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.
We get a lot of feature requests. If your feature request isn't already on our issue tracker,
then the best place to ask is the forum. This will help us gauge support for your ideas, before we add it to 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.
I looked in the issue tracker and it does not appear that I can search the forum. Has there been discussion about different phase lengths for retreats and adjustments from orders? It seems like a great way to have good order negotiations while avoiding downtime for phases that don't need the additional time. This would allow something like 3 days orders and 1 day retreat/adjustment.
BUG - there is a big black smooshed bug on my monitor
I've been scraping at it for weeks. Maybe a mod or someone who knows das interweb can help me. Its right on the spot where switzerland should be on my dip map. Ive tried everything. I cant see what units asshole France is putting there. His press he keeps calling me howie. Please help.
I was curious if Minotaurs actually built the buildings they lived in or if it was slave labor. And also would Minotaurs have brothels? It seems like yes but I get confused by who the patrons would be and what rules they would have
The Diplomacy game-board can be divided into six theatres of war, each of which is based on a historical front in the Great War. These theatres are the Western Front, Eastern Front, Italian Front, Middle Eastern Front, Balkan Front, and African Front. Each of them comprise various provinces on the game-board, and recognizing them can improve overall strategy . . .
Can you guys help me find a datasheet for this camera?
the model number is either H498A F1G23 or F1G23 H498A. I already tried www.datasheetarchive.com but feel free to try again. It's from a smartphone and I'm trying to repurpose it, but for that I need to know the specs.
Is the power of the deep state more dangerous than the Trump administration? https://m.townhall.com/tipsheet/mattvespa/2017/02/21/glenn-greenwald-what-the-deep-state-is-doing-to-trump-is-a-prescription-for-destroying-democracy-n2288815
@orathaic, are you aware that you're making my argument for me? "Communism in Russia was a belief system unto itself, it only promoted atheism as a means to replace it with a belief in the state." In other words, the Bolsheviks promoted atheism in order to maximize their control of people, which shows that atheism can be used as a tool for social domination and oppression just as effectively as religion. That's exactly the point I was making--taken as a whole, atheists haven't been any more committed to freedom and the common good than religious people. They haven't been LESS committed either; religious belief and commitment to freedom are independent variables.
"God is dead" never meant that religion was not a significant power. It meant that once belief in God becomes an option that people can take or not take, even the people who make the option to believe in God have a completely different mindset than people for whom God is an inescapable and unquestioned reality. Today, even if you believe in God, you are aware that believing in God is a choice--and so in that way you're stuck with the same burden of freedom that everyone else has to deal with.
@Pastoralan, no the Bolshiviks saw that religion was a tool for controling people, so they tried to get rid of it and replace it with their own system. Their system was not atheism.
Atheism is merely the lack of belief on god, atheism plus a belief in something is a belief in something. If they had ised a belief in L Ron Hubbard's Scientology, then you wouldn't be making this categorisational error, because you'd see his fantastical fiction as a religion.
There have been no atheistic states, because atheism on its own doesn't make any claims. It can't be used to control people because it isn't a belief system, it is the lack of belief.
But you as much as admit that religion is used to control people. The question remains, is this a good thing. And i would say, sometimes. We know instinctively how to be violent (and sexual, as it happens) but we learn when it is appropriate to be violent. Our instinct is biology, and our learned/conditioned behaviour is sociology.
Without a culture which teaches is to curtail our instincts, to control violence, or in the absence of culture, you see something like Papa New Guinea before the 60s. Whenever you meet a stranger you either attack them or you run away (because they are assumed to be about to attack you). Where stranger means someone not from your village - the extended family you grew up with, plus perhaps a few other families.
Learning rules to interact with others has its positives, it may start small with mutual gift giving (like we do at christmas and birthdays), because if someone is giving you gifts you have an alternative means of interaction other than violence. This is the begining of trade, but it is an important social tradition. So inportan it has survived in our culture (despite, i would claim being taken over by commercialism/comsumerism).
So yes, there are positives to religion, it can facilitate larger groups interacting without violence, a set of rules and social norms to create peaceful cities. Bounds between non-family members, and an understanding of what to expect from strangers.
Now in the modern world we preach tolerance of other religions aswell. This has become an accepted part of much of the world's culture. There are many places you can go without fear of being attacked, and this tolerance is perhaps secualar. It also tries to prevent discrimination based on religion, because that can lead to conflict. But it became necessary because many religious groups have NOT respected others (if the whole point of religions is to bring everyone under one umbrella of social norms, then respecting ithers isn't a benefit to what religion is driving at).
I would still say it has been a mostly positive force in this way. How and ever, when it comes to sexual behaviour, most religions have been used to consistantly control women's sexuality, for about 10,000 years. And i don't think this is anywhere near a good. Of course it is a consequence of patriarchal family structures, marriage where the daugther is sold/given away to another family*, property rights associated with farming and learning about breeding animals which farmers obviously discovered at some point...
It is not necessary to have all of these things in your culture. But to treat women like property, to be traded as breeding stock, requires a clear property transaction (marriage, with its dowrys, or bride-price) and understanding breeding animals is required because otherwise paternity is not something which we can easily know. And who the 'legitimate' heirs are is importat if you have property and injeritance rights.
So farming, on its own about 10,000 years ago, made the subjugation of women and control of their sexual behaviour, a successful (and i would argue possible) strategy for societies to adopt.
And you can see the remnants of this control of women's sexual behaviour in a lot of world religions today. And i would say this is exclusively an evil thing.
*i can't remember the name for this in antropology. But it is distinct from cultures where the make leaves their family and becomes a member of another.
@"That's exactly the point I was making--taken as a whole, atheists haven't been any more committed to freedom and the common good than religious people. They haven't been LESS committed either; religious belief and commitment to freedom are independent variables."
Ok, i will grant you that, if you categorise people into atheists and non-atheists, you will find that some people are committed to freedom, and other are not, in both categories. And i guess i'm saying you can't generalise all atheists as the same thing, just as you can't generalise all religious people.
In our culture we mostly generalise all Christians, or all Abrahamic religions (people of the book), because they are the dominant force (i'm irish, so with 90% of the primary education in my country controlled by the Catholic Church, i feel dominant is the right word). But it may make more sense to group different religions together - and even then you might say 'not all Catholics persecute women' - whereas to categorise all atheists together like they were one religion (or even a group of religions) is non-sensical. Atheists are not a coherent group following some creed. Atheism is not a system for social cohesion, a belief system which unites people (likes say Satanism in the US). It is merely a reaction to dominant religious forces, a rejection of that system, it does not profess anything as an alternative, as such you can't pretebd all atheists are the same - even more so than all Catholics, who at least have some common ground. The only common ground atheists have is a common rejection of religious controls.
Now you can ask what tules atheists follow, and in the Soviet Union, those are obviously state rules, a reverence or belief in the leader or ideology. In Secular societies, thise rules may be respect for all religions and none, a secular ideology which does respect freedom (including freedom of religion and freedom from religion).
As such, i believe categorising atheists together as a group is misleading at best, and a disingenuous attack at worst.
But i don't see it as an attack, it is a defense against criticism of religion, you have to oresent the alternative to religion as equally bad, in order to protect against a precieved threat. And this is understandable. Satanists at least present an actual threat, the belief in the Judeo-Christian deity, but also in rejecting it as Lucifer did, they believe in freedom from religion as an explicit tenant of their faith, and are using religious protection laws to curtail the freedom of others in order to push the religious right back from a position where they support laws allowing any religion push its views onto others (which is actually what Satanists believe in, if they are not a parody religion, like the Flying Spaghetti Monster, and i suspect they are not...)
But Atheists don't have any central church or organising body. And where they do have something in common, it is religious control which they seek to escape.
So perhaps it would seem Atheists and Satanists may seem similar, but Satanists have a creed uniting them (and so are arguable more likely to be successful in their opposition - because uniting people is one of the positive effects of religion which i have mentioned repeatedly, and atheists, as a rule, lack that).
(Also, neither was Nazi Germany a Christian state; it was a Fascist state. It killed Jews as outsiders (because that made them easy targets), to take their wealth (because communists aren't the only ones who steal your property), and as scapegoats (to blame any economic problems on, so blame didn't fall on the ideal of the Nazi party).
There was no deeply held religious motivation, even if the Church had made it easier by spending centuries blaming Jews for killing the Christ. Even as the Church retained a position of authority in Nazi Germany, and across occupied Europe and collaborated with the Nazis - that makes the church complicit in the crimes of the Nazis, it does not make the Nazis into Christians.
Suggestion: Full Press Communication Games Creation Option
One can always password games. But, it has limitations. What about tracking players communication levels in Full Press games? Assign a Press Level to each player based on amount of communication. Then, add a creation option to Full Press games for a minimum Press Level.
Acting AG Dana Boente is gonna have hell to pay tomorrow
Dana Boente, Obama holdover who is acting AG because Jeff Sessions recused himself is the guy who authorized James Comey to disclose that the Trumpov Team is under investigation for ties to Russia. Did not see that coming!