.

>but unlike the police officer, he is not entrusted by the public to protect them

I'd argue that there is a deep, genetic social promise among humans. If we don't trust each other, we cannot have a society that benefits us all. A cop might have a second layer of trust they choose to take on, but that first layer is there for all of us.

>Whether you like it or not, Alex, the law is meant to be reactive, not proactive.
>Now, there are some methods police can take to help prevent crimes that don't involve arrest...but actually arresting someone is going to have to wait until after they commit the crime.

WRONG.

Proof: There are laws against stalking, conspiracy to commit fraud, conspiracy to commit murder, attempted murder, etc. Not to mention all the cops who sit around pretending to be little girls so that pedophiles will make dates with them. The law is unarguably both proactive AND reactive. So if cops can prevent a citizen from hiring a hitman to kill their spouse, they ought to have the exact same power to prevent a corporation from practices that would increase profits by putting consumers' lives in danger.

The idea that those consumers should have to suffer first, before the government is allowed to do anything, is not just incomprehensible, but evil.

>Approach it with an open mind, and if you believe differently, bring up your view so we can debate; don't come in with your mind already made up on how the world should work and anyone who thinks differently is automatically wrong.

Did you actually just call me closed-minded because I refused to agree with you?

Get the fuck out. I'm serious. I'm not going to ban you, but I am going to ask you to stop commenting here. If you think a business should have the right to control their property, then this is me saying, 'You can be wrong on my journals, but you can't be rude'. There is something uniquely, disgustingly cheap about implying your opponent is simply closed minded because they won't accept your worldview. Motherfucker, did you not hear the part where I said that I was trying my best to be open minded? Where I told you multiple times that I was having a hard time understanding your position and I didn't want to mischaracterize it? And you have the nerve to call that the opposite of what it is!?

Get the fuck out, and don't come back until you can take your own advice.
BigD
6 years, 7 months ago
"Did you actually just call me closed-minded because I refused to agree with you?"

More accurately, I was saying that you should set your views aside for a moment, look at my words objectively and without bias, think on them, then bring in your views as a counter-point so we can discuss things.  I don't require you to agree with me, only have an understanding of where I'm coming from so that any further discussion makes some sense.  And I also say that as someone who was once guilty of the same problem; it wasn't accusing you of anything, just general advice on what to avoid in a debate.

AlexReynard
6 years, 7 months ago
Since you can't seem to take a hint (and by 'hint' I mean 'telling you to get the fuck out twice') I really ought to block you. I asked you to leave, and then you posted three more times. <facepalm> So I have every right to force you to leave. Except I don't want to have to. I like the fact that I haven't needed to block a single person on Inkbunny yet. So instead, if you insist on hanging around, then I'm going to keep on embarrassing you by knocking apart your nonsensical arguments and juvenile behavior. At this point, I don't care anymore about changing your mind. I'm putting on a show for the other people reading this. I've got an endless cart full of cream pies, and if you wanna keep standing there and taking them in the face, I'm sure the audience will love it.

Let's start with this:

>You jumped to a conclusion about my words and you weren't even close to what I was referring to.  That is why objectivity is important in a debate.

You said you don't like unions, who concern themselves with the working conditions of employees, and then said they conflict with the right of a business owner to control their property.

The inference makes itself. I didn't jump to a conclusion; your words AND context led straight to it. It's not my fault you didn't pay more attention to your language. You getting pissy over that is as laughable as if a politician addressed a crowd of black guys as 'you people' and then had no idea why they were suddenly angry at him.

Plus, I didn't even argue against it as if I seriously thought that was your position. I pointed out your unfortunate choice of words and asked what the hell you were thinking. So it's doubly ridiculous for you to be acting like you have anything to be offended about.

And once again, because you ignored it before, where does a business owner get their 'right' to control their property? A right so absolute you seem to think they deserve greater protection from prosecution than an ordinary citizen? And before you argue with that, let me remind you of your point about the law being "reactive, not proactive", which I demolished, and which you also didn't respond to.

Do you have any idea how tiresome it is to deal with someone so gutless that, whenever you make a point against their arguments, they simply ignore it?

>More accurately, I was saying that you should set your views aside for a moment, look at my words objectively and without bias, think on them, then bring in your views as a counter-point so we can discuss things.

Do you really not understand how condescending it is for you to tell me that I need to do what I was already doing in the first place? Your dishonesty feels like a bad taste in my mouth. Your actions clearly show that you do not want to discuss things. You want to be agreed with. That's all you want. I have argued with dozens of people who react just like you. They sound polite and intellectual at first, but when I start pointing out contradictions, they either 1) get insulting or 2) get offended. When you argue without any honor; asking me to follow rules of debate which you ignore seemingly without even noticing it, you lose my sympathy. So sorry.

>I don't require you to agree with me, only have an understanding of where I'm coming from so that any further discussion makes some sense.

That's why I asked you twice to clarify your position. And when you did, I said it was wrong, and showed why. You can spot an intellectual coward when they resort to crying, 'You just don't understand what you're talking about!' when an opponent clearly does, and clearly sees through it.

>And I also say that as someone who was once guilty of the same problem

Well guess what? You still are!

>Alex, the drama is growing tiresome.

For you, maybe. :)
BigD
6 years, 7 months ago
If you're so used to people agreeing with you that a lone dissenting voice gets your blood pressure through the roof, I'll leave you be.  However, do give reality my regards when it wakes you up the hard way (and yes, I'm confident enough to say that you don't have a good grasp of reality).

I'll also give you a fair warning:  Those that don't uphold the rights of everyone will soon find their own rights defended by no one.
AlexReynard
6 years, 7 months ago
>If you're so used to people agreeing with you that a lone dissenting voice gets your blood pressure through the roof, I'll leave you be.

AHAHAHAHAHHAAAAAA!!! <pauses a moment to catch breath> ...WAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAAAHAAAHAAAAA!!!!!!

Christ, are you BLIND? Did I not make it clear enough that the problem isn't your dissent, it's your DISHONESTY!? It's the way you dissent. It's the way you ignore my arguments instead of even attempting to counter them. The way you choose to act offended rather than address my criticisms of your behavior. They way you indignantly accuse me of behaviors that I'm not guilty of but you are. The way you were too stupid to leave when I asked you to! It's like arguing with a broken record that plays nothing but nail-on-chalkboard noises!

Thankfully, I'm beyond annoyance, because now I'm on offense. Pun intended. I haven't had anyone to abuse in quite a while. So as long as you keep volunteering yourself...

>However, do give reality my regards when it wakes you up the hard way (and yes, I'm confident enough to say that you don't have a good grasp of reality).

Tee hee. I don't need to even touch that. I'mma just let the spectators make their own decisions. :3

>No, we don't agree on the premise.  My premise doesn't involve violating one person's rights to allegedly uphold another's.

Well, apparently it does, asshole! Because you're the one arguing that government shouldn't be allowed to interfere with business until after they commit a crime, a right which you have never justified, never explained, and which citizens do not share. Now, if you also believe that the law should not be applied proactively to citizens, that's still morally repugnant, but at least it'd be consistent. As it is, someone who wants to give businesses special exemptions from the law, when they already have the power to harm far more people than any one citizen could ever hope to accomplish, well... that sounds like evil to me.

>I'll also give you a fair warning:  Those that don't uphold the rights of everyone will soon find their own rights defended by no one.

That's cute. Didja get that out of a fortune cookie? What an amazingly simplistic worldview! A world where everyone's rights are inviolate. Nice thought, but in a society where people are allowed to be different, inevitably someone's rights are going to conflict with someone else's. Defending both of them isn't possible. Someone with a good grasp of reality would realize that morality sometimes requires you to decide that one man's rights are more important than another's. Especially if one of them is citing 'rights' which don't exist anywhere but in their own head.

And I like how you still can't comprehend that you're the one arguing that corporations have a greater right to be free from government prosecution than citizens have to be protected from corporate force and fraud. That is emphatically not defending the rights of everyone. That is defending the 'rights' of the already-powerful at the expense of the vulnerable. Are you actually a supervillain?
LandonFox
6 years, 7 months ago
> Except I'm not talking about an area with anarchy, which wouldn't be a very welcoming environment for a corporation. And one key thing to keep in mind with a corporation is that it doesn't hold a legal monopoly on the use of force.  Minus government help, corporations can't make and enforce laws or use force legally, but must rely on the voluntary consent of their customers.

> You want to break up the centralized power, limit what the government can do.  No corporation could do what the government has done for decades and get away with it.

Can you define specifically "What the government has done for decades"?  I say this because you also use the term "monopoly of force".  Without a "monopoly of force", there is nothing to stop McDonalds from hiring its own private army of mercenaries.
AlexReynard
6 years, 7 months ago
LandonFox
6 years, 7 months ago
If you're willing to go back to the late 1800's, then American companies did the same thing here with the Pinkerton Detective Agency.  Although I should note that they were not as violent as the Colombian paramilitary groups.
BigD
6 years, 7 months ago
Considering that was a time where our police forces were still developing and there were things they couldn't handle, the Pinkertons weren't necessarily a bad thing.  Do bear in mind that Pinkertons were used to guard the president, helped capture one of America's first serial killers, tracked Jesse James and several other notorious criminals, and transported money and other high value materials (a precursor to our present day armored car companies), hardly actions Columbian paramilitaries can hold claim to.
AlexReynard
6 years, 7 months ago
...and then they switched to brutally suppressing unions, because their morality depended on whoever could pay them the most.
BigD
6 years, 7 months ago
I should probably mention I'm not very sympathetic to unions, considering they and the politicians who court them routinely  violate a business owner's right to the control of his property.  When government won't uphold a business owner's rights, it shouldn't be any surprise if he turns to other means to protect them.
AlexReynard
6 years, 7 months ago
>they and the politicians who court them routinely violate a business owner's right to the control of his property.
>a business owner's right to the control of his property.
>his property.

Are employees property?
BigD
6 years, 7 months ago
Alex, the drama is growing tiresome.

I'm referring to hours, wages, who a business owner does and does not hire, etc, things which should frankly be obvious.  If you would get off your soap box, they might become more so.
BigD
6 years, 7 months ago
And Alex, if you want an example of what I was warning you about, that post was it.  You jumped to a conclusion about my words and you weren't even close to what I was referring to.  That is why objectivity is important in a debate.
AlexReynard
6 years, 7 months ago
BigD
6 years, 7 months ago
Alex, I did say they can't use force LEGALLY.  
AlexReynard
6 years, 7 months ago
>Alex, I did say they can't use force LEGALLY.

If you can do something illegal as a corporation, and the punishment you face is a trifling fraction in comparison to the sentence of an individual citizen who'd committed the same crime, then there's not really any distinction between legal and illegal.
BigD
6 years, 7 months ago
Can you define specifically "What the government has done for decades"?

Inflating the money supply and devaluing the dollar, manipulation of interest rates, forcing companies to over or undercharge for their products, using the law as a means of controlling society rather than protecting individual rights, etc.


"Without a "monopoly of force", there is nothing to stop McDonalds from hiring its own private army of mercenaries."  

True, but if the government's monopoly on force isn't limited in how, when and where it can be applied, it has the potential to essentially become that army of mercenaries.  Also, bear in mind that those companies that have used mercenaries (East India Trading company) did so only because of government permission.
LandonFox
6 years, 7 months ago
> Inflating the money supply and devaluing the dollar, manipulation of interest rates, forcing companies to over or undercharge for their products, using the law as a means of controlling society rather than protecting individual rights, etc.

Where the hell have you been reading this crap?   Some conspiracy theory website?   The government does not enforce price controls.  You want proof?  Gas is still high despite the fact that it would be very nice from politicians seeking reelection for it to be going down.

The money supply and inflation are controlled by the Federal Reserve, which does not answer to the government.  By the way, the only people who talk like this are the Ayn Rand cultist freaks...  and they're the guys in control the Federal Reserve.  So the people who told you this crap are the guys you are railing against.

> True, but if the government's monopoly on force isn't limited in how, when and where it can be applied, it has the potential to essentially become that army of mercenaries.  Also, bear in mind that those companies that have used mercenaries (East India Trading company) did so only because of government permission.

Please state how you would limit the "monopoly on force".
BigD
6 years, 7 months ago
"Where the hell have you been reading this crap?   Some conspiracy theory website?   The government does not enforce price controls.  You want proof?  Gas is still high despite the fact that it would be very nice from politicians seeking reelection for it to be going down."

You do realize you're talking about politicians, who aren't known for being logical, yes?  And considering how many environmentalists politicians are courting, I don't think it's all that strange they aren't pursuing ways to lower the price of gas with enthusiasm.  

"The money supply and inflation are controlled by the Federal Reserve, which does not answer to the government.  By the way, the only people who talk like this are the Ayn Rand cultist freaks...  and they're the guys in control the Federal Reserve.  So the people who told you this crap are the guys you are railing against."

First off, the federal reserve was created by an act of Congress, and some of its workings are controlled by the government (the government sets some of the salaries and chooses the Board Of Governors, and it's subject to congressional oversight).  Second, I'm not referring to the Federal Reserve; the US Treasury, through the US Bureau of Engraving and Printing and the US Mint, which are government entities, prints and coins our money.  

"Please state how you would limit the "monopoly on force"."

Simple.  It can only be used to prevent the initiation of force against others and would only be used when such force takes place, not before.
AlexReynard
6 years, 7 months ago
After reading this over several times, I am honestly not sure whether you're in favor of less government regulation of business, or more. What exactly is your opinion?
BigD
6 years, 7 months ago
I'm in favor of rational government regulation, meaning only protecting people from force and fraud and only taking action when such things are committed.
AlexReynard
6 years, 7 months ago
That's what confuses me, because it seems like the things you're advocating for would not lead to that.
BigD
6 years, 7 months ago
Probably because you and I don't agree to the same premise.
AlexReynard
6 years, 7 months ago
No, no; we completely agree on the premise. We disagree on what would accomplish that premise.
BigD
6 years, 7 months ago
No, we don't agree on the premise.  My premise doesn't involve violating one person's rights to allegedly uphold another's.
AlexReynard
6 years, 7 months ago
justacritic
6 years, 8 months ago
And there are some people who don't want to play this particular game at all and rather play some other game. But noooooooooo
there are those who force you to play your particular game and attempt to shut down or prevent access to other types of games
AlexReynard
6 years, 7 months ago
WHY would you ever WANT to play any other game? Isn't this one good enough for you!? That sounds pretty darn UNPATRIOTIC to me! What are you, a COMMIE!? <foams at the mouth insanely>

Tee hee. ;)
LandonFox
6 years, 8 months ago
I'm someone who coasted into a relatively easy middle-class life thanks to the lottery of birth.  Yes.  Yes, this is a fairly accurate portrayal of how things work.

It is both a blessing and a curse that humans are hard-wired to not notice the things we have going for us, only where can improve.  I mean, can you imagine if we decided that since only white-male landowners got to vote in America, and that was better than the aristocracy in Europe, there was no need to improve the system anymore?  The bad side of it is when we don't notice when others around us are struggling.

Have you heard about Troy Davis?  He was a kid shot for the crime of walking across the street while black.  One of the most interesting (if you can call it that) stories I heard was about a police chief asked about it.  He was teaching a class, and hadn't heard about it before hand.  So they related the story leaving out the race of all the people involved.  The police chief immediately realized that is was racial violence.  When asked how he knew, his reply was, "Sorry if this bursts any of your bubbles, but that kind of shit doesn't happen to white kids."

How are you supposed to "win" with THAT albatross hanging over your head?  I don't think, "trying harder" is going to cut the mustard.

Thing is...  I'm still hopeful.  Well, I'm hopeful at least in this regard.  The reason most people don't see the unfairness is that they have not actually SEEN it before.  And in the past, it wasn't very easy to see because there was a limited method of distributing information.  With the internet, there is more information.  Therefore people are more likely to both SEE the injustice, and meet the people for whom the injustice is done.  That will get people protesting that tank.

And by the way, this game is TOTALLY unrealistic.  If it even looks like the player will win, the rich guy in the tank will scream like a girl and press his litigate button.  This launches homing lawyers to steal everything the player has.
AlexReynard
6 years, 7 months ago
>I mean, can you imagine if we decided that since only white-male landowners got to vote in America, and that was better than the aristocracy in Europe, there was no need to improve the system anymore?

Excellent example. It reminds me of how much my teeth grind when I see people point to specific acts of human cruelty, and say that humanity is just doomed and our technology has failed us and everything's going to hell and wouldn't it be nice if the world just blew up and ended it all? Um, no. >.<

>Have you heard about Troy Davis?  He was a kid shot for the crime of walking across the street while black.

No; Troy Davis was the one the STATE executed. Trayvon Martin is the one some piece of shit neighborhood vigilante executed.

But yeah, I've heard of the case. And I'm rather glad to see how much the mainstream news has picked it up. I heard about it days earlier online. I am rather excited by the idea that citizens, as a whole, are beginning to tell the news what stories are actually important to them.

>The police chief immediately realized that is was racial violence.  When asked how he knew, his reply was, "Sorry if this bursts any of your bubbles, but that kind of shit doesn't happen to white kids."

Unless they're gay.

>How are you supposed to "win" with THAT albatross hanging over your head?  I don't think, "trying harder" is going to cut the mustard.

Sad thing is, as crudely blunt as the cop was, he's right. And the response was probably to fire him for being 'insensitive'. But part of the problem is us prioritizing politeness over truth when it comes to differences between people. This attitude makes people afraid to ask innocent questions, or say something out of simple ignorance, for fear of being called racist and losing their jobs or worse. We're *reinforcing* stereotypes by not allowing ourselves to analyze them with any honesty.

Also, I know that horrible, stupid violence like this happens. What's worse to me is that the killer hasn't been arrested. No matter where the blame for that lies, that fact is irrefutable proof that the system is BROKEN AS FUCK.

>With the internet, there is more information.  Therefore people are more likely to both SEE the injustice, and meet the people for whom the injustice is done.  That will get people protesting that tank.

YES. Holy shit Landon, you have no idea how much I wanna hug you right now. I've felt so alone in thinking that.

TheAmazingAtheist posted a video called "Something Is Wrong", about Trayvon's death, and two other cases of heartbreaking injustice. And he's right that something is inherently wrong with humanity when we're still capable of these acts. When we still think of anything or anyone different as a threat. But it occurred to me that something is *right*, too. Because of our technology, I am able to watch that video. I am able to see someone complaining about these three deaths, and know about them too. That's important. And also important? The fact that he can highlight these three cases, and society as a whole will be on the side of the victims. There was a time when it'd be considered heroic to shoot a black man you caught 'snooping around' your neighborhood. We're no longer like that. The fact that was SEE this as injustice is proof of progress.

>And by the way, this game is TOTALLY unrealistic.  If it even looks like the player will win, the rich guy in the tank will scream like a girl and press his litigate button.  This launches homing lawyers to steal everything the player has.

Tee hee. Well, I didn't want to overcomplicate things.

BTW, check out this conversation I had with Blackraven. I think I figured out what the game was missing.
LandonFox
6 years, 7 months ago
> Excellent example. It reminds me of how much my teeth grind when I see people point to specific acts of human cruelty, and say that humanity is just doomed and our technology has failed us and everything's going to hell and wouldn't it be nice if the world just blew up and ended it all? Um, no. >.<

Yeah.  At least I properly attribute it to be pissed off.  I usually mellow out after a "the world is fucked" session.  Although honestly, I think the world is fucked for completely different reasons.  It's not that we don't have solutions for our problems, it's just that we don't want to USE them.  Is the budget leaking red ink?  Raise the upper income tax bracket to 80%.  But people will whine and politicians won't get votes, so we don't solve our problems.

I've got no clue how to fix THAT mess.

> No; Troy Davis was the one the STATE executed. Trayvon Martin is the one some piece of shit neighborhood vigilante executed.

*facepalm*

> But yeah, I've heard of the case. And I'm rather glad to see how much the mainstream news has picked it up. I heard about it days earlier online. I am rather excited by the idea that citizens, as a whole, are beginning to tell the news what stories are actually important to them.

Yes.

You know, there is a podcast I like.  It's called "Best of the Left".  It's a show that takes snippets of news stories and arranges them according to subject.  It covers both mainstream new sources and independant news sources.  It also has a segment at the end where people can call up to give their own opinion, much like an editorial page.   Good stuff.

> Unless they're gay.

Point.

> Sad thing is, as crudely blunt as the cop was, he's right. And the response was probably to fire him for being 'insensitive'. But part of the problem is us prioritizing politeness over truth when it comes to differences between people. This attitude makes people afraid to ask innocent questions, or say something out of simple ignorance, for fear of being called racist and losing their jobs or worse. We're *reinforcing* stereotypes by not allowing ourselves to analyze them with any honesty.

So far as I know, he has not been fired.

> Also, I know that horrible, stupid violence like this happens. What's worse to me is that the killer hasn't been arrested. No matter where the blame for that lies, that fact is irrefutable proof that the system is BROKEN AS FUCK.

> Excellent example. It reminds me of how much my teeth grind when I see people point to specific acts of human cruelty, and say that humanity is just doomed and our technology has failed us and everything's going to hell and wouldn't it be nice if the world just blew up and ended it all? Um, no. >.<

Heh.  I can understand your anger there.  In this case, I don't think the problem is a broken police department so much as a police department that has been infiltrated by racists.  What do you do when you have a puss-filled abscess?  You lance it.

>>With the internet, there is more information.  Therefore people are more likely to both SEE the injustice, and meet the people for whom the injustice is done.  That will get people protesting that tank.

> YES. Holy shit Landon, you have no idea how much I wanna hug you right now. I've felt so alone in thinking that.

Aw.  You give me the warm fuzzies!

I should point out I was one of the people who stopped being a douche because I met people outside of my cult-approved list of people.

> BTW, check out this conversation I had with Blackraven. I think I figured out what the game was missing.

I'll see if there is something I can add.  No guarantees.
AlexReynard
6 years, 7 months ago
>It's not that we don't have solutions for our problems, it's just that we don't want to USE them.  Is the budget leaking red ink?  Raise the upper income tax bracket to 80%.  But people will whine and politicians won't get votes, so we don't solve our problems.

It's helpful to remember that America isn't the world. I'm sure there's other places that don't have our problems (they have other ones), and the more we're able to communicate, the more we're able to compare.

>I've got no clue how to fix THAT mess.

It'll probably take some sort of catastrophe. Coming from a dysfunctional family, I know we never changed *anything* of significance without reality intruding and forcing us to. I think that works on the macro scale too. So, yeah, unfortunately it's going to take something really fucking awful, something that affects all of us, for us to try to change anything.

Too bad we had a perfect opportunity right after 9/11 and we utterly wasted it! Derp!

>You know, there is a podcast I like.  It's called "Best of the Left".

Might look into that, thanks.

>So far as I know, he has not been fired.

That honestly surprises me.

>Heh.  I can understand your anger there.  In this case, I don't think the problem is a broken police department so much as a police department that has been infiltrated by racists.  What do you do when you have a puss-filled abscess?  You lance it.

More than just the police department. I've heard a bit about there being a law in Florida that's contributing to the police sitting on their thumbs. It sounds pretty much like, 'You can shoot anyone you feel like'.

>Aw.  You give me the warm fuzzies!

<gives you several large crates of more warm fuzzies>

>I should point out I was one of the people who stopped being a douche because I met people outside of my cult-approved list of people.

I've noticed that, to be effective at fighting something, it helps a lot to have been a part of it for a while. To actually know what it IS, instead of just the common perception of it.
chaosblackwing
6 years, 7 months ago
Just saw this story and had a deja vu moment regarding this journal:

http://penny-arcade.com/report/editorial-article/fligh...

Your version may be a metaphor, but these people seem to have taken the idea and freakin' ran with it.
AlexReynard
6 years, 7 months ago
Well, if you'll excuse me, I have to go throw up forever.
chaosblackwing
6 years, 7 months ago
Sorry, suppose I should have prefaced the link with a warning to save it until you needed to empty your stomach in a hurry.

Still, if it draws in the morons who are willing to pay to get a high score, that just means they won't be spending time on games that actually require skill, hopefully making those games just a bit less annoying.
AlexReynard
6 years, 7 months ago
That's a point. However, it seems like this game is designed too draw in children, who may grow up thinking shit like this is normal for games. That's immoral in a whole lotta different ways.
chaosblackwing
6 years, 7 months ago
Ah, yeah if it's being specifically targeted at children then people like that need to be shot, in the groin, repeatedly, with a taser, until they swear never to do it again, knowing that if they do it's not going to be a taser the next time.
chaosblackwing
6 years, 7 months ago
Found something awesome to make up for the puke-worthy link I posted: Singing lasers(singing 'Still Alive' of course).

https://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&a...
AlexReynard
6 years, 7 months ago
>Ah, yeah if it's being specifically targeted at children then people like that need to be shot, in the groin, repeatedly, with a taser, until they swear never to do it again, knowing that if they do it's not going to be a taser the next time.

Couldn't we just use sidewinder missiles?

>Singing lasers(singing 'Still Alive' of course).

Pooped a little from awesomeness. Also, look up "on eight floppy drives" on yourube for more music played on things you shouldn't be able to play music on.
chaosblackwing
6 years, 7 months ago
>Couldn't we just use sidewinder missiles?

Well the 'problem' with sidewinder missiles is you can only really do that once. And the mess, oiy the mess... mind, it still would be rather funny, but you still come back to the 'only able to do it once' bit.

>Pooped a little from awesomeness. Also, look up "on eight floppy drives" on yourube for more music played on things you shouldn't be able to play music on.

That... what... how... I am both confused as hell, and amazed as hell, that someone has turned freakin' floppy drives into musical instruments. Just more proof that insanity can bring about some seriously awesome stuff.
LandonFox
6 years, 7 months ago
> It's helpful to remember that America isn't the world. I'm sure there's other places that don't have our problems (they have other ones), and the more we're able to communicate, the more we're able to compare.

This is a good point.  South America and China are both on the rise.  Just be mindful that when it comes to different cultures, it is very easy to lose something in the translation.  Also, it's very easy to miss details about the situation on the ground, since you are not there.  Context is important.

>> I've got no clue how to fix THAT mess.

> It'll probably take some sort of catastrophe. Coming from a dysfunctional family, I know we never changed *anything* of significance without reality intruding and forcing us to. I think that works on the macro scale too. So, yeah, unfortunately it's going to take something really fucking awful, something that affects all of us, for us to try to change anything.

> Too bad we had a perfect opportunity right after 9/11 and we utterly wasted it! Derp!

We've got the collapse of our empire coming, so maybe we can use that.  Oh, and that IS coming by the way.  America's military strategy is to build more and bigger guns than the enemies, and be able to replace them faster.  We attrition foes down with superior industrial power.  It works great...  as long as the money is flowing.  With the investment banks pissing away the economy, the money will stop flowing.  And with it, the military will stop working as well.

> More than just the police department. I've heard a bit about there being a law in Florida that's contributing to the police sitting on their thumbs. It sounds pretty much like, 'You can shoot anyone you feel like'.

I remember this law.  I've been through a lot of different belief systems, including satanism.  As I was tossing that one away, I remember the satanists celebrating the passing of this law.  And I was looking at it and thinking, are they mad?!  Well, not all of them were celebrating.  I half wonder if the decent ones among them have found new ideologies by now.

> <gives you several large crates of more warm fuzzies>

*Squees!*

> I've noticed that, to be effective at fighting something, it helps a lot to have been a part of it for a while. To actually know what it IS, instead of just the common perception of it.

Yeah.  A lot of good people in the world used to be evil.  Part of the reason I get so pissed at the Ayn Randian cultists is that I used to be in that cult.  And honestly?  There's no excuse, myself included.  Religious conservatives hold not-thinking as sacred.  But Objectivists value intelligence.  And using your intelligence, you should be able to look for evidence that your ideas actually work.  And when you look for that evidence, you find they don't work.  In fact, they do the opposite of working, and pretty much ruin ANYTHING they touch.
AlexReynard
6 years, 7 months ago
>We've got the collapse of our empire coming, so maybe we can use that.  Oh, and that IS coming by the way.  America's military strategy is to build more and bigger guns than the enemies, and be able to replace them faster.  We attrition foes down with superior industrial power.  It works great...  as long as the money is flowing.  With the investment banks pissing away the economy, the money will stop flowing.  And with it, the military will stop working as well.

I so hope we'll be smart enough to collapse our empire the smart way; for us to collectively realize, 'Hey! Let's stop spending all of our money on guns, and spend some of it on FUCKING HEALTH CARE, EDUCATION AND INFRA-FUCKING-STRUCTURE!!!' That'd be nice. Unlikely, but nice.

>I remember this law.  I've been through a lot of different belief systems, including satanism.  As I was tossing that one away, I remember the satanists celebrating the passing of this law.  And I was looking at it and thinking, are they mad?!

http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/BadIsGoodAn...

>Yeah.  A lot of good people in the world used to be evil.

Heck, I'm evil. I realized that a while ago and actually had a 'it feels like I'm coming out of the closet' moment. I realized that there's a reason why I've struggled with mental illness all my life, but never had a diagnosis that felt even close to right. And then I was thinking about how my parents are both shitty, shitty people, so my genetics is basically a pile of reeking vomit, and I realized... 'Hey, I don't have a mental illness! My craziness is caused by the sheer strain of not being the awful, shitty person my genetics wants me to be!!' Almost every quality in myself that I'm proud of is something I chose to be; something the opposite of what my base nature tells me to be. This revelation basically explains everything in my entire life.

>Part of the reason I get so pissed at the Ayn Randian cultists is that I used to be in that cult.  And honestly?  There's no excuse, myself included.  Religious conservatives hold not-thinking as sacred.  But Objectivists value intelligence.  And using your intelligence, you should be able to look for evidence that your ideas actually work.  And when you look for that evidence, you find they don't work.  In fact, they do the opposite of working, and pretty much ruin ANYTHING they touch.

From what I've observed, and I may be wrong, objectivism looks to be a way to justify your very worse feelings of selfishness and heartlessness. To feel okay with being a monster. It doesn't seem to be about anything else. Just like religion lets stupid people feel righteous about everything they do because they have a sky-daddy telling them it's okay, objectivism lets you argue in favor of evil and feel smart about it. It's so much easier to build excuses around your worst behaviors than acknowledge them and work to change them. Does that sound about right, or have I just been arguing with a lot of doo-doo head objectivists?
LandonFox
6 years, 7 months ago
> Heck, I'm evil. I realized that a while ago and actually had a 'it feels like I'm coming out of the closet' moment. I realized that there's a reason why I've struggled with mental illness all my life, but never had a diagnosis that felt even close to right. And then I was thinking about how my parents are both shitty, shitty people, so my genetics is basically a pile of reeking vomit, and I realized... 'Hey, I don't have a mental illness! My craziness is caused by the sheer strain of not being the awful, shitty person my genetics wants me to be!!' Almost every quality in myself that I'm proud of is something I chose to be; something the opposite of what my base nature tells me to be. This revelation basically explains everything in my entire life.

> http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/BadIsGoodAn...

Now all you have to do is take all that "Bad is my Good" stuff, and do it in such a way that it is completely harmless.

"The shadow is my shield.  It keeps my enemies from finding my weak point."

> From what I've observed, and I may be wrong, objectivism looks to be a way to justify your very worse feelings of selfishness and heartlessness. To feel okay with being a monster. It doesn't seem to be about anything else. Just like religion lets stupid people feel righteous about everything they do because they have a sky-daddy telling them it's okay, objectivism lets you argue in favor of evil and feel smart about it. It's so much easier to build excuses around your worst behaviors than acknowledge them and work to change them. Does that sound about right, or have I just been arguing with a lot of doo-doo head objectivists?

> http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/BadIsGoodAn...

Some Objectivists really are just using it as an excuse to do what they want, just like some Christians use the bible as a shield for their hate.  What is hard for people on the outside to understand is that they really believe this shit.  When they say that greed is good, they really believe it.  They are fully convinced that anything other than allowing the most rapacious among us total and unfettered control to follow their most selfish and base desires will cause us to fall into a dystopian nightmare.  It's like the christian who backs Israel unconditionally because he needs them all to be genocided for his doomsday prophecy about them being tortured for eternity to come true... and then he wonders why Jewish people don't like him.

I guess what I'm trying to say is that that TVTropes link is a lot more true to life than people would like to think.

Actually, the two factions are very much alike in their motivation.  They fight and squabble a lot, but it all sounds more like Christians fighting Muslims.  Different faction, different creed, same motivation, same result.
AlexReynard
6 years, 7 months ago
>Now all you have to do is take all that "Bad is my Good" stuff, and do it in such a way that it is completely harmless.

Well, maybe not completely. I rather like the idea of 'making the world a better place by hurting the people who are making it worse'. Wolfblade and I were having a talk about stories/movies/games where the hero ignores the usual moral taboos placed on hero characters. Dexter, for instance. Obviously, I'm a tad too lazy, doughy and sweethearted to go out vigilante-ing. But I relish the chance to write my angry essays and demolish rude commenters.

There seems to be at least three of me. There's the cute, toony Alex; in control most of the time, who writes stories about love and joy and yiff. There's the older, parental Alex, who wants to care for the hurt and heal the world, who shows through in characters like Razielphustar. And then there's Alex the supervillain. The one who wants to take over the world for its own good and punish the evildoers. I really do feel like a different person depending on what I'm writing. And if I have one type of character interacting with the others, I have to be all three back and forth. As tumultuous as it can get, I'm glad for it. I don't think my writing would be as good if I couldn't see from so many different viewpoints.

>What is hard for people on the outside to understand is that they really believe this shit.

Oh, I don't deny that! I know too well that a person can believe in a lie that justifies all their worst behavior, and not have any idea that that's WHY they cling so hard to that belief. There's a reason religion is such a successful virus. It makes people feel pious no matter how they act. That's seductive. And I'm sure that's the same reason objectivism won't go away. People join it because it sounds compelling on paper, and it may never enter their minds that 'Hey, I sure do enjoy feeling smart by taking a position that conflicts with what almost everyone else thinks!'. Everyone wants to believe they're special. Rebel against the group, and that sets you apart. If you can find a way to do it that has built-in justifications and comes with a group of people who'll become your echo chamber, you're hooked.

One could seriously raise the question, can feeling right be the same as having a drug addiction?

>Actually, the two factions are very much alike in their motivation. They fight and squabble a lot, but it all sounds more like Christians fighting Muslims.  Different faction, different creed, same motivation, same result.

Yep. I look at how conservative christian rednecks view women and gays, then I look at the Middle East, and I think, 'The only difference between you people is that one of you listens to country music.' ;)
LandonFox
6 years, 7 months ago
Yeah, I was there.  I can tell you how the investment bank scam works if you like.  I've been playing World of Warcraft recently, so let me use that as an example.

In WoW, there is an auction house people can use to buy and sell goods.  There is an actual auctioning system, but that's almost never used.  Usually, people just put their stuff on sale and people pay the buy-out price, so it's a lot like running a store.  But since there is perfect information about how much each person is charging, and there is no difference in quality for a type of item, the only thing that determines what you buy is the price on the Auction house.  So there will be this countdown for price as everyone tries to undercut the other people and get their product sold.

Let me tell you how to manipulate the market for fun and profit.

1. This scheme is for items you buy in bulk, like copper bars.
2. Decide on a price you want to charge.  You want it to be expensive, but not so expensive people will balk at paying it.
3. Wait until after peak playing hours and when the market is either mostly sold out, or selling for a very low price.  Buy the market out up to anything that is twice the amount you want to charge.
4. Put everything you have on the market for twice the amount you really want to charge.
5. Due to an psychological effect called "anchoring", most people will simply accept your insane price and undercut you by a little bit.
6. Just before peak hours, check on the auctions.  If all your competitors have put in a really high price, you're good to go.  Pull your auctions for the insane price and put them in for the price you really want to charge.

When this scheme works, all your competitors will be charging the customers their first born son, while you are the "hero" who is only charging an arm and a leg.  As long as you're only charging enough to make the customers grumble, your stuff will sell for the inflated price.  After the scheme is done, the market usually returned to something more akin to what supply and demand would dictate.

Of course you realize that you are basically ripping off other players when you do this. That's why I don't do that sort of thing. So why am I talking about this?  I'm not actually talking about this to expose a scheme to manipulate the market.  I want to use this to explain the MENTALITY of people who don't balk at doing this kind of thing.

Take all that money that you've gotten by ripping off other players.  Put that down as money you are putting into the economy, therefore you are a wonderful example of the virtues of capitalism.

Of course, less copper got sold in total.  People had to put off doing things with that merchandise that would help your faction.  Ignore all of that damage.  Any attempt to prevent you from causing that kinda of damage is government interference in the market place.  It is inherently evil, and how dare anyone try to defend that communism.

That's the mentality you're dealing with.  It's why they turn up internal emails laughing at how grandma is going to be eating cat food because of how badly they scammed her.

Hell, I used to be one of those asshats.  It wasn't my proudest moment.
AlexReynard
6 years, 7 months ago
That made perfect sense to me.

I'm someone who's only able to keep stuff like this in my head for a few seconds before it dissolves like a pigeon in acid, so somthing like this is incredibly helpful to me. Thank you.

I'm still not sure how people were making money of sub-prime mortgages though. I know I had it explained to me once, I know it made sense; completely forgotten it. >.<
LandonFox
6 years, 7 months ago
If it makes you feel any better, it's not much easier for me.  I used that particular example because it was simple enough.  If you try to parse the details of some of the real life scams that wall street runs, your mind is going to get fried.
AlexReynard
6 years, 7 months ago
Exactly what they're counting on, I'm sure.
DraculJOSHI
6 years, 6 months ago
you are working for EA now?
AlexReynard
6 years, 6 months ago
I really don't know much about them, or video games companies in general.
New Comment:
Move reply box to top
Log in or create an account to comment.