Forum
A place to discuss topics/games with other webDiplomacy players.
Page 387 of 412
FirstPreviousNextLast
ubercacher16 (443 D)
23 Aug 17 UTC
Live World?
http://www.webdiplomacy.net/board.php?gameID=205098
7 replies
Open
Ogion (3982 D)
16 Aug 17 UTC
(+6)
It is not OK to punch even Nazis
Look, the question of justifiable violence has been a profound and difficult problem in moral philosophy for ages.
I posit that violence is not justified as a political tool ever
344 replies
Open
Maltir (100 D)
22 Aug 17 UTC
Juggernaut
I know the dictionary definition, but what is this in game? How to you create one/deal with one that has been created?
28 replies
Open
michael_b (192 D)
20 Aug 17 UTC
Planned Parenthood's "Monthly Abortion Quotas"
I welcome all fellow Pro-Lifers and all all Pro-Choicers alike to discuss their reactions/thoughts about this interview with a Ex-Exec from PP in a CIVILISED AND RESPECTFUL MANNER. Is this the right direction? If not, what is to be done? I know its Fox News, but its what she says that matters.

Video: https://youtu.be/KUy7zugBMa4
19 replies
Open
dargorygel (267 D Mod (G))
21 Aug 17 UTC
(+2)
The Eclipse is over... and the Apocaclypse didn't happen!
Just saying...
5 replies
Open
Would I get banned if I supported a teammate in an Anonymous/no-chat game?
just wondering I'm in a tactical spot to do so but it seems super suspect and unfair almost
2 replies
Open
goldfinger0303 (1989 D Mod)
14 Aug 17 UTC
WebDip World Cup Results
The last game is in the books and we have a winner!
73 replies
Open
chluke (6121 D (G))
22 Aug 17 UTC
2015 Gunboat tournament results?
Who ran the 2015 Gunboat tournament? Would love to see the final scoring table here:

http://tournaments.webdiplomacy.net/gunboat-tournament
10 replies
Open
brainbomb (245 D)
20 Aug 17 UTC
(+2)
Steaks Diplomacy Game
Would anyone be interested in a -whoever wins grills- steaks diplomacy game? The notion is that we'd all have a potluck some amount of roasted veggies on a grill, and some ribeyes. We go to a ftf party, then get naked.
6 replies
Open
Maltir (100 D)
22 Aug 17 UTC
Length of Time
What is the average amount of rounds/years of one game of Diplomacy?
13 replies
Open
Maltir (100 D)
22 Aug 17 UTC
Bounce vs DMZ
What are the advantages and disadvantages of a bounce? Same question with a DMZ.
15 replies
Open
Oztra (30 D X)
20 Aug 17 UTC
What are the best threads over the past few years that people have had
e.g. funny ones
submit my own
http://webdiplomacy.net/forum.php?threadID=1417318&page-thread=1#threadPager
did that one myself heheh
19 replies
Open
Need 1 more for a live game!
http://webdiplomacy.net/board.php?gameID=205021
0 replies
Open
captainmeme (849 D Mod)
21 Aug 17 UTC
Age of Empires IV Announced!
https://youtu.be/RYwZ6GZXWhA

No gameplay footage, but I'm still hyped already :)
3 replies
Open
jengamaster (1813 D)
21 Aug 17 UTC
How abusive are you comfortable getting in your diplomacy?
I know flies with honey and vinegar and all that. But how fall are you willing to take it to accomplish your diplomatic aims?
12 replies
Open
captainmeme (849 D Mod)
10 Jul 17 UTC
(+7)
Petition to Introduce Chaos
Attempt #2. Let's get Chaos available to play on this site!
88 replies
Open
abgemacht (840 D (G))
19 Aug 17 UTC
Fortnite
A new Zombie killing/fort building FPS. A little heavy on the P2W aspect, but worth checking out, imho. I have a couple extra copies; PM me if you want one.
3 replies
Open
wpfieps (450 D)
20 Aug 17 UTC
(+3)
Stakes Diplomacy Game
Would anyone be interested in a tent stakes diplomacy game? The notion is that we'd all chicken-wire together some tarps into a tent sitting in the backyard of a trusted party, and fasten it to the ground with tent stakes. The pay-out is that if you solo, everybody else has to sleep out in it at the end of the game, with Krellin visiting the tent to wake y'all up every morning.
3 replies
Open
captainmeme (849 D Mod)
28 Jul 17 UTC
(+2)
Dramatic scenes as unprecedented movement occurs in webDip's longest running game
20 replies
Open
Scrub (241 D)
20 Aug 17 UTC
Just a thought
I just had a thought on a game where you can't support any of your moves (including support holds). I was thinking this would encourage alliances more and just make for an interesting game

For anyone who's interested here's the info gameID=204910
Password: manofmyword
9 replies
Open
DeeEnAye (100 D)
19 Aug 17 UTC
Has there been an actual WW1 simulation/approximation of Diplomacy?
Meaning orders & outcomes that best represent the events of WW1, which I assume would result in some sort of draw in the end, beginning either 1901 or 1914? I'm sure it's been done, but I'm a curious newbie.

11 replies
Open
Condescension (10 D X)
20 Aug 17 UTC
Stakes Diplomacy Game
Would anyone be interested in a cash stakes diplomacy game? The notion is that we'd all wire some amount of money to a trusted party, who would pay it out according to DSS at the end of the game.
2 replies
Open
Condescension (10 D X)
20 Aug 17 UTC
Stakes Diplomacy Game
Would anyone be interested in a cash stakes diplomacy game? The notion is that we'd all wire some amount of money to a trusted party, who would pay it out according to DSS at the end of the game.
9 replies
Open
JamesYanik (548 D)
20 Aug 17 UTC
Premier League 2017/18
Predictions and thoughts so far
5 replies
Open
Gezirah (107 D)
20 Aug 17 UTC
How do I find my game ID
This interface is a little confusing and outdated. Can anyone tell me how to even locate my private game's ID?
2 replies
Open
Enriador (100 D)
18 Aug 17 UTC
(+1)
What is this forum about?
Hello guys,

So, I have been browsing the forum a little, but it seems to be more like a Reddit forum where one can throw up anything they want to rather than
21 replies
Open
Ogion (3982 D)
17 Aug 17 UTC
(+2)
It is not OK to punch ISIS and Al qaeda members
If ISIS and Al Qaeda wanted to hold a march calling for death to America and a fundamentalist caliphate to take over the US then any who attack them or inhibit their right to free speech are evil violent people

Ogion (3982 D)
17 Aug 17 UTC
Discuss.
brainbomb (245 D)
17 Aug 17 UTC
(+2)
Sigh. Do we have to?

If ISIS and Al Qaeda show up to protest a Robert E Lee statue being torn down then its probably safe to call in some B-52s and AC-130 Gunships.

We could also send in Jeremy Renner. Hes always in weird war films.
Ogion (3982 D)
17 Aug 17 UTC
No, violence wouldn't be justified, as long as their peaceful calling for deaths to Americans. After all, the left is no better than Al Qaeda.

And yes, we have to keep doing this until decent people get it through their thick heads that, yes, racism is really really wrong and really really dangerous.
brainbomb (245 D)
17 Aug 17 UTC
(+1)
Theyre not going to Ogion. Keep fighting the good fight to sway 6 fucking webdip hermit crabs.

brainbomb (245 D)
17 Aug 17 UTC
I do appreciate your effort. But its basically never gonna change
StevenC. (1040 D (B))
17 Aug 17 UTC
(+1)
This is a bad example, Ogion. Last I checked, we are at war with ISIS and Al-Qaeda. The same cannot be said about neo-nazis.
brainbomb (245 D)
17 Aug 17 UTC
JamesYanik: Actually snarf snarf I found this link showing Isis and Al Qaeda are very moderate about the Confederacy. Snarf.
TrPrado (367 D Mod)
17 Aug 17 UTC
(+1)
I agree with OP.
Hellion19 (111 D)
17 Aug 17 UTC
If ISIS or Al Qaeda managed to bypass their no fly list and were US citizens and wanted to protest whatever terrible idea they have in a peaceful way then sure. If they went violent the police should do their job and deal with it.

The thing about free speech is you will know if its free speech when you try to say something people disagree with. The government itself should never crack down on protestors but know that there may be groups that also will protest against your protest. A good example is most of Westboro Churches protests. I disagree pretty much everything they stand for but sometimes Christians have strange ideas :P
orathaic (1009 D (B))
17 Aug 17 UTC
(+2)
@SteveC, did the US declare war on ISIS?

Being that your allies, the House of Saud, helped to fund them, and US policy in the region seems to be about ousting enemy of the House of Saud and ally of Iran, Bashar al-Assad. I suspect very much that this shit-fest is more complicated than the plot to GoT.
ND (722 D)
17 Aug 17 UTC
Violence is absolutely unacceptable and must be condemned on all sides.
brainbomb (245 D)
17 Aug 17 UTC
If violence is unacceptable - we could send in the band the B-52s and force ISIS to listen to love shack.

orathaic (1009 D (B))
17 Aug 17 UTC
Also, advocating for violence on the forum is forbidden; so it would be ok to ban hammer ISIS and Al Queada aswell as fascists neo-nazis, if they tried posting here.
orathaic (1009 D (B))
17 Aug 17 UTC
(+1)
@ND, have you condemned the police in the Us for murdering anyone this year?

Just wondering...
StevenC. (1040 D (B))
17 Aug 17 UTC
For all intents and purposes, we are at war with them, declaration or not.

And I don't agree with the US being allied with Saudi Arabia at all. We should have dropped them a long time ago.
Ogion (3982 D)
17 Aug 17 UTC
There is no declaration of war, Steven. Not that that should matter. Free speech for everyone and no matter how much of threat people should be allowed to chant "Death to america" all they want.
StevenC. (1040 D (B))
17 Aug 17 UTC
(+1)
US law makes clear and specific distinctions between true threats and hyperbole.
ND (722 D)
17 Aug 17 UTC
(+1)
Absolutely, anyone advocating violence (neo-nazi, fascist, alt-right, antifa, other extremist leftist groups, ISIS, Al Qaeda) should be condemned.

@Orathaic: My comment was in reference to domestic or international extremist groups advocating violence. I condemn these extremists advocating violence. The police and military (US) should attempt to act through peaceful means if possible. If violence is necessary to do their job and it is justified to protect law and order, society, the government, the citizens from extremists or declared enemies of the US then it is necessary.

If you have any links for the Police that committed murder and did not do their duty and just went around murdering people and were found guilty of that then I will condemn them too.
StevenC. (1040 D (B))
17 Aug 17 UTC
(+1)
I'm pretty sure that if verified ISIS members were having a peaceful march, they'd be arrested anyway. In the eyes of the US government, they're probably enemy combatants.
TrPrado (367 D Mod)
17 Aug 17 UTC
I wholeheartedly condemn Betty Shelby, whose acquittal was bullshit. The logic for it was:
"Well, we agree it happened, and it was pretty much definitely manslaughter, which is what the prosecution is trying for, and the evidence is pretty much all there, but we don't think the procesuction's arguments are as solid as they should be so we're going to acquit"
Ogion (3982 D)
17 Aug 17 UTC
actually, steven, I don't think that ISIS is engaging in hyperbole. True they don't kill as many Americans as the white supremacists, but they're still pretty clearly willing to kill innocent people.
Ogion (3982 D)
17 Aug 17 UTC
The logic was "she's a white cop, he is a black man, so of course she is legally entitled to kill him if she feels like it"
Ogion (3982 D)
17 Aug 17 UTC
Out of a little over 10,000 police shooting of black people from 2007 to 2017, only three cases have resulted in prison terms. That's a clearance rate of 99.997%. So, basically, yes, it is entirely legal for white cops to shoot black people, de facto.
MajorMitchell (984 D)
18 Aug 17 UTC
(+1)
First, as someone else pointed out, ISIS & AL Qaeda are declared terrorist organisations in many countries, not just the USA, so members of those organisations can and would be arrested and detained. I can't really express an informed opinion about how protests are "managed" in the USA. In Australia, in most jurisdictions, a permit from the relevant local Council is required to have any form of rally, so if you want a hypothetical, then the "Friends of ISIS & AL Qaeda" ( because those organisations, ISIS & AL Qaeda are declared terrorist organisations so they will never get a permit to do anything, except go straight to jail ).. The "front" group would have to get a Council permit to hold their rally/protest, to get the permit they'll need "public liability insurance".. and that will be extremely difficult to get. Then the local Council can probably refuse the permit on the grounds of risk to public safety. So assuming as a hypothetical question that a " front" group managed to get a permit to hold a political rally/protest, and it's so unlikely as to be a "never going to happen", and more than three people and a three legged dog turned up to support the political rally/protest then if outraged members of the public tried to prevent the rally/protest going ahead, and attempted to do so with violence, then those outraged members of the public are not evil, just stupid for allowing passion to overrule common sense, and I suspect that most Police would act to deter and prevent them from committing any act of violence, and if the omotps ( outraged members of the public, plural) complied with the Police directives I think most Australian Police would " let them go with a caution"...it's only when an omotp actually assaulted a Police officer that an arrest is likely. Or if an omotp actually assaulted another person, and the assault was witnessed by a Police officer, then the Police have no choice, they have to take action.
There has to be rule of law. In Australia it's an offence to encourage violence or racial discrimination.. I'm a bit vague on the specifics, but if a "front" group was having this hypothetical rally, then any offending signage constitutes an offence, so that gets confiscated and an infringement notice with fine is issued, any speaker who "says the wrong thing" gets shut down and reported, charged and prosecuted, if they keep making offending remarks they get arrested.. By violating the conditions of their permit to hold a rally, they "void their permit" and get shut down immediately.
So, quite frankly, your abstract hypothetical is in all practical terms, in Australia, just never going to happen in real life. And rightly thus.
orathaic (1009 D (B))
18 Aug 17 UTC
@"Absolutely, anyone advocating violence (neo-nazi, fascist, alt-right, antifa, other extremist leftist groups, ISIS, Al Qaeda) should be condemned"

Agreed. Freedom of speech must have limits.

@"@Orathaic: My comment was in reference to domestic or international extremist groups advocating violence. I condemn these extremists advocating violence. The police and military (US) should attempt to act through peaceful means if possible. If violence is necessary to do their job and it is justified to protect law and order, society, the government, the citizens from extremists or declared enemies of the US then it is necessary. "

Why is that justified? What makes police protecting people from violet extremists any different from anti-fa members protecting people from violent extremists?

And yes, there have been many example of people with power in both the military or police abusing that power. Just to remind you of the worst examples, Abu Ghraib prison?

The US military can't be found guilty of any war crimes because the US refuses to sign up to the International criminal court. Thus it is not possible for me to demonstrate any court case where this has happened. That does not mean serving US military personnel haven't murdered, raped, or disfigured people unjustly. It merely means your state doesn't care.
JamesYanik (548 D)
18 Aug 17 UTC
(+1)
"Why is that justified? What makes police protecting people from violet extremists any different from anti-fa members protecting people from violent extremists?"

1. antifa aren't JUST protecting, many of them are starting fights
2. vigilantes are generally dangerous individuals, this isn't some comic book
3. antifa has no ties to the general public, meaning they do not have any responsibility for their actions. whomever they deem punch worthy, IS punchy worthy.


let me phrase it this way:

how about we private individuals act as the police freely, with no oversight, and where they get to determine what is moral and what is not?
orathaic (1009 D (B))
18 Aug 17 UTC
I'm with you JY, vigilantism is not good.

But assuming that all actions taken by police are good is naive. There is ample evidece that police officers will lies to get convictions (because they think the person is guilty) will coach victims when taking statements, and will support their colleagues.

That means it can become very difficult for the justice system to effective hold police to account when the do make mistakes or abuse their power.

I'm only putting the two on a parity because ND seems to have a very idealistic notion of how justified violence by police (often against non-violent protesters) is, contrasted with how unjust the kind of vigilantism antifa are guilty of.

It is a very authoritarian stance, where authoritarians are people who believe in authority ie they love having someone else tell them what is just, fair, and moral. And tends to be more common among conservative people (who also trust in tradition as authoritative).
MajorMitchell (984 D)
18 Aug 17 UTC
(+1)
Police have powers derived from laws. Government's have sovereign powers, and Parliament enacts legislation.. Giving Police their legal authority. An ordinary citizen doesn't have those powers under the law.
orathaic (1009 D (B))
18 Aug 17 UTC
Citizens have rights, including a right to defend themselves. These can be derive from natrual justice, whether enunciated in a constitution or not.
Ogion (3982 D)
18 Aug 17 UTC
@MM, Part of my tongue in cheek point is that the KKK and neonazis are also declared terrorist organizations. They advocate violence and their members engage in murder at least as frequently as ISIS and Al-Qaeda do.

So far the only distinction that holds water that I've seen are the issues about the AUMF being stretched to cover ISIS. (Authorization for the Use of Military Force against Al-Qaeda in Afghanistan which is what is providing the legal basis for attacks on ISIS these days, but that's really questionable from a legal perspective.)
JamesYanik (548 D)
18 Aug 17 UTC
(+2)
@Ogion

In the last 30 days there have been 154 Islamic attacks in 27 countries, in which 1102 people were killed and 1086 injured.

https://www.thereligionofpeace.com/attacks/attacks.aspx?Yr=Last30


meanwhile there have been 150 right wing terror incidents in the united states in the last 24 years, not all of them lethal

https://www.adl.org/education/resources/reports/dark-constant-rage-25-years-of-right-wing-terrorism-in-united-states


Error 404.

Your argument does not appear to exist
orathaic (1009 D (B))
18 Aug 17 UTC
(+2)
@JY i think Ogion's arguement was that only American citizens count as people :p
Ogion (3982 D)
18 Aug 17 UTC
Roughly, it is that white supremacists are ignored even though their record is more severe than ISIS'. It isn't just that only citizens count, its that only white ones so. Anyway Al Awlaki was a US citizen. Somehow no one is talking about drinking or arresting Richard Spencer.
JamesYanik (548 D)
18 Aug 17 UTC
@Ogion

in the context of the 20th century they have had much more violence and killing, but in the last 20-30 years they've really been less prevalent.

i agree that there's been a disturbing rise in the alt right though these last few years, and Naziism and White nationalism is on a rise with it.
MajorMitchell (984 D)
19 Aug 17 UTC
(+1)
Ogion, may I make this observation. The Northern States may have won the Civil War, and the two main reasons for fighting that war were, firstly and most importantly, the preservation of the "Union" and secondly, to end slavery in the USA, of perhaps lesser importance to "the men in power in the northern states".
But despite losing the Civil War the "South" refused to fully accept the result ( like many Germans after WW1, the Nazis in particular who believed the German military didn't lose that war but we're "betrayed by the Politicians")
So there was a century of entrenched racial discrimination and oppression in the South, that was never successfully opposed by the Federal government of the USA.
And those " recalcitrant southerners " who enjoyed the priveliges of that discrimination and oppression still see any attempts by the oppressed to gain any degree of equality as "an attack on their rights" ( which I think is a ludicrous proposition, but there it is )
Their "ludicrous outrage" was demonstrated by the fanatical opposition to Obama's Presidency, so what might have been an opportunity for a "National healing" like what occurred in South Africa with Mandela's Presidency, was lost, and bitter divisiveness has been the result. And those fanatics blame Obama for the enduring divisiveness, and stubbornly refuse to accept responsibility.
Ogion (3982 D)
19 Aug 17 UTC
Roughly that's my understanding. Slavery was abolished by force, but the south (and frankly much of the rest of the country) wanted to get as close as possible as was allowed, and the idea of a black president was so offensive that all rationality went out the window.

I will point out that Trump has at his disposal pretty much all the tools Hitler needed to take over and disband the democracy. Why wouldn't he do that?
Ogion (3982 D)
19 Aug 17 UTC
A majority of the ruling party would support not having elections in 2020.
http://thehill.com/homenews/campaign/346000-poll-about-half-of-republicans-would-back-postponing-2020-election-if-trump

Just think about that fact for a moment.
MajorMitchell (984 D)
19 Aug 17 UTC
Looking forward to seeing a Woman of mixed "Latino/Asian" heritage become President, or a Woman of "native American Indian" heritage. Those rednecks will have conniptions. You'd have to think, and I hope that it is inevitable that a Woman will be President of the USA at some stage.
JamesYanik (548 D)
19 Aug 17 UTC
(+1)
@Ogion

1. Trump could not have won without winning counties that went Blue for Obama in Pennsylvania, Michigan and several other key states. To say that these people are for progress behind a black man one second, and then they're racists another, makes no sense. it's the working class who wants to have a good economy, and both Obama and Trump made the most seemingly genuine appeal to them that they could do that

2. That poll did not say NOT HAVING ELECTIONS, it said POSTPONING. please do not lie

3. This was a BAD poll

originally published by Washington Post

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/monkey-cage/wp/2017/08/10/in-a-new-poll-half-of-republicans-say-they-would-support-postponing-the-2020-election-if-trump-proposed-it/?utm_term=.b48a28da004d

"Here’s how we did our research:

The survey interviewed a sample of 1,325 Americans from June 5 through 20. Respondents were recruited from the Qualtrics online panel who had previously reported identifying with or leaning toward one of the two major parties. We focus on the 650 respondents who identify with or lean toward the Republican Party. The sample has been weighted to match the population in terms of sex, age, race and education.

After a series of initial questions, respondents were asked whether Trump won the popular vote, whether millions of illegal immigrants voted, and how often voter fraud occurs. These questions evoke arguments frequently made by Trump and others about the integrity of the 2016 election.

Then the survey asked two questions about postponing the 2020 election.

If Donald Trump were to say that the 2020 presidential election should be postponed until the country can make sure that only eligible American citizens can vote, would you support or oppose postponing the election?

What if both Donald Trump and Republicans in Congress were to say that the 2020 presidential election should be postponed until the country can make sure that only eligible American citizens can vote? Would you support or oppose postponing the election?"


ERROR 1:

The first major indicator of a bad poll is that they're suspecting this group of 650 respondents is a homogeneous representation of all Republicans, based off of the fact they surveyed on an online poll. This is some basic response bias, the people most likely to search out an online poll and do it, are more likely to be large political advocates. this means fewer moderate political voters will be surveyed

ERROR 2:

it only says "after a series of initial questions" and then asks the questions pertaining to the basic debate over how often there are illegal votes cast. What were these questions? they do not say. These questions could have easily been worded to evoke a more visceral response from Republicans, rather than calm rational ones. The fact they haven't made these questions public is also telling.

ERROR 3:

It is only a binary option. There is no "if congress and Trump gave reasonable evidence, then yes" or any sort of qualifier. People are left to their gut feeling. Once again, what were the initial questions? This can play a major role in their responses. Frankly, if I found documented evidence of massive voter fraud, I would want to postpone the election as well. I do not believe there is any such voter fraud, but it depends on what evidence is put before me in the next 3 years.



To use this study as a way to demonize all Republicans is absolutely idiotic. It was poorly conducted, and has already received a lot of criticism from more reputable pollsters.
JamesYanik (548 D)
19 Aug 17 UTC
trump also to clarify on my own personal opinion... i do think there are many supporters who legitimately wouldn't care if Trump stayed in power indefinitely. but 50% of all GOP? hell he has a 35% approval rating overall, and there are quite a few disgruntled players in his own base right now.
MajorMitchell (984 D)
19 Aug 17 UTC
@ StevenC. There's a very simple reason why the Government of the USA overlooks the lack of democracy in Saudi Arabia, and ignores the other "sins" of the rulers of Saudi Arabia.. Oil and money..and the Saudis are big customers of the US armaments industry. Look at the way Trump pandered sycophantically to them on his recent visit. It's not just the USA that behaves that way to the Saudis. The British Government behaves in a similar way, as do many other nations, as does my own.


41 replies
DealMerchant (911 D)
19 Aug 17 UTC
What do you all think about Faustian stories?
Diplomacy is a great playground for turning on friends for personal advantage, and I'm pretty sure everybody might compromise their held virtues for a little harmless gain in most places of their lives. Do you all think Faustian narratives are on point the more we all trod into the great 21st century, or is the devil obsolete and unversed in the digital age?
11 replies
Open
MrcsAurelius (3051 D (B))
17 Jul 17 UTC
Better be feared than loved, if you cannot be both
Setting up what hopefully will be a nice classic game. Would like to keep it GR 100ish, to ensure quality and reliability.
71 replies
Open
teh_duke (814 D)
19 Aug 17 UTC
technical issues
anyone else having technical issues with the site at the moment? i cant put in orders and more often than not the site wouldnt even load or refresh
4 replies
Open
Page 387 of 412
FirstPreviousNextLast
Back to top