A place to discuss topics/games with other webDiplomacy players.
Start a new discussion in the public forum
Post a new thread
If your post relates to a particular game please include the URL or ID#
of the game.
If you are posting a feature request please check that it isn't mentioned in the todo list.
If you are posting a question please check the FAQ before posting.
If your message is long you may need to write a summary message, and add the full message as a reply.
Could someone please clarify the following hypothetical situation for me: Player 1 has armies at A and B, and Player 2 has armies at C and D. B supports A into D, and C and D both move to A. Does C end up in A?
"MadMarx Beyond Metrodome" End Of Draft Statement.
I was picking on the turn. Which means that I was picking last in the draft order, tenth out of ten people. It also means that the draft was a serpentine draft, where I would get last pick and first pick in alternating rounds; two picks in a row all draft.
Make an argument using wacktacular reasonong. Example: bottled water should be taxed for road maintenance, because if more water was available we'd be further along in fusion research, but the bottled water companies don't want their product classified as a fuel, so they keep sabotaging fusion research, and hence force us to burn fossil fuels
OK, let's say there are 4 players left, 3 determine they'll draw and slowly destroy the 4th (diplomacy does nothing). If you are the 4th and have the ability to aid one of the others to solo, do you do it? I sure as hell would!
Except...I SAID this WASN'T a debate, Miro...see, it doesn't say "This Time On Philosophy Weekly..." at the top of the page.
It says "A Rememberence."
Or would you debate a dead man as he was being lowered into the grave?
As for the other comments you strung together, most quoting something I said from that last post...well, you say you're leaving, you're staying...a bit melodramatic and attention grabbing, don't you think; on a thread dedicated to 3,000 people who died in an attack, this suddenly becomes about YOU?
Besides--unless you're Brett Favre that whole "I'm leaving/I'm staying" bit gets old... ;)
But I have no desire to debate you, Miro, not here...not at all, really, but at least in a philsophy thread I can go through with it, as that's YOUR idea against MY idea.
This isn't about us, and there was no debate to begin with, so...sorry, Miro, you'll have to attempt to bait someone else.
Someone else (can't remember who) on this thread said that on 9/11 and directly afterward (getting back to the actual PURPOSE of this thread and now adressing the everyone) that there were no Americans, no Mexicans, no Chinese or English or French or Indian or what have you, that for a split-second, it seemed, everyone was united in their mutual condemnation and sorrow for those dead.
It's perhaps folly to assert that any postive can come from such a great negative as 9/11, but if there was such a positive, or can ever be one, it would surely be that feeling of international unity. Any way and any front you look at in the following wars, they've alwyas worked upon the idea of divides between nationalities and races and beliefs. If there's anything to be learned from 9/11 it's that such ideas only go so far, and that something more, whether inherent within a sort of human nature or somehow a quality all men seen, somehow, to attain, factors into the determination of the human spirit--and that, while we might be years, decades, perhaps centuries still away from such a moment, there must be, there should be a moment when that deeper thing becomes the penultimate thing that matters for all men. There were no Democrats and no Republicans that day; Fox and MSNBC weren't sniping at each other that day (which makes it all the more sickening to think how many political debates have since cropped up with each side claiming to take a greater stance on the crisis they, for a moment in time, truly had the greatest stance against, a united stance.)
I don't personally know anyone myself, thankfully, who died that day, or was even involved, and that and the fact I was 3,000 miles away in a suburb about two hours from Los Angeles might make the following comment about the tragedy of 9/11 in New York City, but even still--while I cannot act as a speaker for the dead, I must imagine that they would not want to have died in vain, if the had to die at all, and so that unity, that coming together of man should and must happen, both for the philosophical reasons but, far more pertinent than that, to be sure that the victims of 9/11, the victims of the Madrid train bombing, the London bombing, the veterans, the families, that ALL those who have suffered at the hands of these atrocities should not have doen so in vain.
wow Miro I am absolutely shocked by you. At first I just thought that you just made a mistake about something you wrote in your first couple posts because english is a second language for you and so I was going to give you some space. But my fucking god you are an idiot. Stop bringing up stupid, irrelevant, points and just answer the questions. Plus, how the hell would not invading afghanistan been a good plan? Oh and just so you know no one here thinks that saddam hussein was linked to 9/11. I don't know what shit they feed you in europe about Americans but we aren't quite as stupid as you think we are. Either answer the questions or shut up.
wow Miro I am absolutely shocked by you. At first I just thought that you just made a mistake about something you wrote in your first couple posts because english is a second language for you and so I was going to give you some space. But my fucking god you are an idiot. Stop bringing up stupid, irrelevant, points and just answer the questions. Plus, how the hell would not invading afghanistan been a good plan? Oh and just so you know no one here thinks that saddam hussein was linked to 9/11. I don't know what shit they feed you in europe about Americans but we are not quite as stupid as you think we are. Either answer the questions or shut up.