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 Game 18212, I have the option to build 2 units, that is correct. I control the SC in Sweden, but I get no option to build there, an army nor a fleet. I can build elsewhere, but Sweden does not appear as an option.
I am not complaining to the Admins as if this is a big or unfair... I am new to the game, so I am asking anyone if this might be part of the rules and there might be a valid reason this is not allowed?
http://www.webdiplomacy.net/board.php?gameID=16852 Just finished this game and thought it might interest people. Italy ended up with a pretty good stalemate line against England and France, but with enough free SCs within the line to win. It became a race between Italy trying to gobble up the last few SCs before England and France could break through.
Can you support a enemy's attack on your own troops?
If I remember correctly, if you make a supported attack on your own troops it will fail. But what if you use one of your units to support the enemy's attack on one of your troops? Will that support be effective?
oh, not being american i ignored her as soon as she didn't get Obama's job.
How and ever this site is actually claiming that she never was, she was just being a dutiful wife and serving her husband (who wasn't able to get elected (again) due to the hatred of the lie-beral media)
She was very much in charge, as long as it held her interest. What did she accomplish? Basically, whatever it was that needed to be done to get noticed, regardless of any worth to the state. As soon as she saw a bright shiny thing, however (The Vice-Presidency, then a Book Tour), she quit.
Oh, and I hate Sarah Palin as much as you guys do. She singlehandedly sank the RNC. She's an ignorant redneck bitch who thinks she can resign as governor of Alaska and have any political future after that. I will still say that NO ONE deserves the crap the media dished out for her. The media was way too harsh on her, but she deserved a decent chunk of the mud slinging.
@TMW: So, are you claiming it wasn't liberal? Because, a conservative would be for no privacy, no rights, only be christian, legislate morality, steal(as long as you are rich or a corporation), and weak federal regulation of corporations. Ok, I will give you partial credit on the limited federal power, based on them wanting the federal government to be toothless. But, then, you don't get total credit, because conservatives argued and have defended the idea that the president is a king that can ignore Congress, declare people as non-people and torture them.
Tantris, I can honestly say that you have no idea what conservatism is. Conservatism is the political ideology of "social morality" and supply-side economics. In normal speak: "defend" marriage, cut corporate taxes to European levels ideally, and have a defensive military ready to fight whenever need be.
Oh, and America was founded on liberalism. It was founded on maximum privacy, progressive freedoms, and freedom of voluntary exchange. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Classical_liberalism
Mercury- he never used the word "conservatism" to imply that ideology, he seemed to be discussing modern day Republicans, aka conservatives... i agree with him, to an extent. american was "founded on" federalism by deists... i wouldn't say they were too progressive from a modern p.o.v but i see what you are getting at
The modern terms 'liberal' and 'conservative' have almost no bearing to their meanings of 200 years ago. Liberals wanted more freedom back then and conservatives wanted power to remain in the hands of the king/church (generally speaking).
you're throwing around "freedom" awefully loosely there, for an historian tolstoy... liberals were republicans in the sense that they favored republics over monarchies, yes. tmw, explain how they would be "radically conservative" i still disagree. conservatives (and i take it we are discussing people like john adams, thomas jefferson, thomas paine, hamilton, and these were very different people politically let's not mush them together) in the modern sense favor little government power overall especially in terms of interference/regulation of the economy... just not the case in the critical period after the ratification of the Constitution. Hamilton, as a federalist, was huge on government involvement in stabilizing/ expanding the economy via creating national banks (through loose interpretation of the Constitution). then again, we are discussing two completely different political scenarios, and we digress from the topic. i think we all agree here that sarah palin's resignation is a boon for the country, or at least alaska, poor depressed state...
Our founders laid it out that everybody is born with rights just for being a person. The Constitution originally stated that people can basically do whatever they want so long as it doesn't take away they rights of others. Government was put into place to help ensure that a strong individual couldn't trample the rights of a weak individual. However, our founders were smart enough to realize that the largest bully on the block is eventually the government, so they tried to put limitations on government powers. Unfortunitely our system has become perverted to the point where those limitations have all but disappeared. We were founded as a Republic, not a Democracy, and for good reason. In a Democracy the majority can take away the rights of the minority, but in a Republic the government is supposed ensure that doesn't happen. Our leaders have one job, defending our Constitution. Instead most of them go and do the bidding of those with money and votes at the expense of the oaths they have taken.
TMW, liberal and conservative didn't both do a '180'. It's more nuanced than that. The founding fathers would've been strongly opposed to many of the core tenets of modern conservatism, like drug prohibition and perpetual foreign warfare for instance. And conservatives of today still favor a strong and politically powerful church like conservatives did in ages past.
Otto, Tolstoy: It's true that progressives wanted more freedom back then. It's also true that we want more freedom these days. The following is more or less lifted from George Lakoff's The Political Mind, and it applies modern cognitivist linguistics to politics. As background, it should be noted that language is essentially extended metaphor stemming from the realities of common human experience. For instance, universally (as far as I know) ANGER IS HEAT AND PRESSURE, cf. "boiling with rage," "red hot," "he blew up at me," "fiery wrath," etc. This makes sense when one considers that the general physical response to anger includes an increase in body temperature and blood pressure. There are some different ways of understanding anger, but they're fundamentally related to this ANGER IS HEAT/PRESSURE concept (alas, if only there were tags for text, I'd bold those all caps phrases). For more on this read "Women, Fire, and Dangerous Things," or "Metaphors We Live By," the first by George Lakoff and the second written with Mark Johnson.
Now, on to freedom. The main metaphor for freedom is motion, which has three fundamental types: movement from here to there, using the arms to grasp and manipulate objects, and moving the body to perform actions. We can conceptualize Achieving a Purpose as reaching your desired destination (reaching a goal) and getting an object you want (a job fell into your lap). These are primary metaphors, you learn them in childhood. So, Freedom of Action to Achieve a Purpose is Freedom of Motion to a Destination, and the corollary is that a restraint on freedom is a restraint on motion. Examples of this corollary in English are phrases like being enslaved, in chains, in jail, tied up, handcuffed, tied down, held back, kept down, burdened, etc.
You've got Aids to Freedom of Action which are understood as aiding Movement as well, so we give helping hands, we empower people, etc. Failing is understood as Falling, and so if you fail we aid you with safety nets, cushions, etc. So, freedom is understood in terms of motion.
There are two very basic forms of freedom, freedoms to do something (freedom to) and freedoms from something (freedom from). For Freedom From the government provides Protection with civil order and civil liberties, so we don't have to worry about invasions or epidemics or irresponsible businesses. There's Freedom To, which is Empowerment, and this includes really basic things provided to all citizens that allow us to reach our goals, examples being education, roads, communications, energy supply, water, public buildings, libraries, the stock market, the courts, etc. All of these are necessary for American society.
Now, there are, in Lakoff's view, two very different principles underlying progressive and conservative worldviews. Institution [Nation] is a Family is the main, shared metaphor for this. This metaphor includes the following: The Governing Individual [Government] is a Parent. Those Governed [Citizens] are Family Members. So, people generally map two versions of this Nation as Family metaphor on two this. The first, the conservative worldview, he calls Strict Father. The second, the progressive, is Nurturant Parent. Thus, the conservative position on things like market politics, abortion, environmental protection, etc., follows naturally from the concept of the Strict Father as an Authoritarian individual who is obeyed, and who rewards obedience and punishes disobedience. The Nurturant Parent, obviously, nurtures, supports family members in their pursuits, works to ensure that there's fair access to things necessary to lead a decent and fulfilling life. I've just vaguely sketched out the content of the book here, and whether you agree with my inadequate adumbration or not, look for it (The Political Mind, George Lakoff) at the library or bookstore.
Sarah Palin could be elected President. She could do a great job. She could balance the budget and bring a new era of global stability. She could also spontaneously combust or turn out to be a reptilian alien.
I personally wouldn't vote for her, but she's certainly not the idiot people make her out to be. The reason she resigned was that there were too many frivolous ethics lawsuits against her and she straight-up couldn't afford to keep fighting in court. If she were going to run in 2012 she'd be, well, doing stuff now instead of not doing stuff. You don't resign the governorship of a state without good reason, especially when at least finishing your term is the only way you could possibly be in serious contention for winning a national election. She knew exactly what she was doing.
Far from being the new Nixon or Harold Stassen of the Republicans I think she'll be a mixture of Oprah and Newt Gingrich-post-being-Speaker. She'll write books and say that she's the conscience of the party, since that's where she has influence and where she can make money. Just like how Newt says he might run for President whenever he writes a book, so it will be with Palin.
Palin's stupid like a fox. She's not an "ignorant redneck bitch" at all.
Hey, I was wondering whether there were enough Esperantists on the site for a game in Esperanto? I've started learning it myself lately, and Diplomacy would be a good chance to use vocabulary I don't otherwise use, like, "Let us crush Turkey beneath our jackboots!" If there are enough people, I'll start a game. Anyone up for it?