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.
In order to promote good playing behavior, I'd like to introduce the concept of "Death with Honor", which I suggest to be included as a tie-breaker in tournaments just after the number of wins. Definition follows:
He won the LPTPW thread with the following: "The zombie plague was but an elaborate decoy to allow my american troops to move into key locations around Belgium, such as Burgundy with the support from the rest of Europe to eliminate the zombie threat."
I know it is a little early, but I am curious. If the American presidential election were tomorrow, who would you vote for and why? You can pick Republicans who have not announced their candidacy yet. You can also pick a Democrat that you would pick over Obama.
Pondering the idea of writing some fan-fic for some epic games here. Does anyone have suggestions for games with lots of drama, twists, climax, etc? Would the players involved be willing to give interviews for the inside stories?
What are your thoughts? After a couple of couple of games under my belt I'm beginning to grow quite irritated at PPSC. It always seems to dwindle off into one less well doing player helping another better doing player to a solo for a fair share of points. More under the cut.
After the private university furore, Dawkins is in trouble again
Apparently one of our elders and betters has made a somewhat questionable analogy between a man chewing gum and the unwelcomed propositioning of a woman at an atheist conference. I am sure that this was eminantly logical but I am just struggling to see how!
I have a game that was paused, but one player hasn't returned for 3 days (he is not the one that requested the pause) and everybody else is ready to go again. How long does etiquette demand we wait? Can we even GET somebody to unpause it?
And how much greater a stench it is when it wafts in from just near my own backyard... http://latimesblogs.latimes.com/washington/2011/07/south-california-proposed-as-51st-state-by-republican-supervisor.html
That has to be the DUMBEST state idea I've ever heard. Period.
The slippery slope towards doing away with the EC was begun when Senators became elected by the populace and mot by the state legislatures. Once they became beholden to the people, their priorities and the balance of power in our federal system changed.
Well, not completely true... 26 states plus DC have laws and or pledges that require electors to vote for the popular winner, but one of those (Virginia) doesn't actually make it illegal. It says the elector shall be expected, not required, and most of those are a misdemeanor with a simple $1000 fine. If an electoral rep feels strongly about it, they could pay the fine and vote another way. Only a few states have serious criminal penalties in place for violating it.
The real issue is the electors won't be asked back if they go against "the peoples" wishes.
Honestly, with today's electronic communications we shoudl do away with the college altogether as we have the means to do a true popular vote for president and eliminate the issue of the one with the most votes not getting in office because he didn't get all the right states.
Yeah, because it's so much harder to tamper with electronic votes than paper ones. Oh wait...
The Electoral College isn't going anywhere. We are a federal nation, and this system strikes a balance between expressing the popular will and making sure the states (which are legitimate and popular political units) are adequately represented. It's only happened, what, three times that a president lost the popular vote but won the election? Out of what must be between 50 and 60 presidential elections that's not a bad record.
there have been 4, and 3 were HUGELY controversial. Why do we continue doing it when it tests the fabric of the Union every time it happens. 1. 1824- The first corrupt Bargain 2. 1876 the second corrupt bargain 3. 2000 Fourth was Harrison vs. Cleaveland, dont know of any controversy off the top of my head but i bet there was
Without throwing away the electoral college, individual states could get their mojo going and decide to divy up their votes by precent or percent or something like that. It wouldn't require the Amendment to the Constitution that eliminating the college would require, and would allow the states to decide how their votes were divied up. I believe 2 states already divy up the votes in some manner.
I couldn't be bothered to search it out. I just remembered reading that two didn't have the requirement in my quick research on states with and without laws requiring electors to vote the way the populace did.
Maine divides their electoral vote by the popular vote per congressional district. Since they have 3 districts/3 votes, each district determines the EC vote. It has happened that the state has cast 2 for 1 party and 1 for another because the popular vote in the districts worked out that way. Not a WTA like in Fla.
Apparently, Nebraska does it too, since I looked it up. Maine has four electoral votes, and two congressional districts, because your electoral votes are equal to Senators+Representatives. A district is the group electing a Representative, the whole state votes for Senators. So it works the same way as Colorado which I described above. The votes that represent Senate seats are done by whole state popular vote, the ones that represent House seats are done by district popular vote.
Just a thought--since we have so many apt and opposing personalities on the site that frequently debate topics, anyone interested in a more formalized session? Format ideas and the rest inside--and definitely open to ideas here--but basically it'd be sort of like the forum equivalent of a live game: 5 minutes for posts on the topics given, and then 2 minutes for a rebuttal, one person goes after another...we'll select for an impartial debate moderator...points awarded by moderator, and so on?