Forum
A place to discuss topics/games with other webDiplomacy players.
Page 849 of 1419
FirstPreviousNextLast
Putin33 (111 D)
25 Jan 12 UTC
Ranking should take into account etiquette, if possible
Seriously, people who are losing and decide to delay the rest of the game an hour by never confirming moves need to be given a ghost rating death penalty.
93 replies
Open
Poozer (962 D)
25 Jan 12 UTC
Can someone explain why a unit was not dislodged to me?
Game is here: gameID=77697

Thanks.
9 replies
Open
Troodonte (3379 D)
24 Jan 12 UTC
Gunboat - new game
WTA, anon, 36h phases (WITH COMMITMENT TO FINALIZE)
400-500 D buy in
Who is interested?
19 replies
Open
dexter morgan (225 D(S))
23 Jan 12 UTC
A few questions for pro-life/anti-choicers
Hopefully a civil conversation based in logic... not simply "it's immoral" - but why? ...and why is it not something that a person can decide on their own? (see inside)
189 replies
Open
NigelFarage (567 D)
25 Jan 12 UTC
Random Question
What happens if two armies try to retreat into the same territory? Do they have to redo their moves, or get sent somewhere else, or simply get destroyed?
1 reply
Open
Yonni (136 D(S))
24 Jan 12 UTC
Keystone XL pipeline
I only have a very rudimentary understanding of the project and the issues. Does anyone here have a strong opinion on the project and want to enlighten me?
Page 2 of 4
FirstPreviousNextLast
 
Draugnar (0 DX)
24 Jan 12 UTC
@Fasces - I know. But the fact was krellin was asserting that, by being electric, it is in fact coal powered. It really depends on where you live. Where I live, it is coal and oil powered (we have a dual fuel plant that provides the electricity to the greater Cinci region). If you live in northern Indiana, you may well consider your electric car to be wind powered. And in parts of Europe and Japan, you may have a "nuclear powered" electric car. Krellin established a false assertion.
SacredDigits (102 D)
24 Jan 12 UTC
Yes, Canada would get shipping access to the Arctic Ocean. It'd be like giving a vegetarian free steak for life for as useful as it would be to them. That area is incredibly sparsely populated. Developing the infrastructure to put port facilities up there and make them usable would be a pretty big waste of money and time.
Draugnar (0 DX)
24 Jan 12 UTC
One thing that shoudl also be considered with electric cars is the efficiency. Krellin seems to rail against them, but while I love my Corvette and my Jeep, I also have considered and electric or a hybrid for my daily driver. Electric's in particular are much more efficient becaus rhtye cna use a braking system that actually generates electricity and recharges their batteries when braking. And because an object in motion tends to stay in motion applies, the engine at speed only has to overcome the friction of the outside environment and other system in the car (like the wheel bearings and drive train)because they are much lower friction internally when compared to an IC engine.
Yonni (136 D(S))
24 Jan 12 UTC
Wow, thanks for the great responses everyone. This is exactly why I posed the question here.

Here's my understanding so far (from here and what I've read online today). The largest reason why it was rejected by the US federally was that there was a self-imposed time limit and TransCanada couldn't provide the revised proposal in time. That's all fine and well but how difficult would to be for Obama to accept a new proposal after rejecting the past one? I'm certainly not versed in the nuances of American bureaucracy but I imagine that, in terms of public perception, it could be difficult.

However, I'm still torn on the issue. On the one hand, I don't really want to increase to the longevity of the tar sands but, if this is going to have very little impact on it, then I'd prefer the resources to be used as efficiently as possible and this pipeline seems to be just that.
SacredDigits (102 D)
24 Jan 12 UTC
Accepting new proposals after rejecting similar older ones happens all the time and may be decried as "flip flopping", but really, that's a brush you can tar any politician ever with if you just look at broad strokes ideas.

I don't think it would significantly harm President Obama politically, except insomuch as the passing of the proposal may harm him politically.
Draugnar (0 DX)
24 Jan 12 UTC
YEs, "flip flopping" in the long haul is really just a derogatory attack on compromise, something our politicians actually need to embrace more. @SD +1
Fasces349 (0 DX)
24 Jan 12 UTC
and you you attack Romney for 'flip flopping' lol
Fasces349 (0 DX)
24 Jan 12 UTC
"Yes, Canada would get shipping access to the Arctic Ocean. It'd be like giving a vegetarian free steak for life for as useful as it would be to them. That area is incredibly sparsely populated. Developing the infrastructure to put port facilities up there and make them usable would be a pretty big waste of money and time."
As I said earlier, voluntary trade creates wealth.
SacredDigits (102 D)
24 Jan 12 UTC
I disagree that having a trade route in the Arctic Ocean would create any wealth for Canada. Too much investment required to get to the possible reward. Takes money to make money, but in this case, I think the money it would take to make money would be too much.
Draugnar (0 DX)
24 Jan 12 UTC
@Fasces - flip flopping within a political election to get votes is all I attack Romney for and I have seen Romney do just that. That is my problem with him, but we'll keep that in the other thread. Changing your mind or compromising to get things done is different form telling one group you support their view and thewn telling another group two days later yor support their polar opposite view from the first group.
Draugnar (0 DX)
24 Jan 12 UTC
@SD is right... It's all about ROI and the ROI is way too small for industries to get involved. If the people of Canada are willing to take a hit to get it built, *then* you might see companies move towards it *after* it is done and available. But even then the full infrastructure to get goods to the port must be completed as well, otherwise I see it like Ordos City/Kangbashi in China.
Fasces349 (0 DX)
24 Jan 12 UTC
Throwing money somewhere wont nesscaruly create money there and having no money wont mean no money will come.

For example, around 1/4 of the worlds remaining oil reserves are in the arctic ocean below the ice caps (and as a result inaccessible.

Ice melts and oil rigs can now be sustained up there. Massive oil companies decide to invest in the region (so far no cost to Canada). As a result the oil tycoons will encourage people with high paying jobs to immigrate. Towns come up, oil is created and sold to nearby markets. Eventually trade between these new settlements and nearby existing ones (Russia, Southern Canada) will happen, creating more wealth.

And you don't need to many people to do this. For example, Alaska only has 700,000 people.

Ft McMurray (where the tar sands are) has doubled in population over the last 10 years, massive oil reserves tend to create jobs, and jobs tend to inspire immigration (even if it is from one side of the province to another)

The amount of money that can be made is far higher then you imagine, and the cost is far lower.
Geofram (130 D(B))
24 Jan 12 UTC
Fasces349, you've hit the nail on the head. Keep the oil in Canada, why do a favour to America if they're convinced they don't want it?
Draugnar (0 DX)
24 Jan 12 UTC
See, that is the foolish interpretation of a complex situation. America wants it, but the President was given an impossible choice: break the law by saying yes even though the EPA said the states haven't all spoken and accept it? Or say no becaus eCongress forced him to make a decision before those states could conclude their studies. Honestly, it was a dirty political ploy by "my side" (although I hate to lump myself in with all of them) and I think Congress is a bunch of assholes for forcing it.
Geofram (130 D(B))
24 Jan 12 UTC
Obama wanted to wait for election reasons, not for good ones.
Fasces349 (0 DX)
24 Jan 12 UTC
@moskowitz: I googled it, there is no Environmental Protection Act in America, there is one in Canada and Britain, but no America. :P

Obama wasn't breaking any laws by accepting it now.
Fasces349 (0 DX)
24 Jan 12 UTC
"Fasces349, you've hit the nail on the head. Keep the oil in Canada, why do a favour to America if they're convinced they don't want it?"
Well the reason why 'we' want the oil in America is because its American oil companies essentially control the Alberta oil fields...
Draugnar (0 DX)
24 Jan 12 UTC
@Fasces - it's the Environmental Protection AGENCY. Look it up. Obama would have been breaking the law if he greenlighted the project.
Draugnar (0 DX)
24 Jan 12 UTC
www.epa.gov for those who want to know more.
Fasces349 (0 DX)
24 Jan 12 UTC
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_Environmental_Protection_Agency#Oil_pollution

can't find much...
Draugnar (0 DX)
24 Jan 12 UTC
Try their actual Website above. That si the official .gov website for them. I think they know more about their organization than wikipedia does.
Draugnar (0 DX)
24 Jan 12 UTC
To see google's actual results of that search...

https://www.google.com/search?hl=en&sa=X&ei=wC4fT56VJvDo2gXkpvWaDw&ved=0CC0QvwUoAQ&q=Environmental+PRotection+Agency&spell=1&biw=1920&bih=989#sclient=psy-ab&hl=en&source=hp&q=Environmental+Protection+Agency&pbx=1&oq=Environmental+Protection+Agency&aq=f&aqi=g-l4&aql=&gs_sm=e&gs_upl=2174l2385l0l2547l2l2l0l0l0l0l174l174l0.1l1l0&bav=on.2,or.r_gc.r_pw.r_cp.,cf.osb&fp=1520b380902028d9&biw=1920&bih=989
Geofram (130 D(B))
24 Jan 12 UTC
Care to link to the actual laws rather than send us to a front page?
Invictus (240 D)
24 Jan 12 UTC
This will be built. It's too good of an idea for even the federal government to be too stupid to pass up. Hell, this may even be Obama's October Surprise.
"Cynically playing politics to appease environmentalists?"

My understanding of this issue has *always* been that the Republicans are pressuring Obama to fast-track the pipeline. He's all "study and research like the law says we have to," but the Republicans are all "no, use Illuminati Action to start building immediately."

I'd say it's the Republicans being irresponsible here, especially with that sixty-day approval crap.
Geofram (130 D(B))
24 Jan 12 UTC
This proposal didn't come out of thin air. Talks began in 2005 and the first official proposal was submitted in 2008.
Invictus (240 D)
24 Jan 12 UTC
It's already been more studied than any other pipeline. I haven't looked into it, but it wouldn't surprise me if the regulations keeping immediate approval of the project are only about three years old, if you catch my drift.

Even if everything above is nonsense, this is pretty much a national security issue and deserves to be approved right away. We have the opportunity to get a secure supply of oil from what is literally our closest ally, further reducing the role Middle East petrostates have in our foreign policy. This pipeline is 100% in America's interest to build, but of the two domestic constituencies involved (environmentalists and labor) Obama is having more trouble with the environmentalists. To appease them from voting Green/not giving his campaign contributions he prevented this wonderful opportunity from happening.

Like I said before, I hope Harper can wait till 2013. There's no doubt in my mind whoever is president then will approve it, but by then the Chinese might have made their deal too tempting for Canada to refuse. That would be a wasted opportunity of historic proportions, and may even end up being a serious strategic mistake.
Thucydides (864 D(B))
25 Jan 12 UTC
Yonni:

My point goes like this, in over-simplified terms:

1) continuing with the status quo will ruin the environment for ourselves and the next generation especially
2) the problem can only be effectively countered via collective action and effective consciousness raising
3) the problem with collective action and indeed the tragedy of the commons is a bit like the cartel problem - if 50% of people shape up, you still have the other 50% dicking around with the environment (read: China)
4) that does not give the right-minded people license to just forget about doing the right thing. the right thing will never get done if no one does it. therefore the right action is to do the right thing now knowing not everyone will even as we pressure the wrong-doers to shape up. which we are

This makes sense from a Kantian perspective. We wouldn't want *anyone* fracking that shit and using all the oil that is better just left in the ground. So just because some other jackass will happily burn it all and spill some on the ground and in the water doesn't mean we get to, even if it would make us some dough.

this isn't about money, at least not in this sense. what we ought to be doing is focusing on incorporating the true costs of this kind of environmentally destructive activity into the prices paid by producers and consumers. at the moment it represents an externality of the first order.

if this means we have to do it by expending some political clout with canada, we ought to do that. because, let's be honest. in terms of long term importance, here are the issues that matter, in rough order:

1) environment
2) technology development, especially regarding outer space. exception: if we successfully get off this rock, #1 becomes sort of irrelevant
3) other geopolitical concerns like riches, power, peace, rule of law. none of it will matter if we all fucking die.

I'm not over-playing this, no. If they build the pipeline, okay. It won't change much either way. But if it can be stopped, and it can, it should be. So why not lend your support to people already trying to stop it?

tl;dr:

Oil is becoming obsolete no two ways about it. Better just do the right thing and try to stop using it now. No need to lose our god damn minds fracking the shit out of Canada, shipping it across our heartland and burning that shit into our atmosphere. Let's try nuclear power instead, thanks, and start looking for ways to make China pay it's share of the damage it will eventually wreak.
Thucydides (864 D(B))
25 Jan 12 UTC
PS I'm a realist. I know the environment is going to go to hell no matter what we do.

Which is why what I'd really like to see is at least some token action so that future generations will know not everyone was so gleeful about fucking them in the ass.
Geofram (130 D(B))
25 Jan 12 UTC
Yeah, put a nuclear reactor in your car and see how that goes.

Page 2 of 4
FirstPreviousNextLast
 

99 replies
Tru Ninja (1016 D(S))
23 Jan 12 UTC
The Ideal Turkey
Everyone has an idea of how they like to see things play out in the first year or two when playing a country. It might be that when someone plays England, the ideal situation for them is a E/F over a E/G where England gets Belgium via convoy and Norway with a fleet capture, a Russian with 3 units in the south and Germany opening to Denmark.
23 replies
Open
SocDem (441 D)
25 Jan 12 UTC
New fast games
http://webdiplomacy.net/board.php?gameID=78793
especially for amateurs
0 replies
Open
JECE (1248 D)
24 Jan 12 UTC
I'm sure this has already been brought up a million times, but
All hail: threadID=444658
0 replies
Open
Sandgoose (0 DX)
24 Jan 12 UTC
Live Gunboat-169
Hello all, if you are playing in this game, there is a long ways until it is over and I have a job interview in about 45 minutes, would there be a possibility to draw this game out? We have been at it for over 2 hours now.
2 replies
Open
Dharmaton (2398 D)
21 Jan 12 UTC
Should 'the system' Cancel games with Any players Missing ! ???
eh ?
33 replies
Open
Yonni (136 D(S))
24 Jan 12 UTC
Fielder to the Tigers
Well, that lineups going to be stupid. Fuck me.
2 replies
Open
hellalt (80 D)
19 Jan 12 UTC
Southeastern European tm needs a substitute
We are the Southeastern European tm.
That is me, dejan0707, Kompole and Hellenic Riot.
We need a substitute ready for the upcoming world cup.
He/she will play if one of the basic members needs to go away for a while.
8 replies
Open
Troodonte (3379 D)
24 Jan 12 UTC
Have a Happy New Gunboat - Finished
gameID=76381
Anoher good game. 3rd draw in a row with Austria twice and Italy once. Again finished allied with Turkey while playing Austria. And again attacked by Italy in A01...
11 replies
Open
KingRishard (1153 D)
20 Jan 12 UTC
Team Southeast USA for World Cup
A team was organized, at least partially, to represent the southeastern USA, but we still need to choose a captain and confirm the players for our team.
21 replies
Open
Sandgoose (0 DX)
24 Jan 12 UTC
What's the top song the day YOU were born?
So I was thinking...what was the top song when I was born...well I am glad to know that it was:
Bryan Adams - (everything I do) I do it for you
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZGoWtY_h4xo
37 replies
Open
Yellowjacket (835 D(B))
20 Jan 12 UTC
Kill Yellowjacket Invitational
OK, I've tasted enough success. I'd like to make a game for those who have challenged my awesomeness at some point. Point value is negotiable, but I'd like to make it about ~150. Now is your last best chance to be part in handing YJ his first defeat. The following people are guaranteed acceptance into this 24 hour phase, anon, WTA game.
26 replies
Open
JECE (1248 D)
18 Jan 12 UTC
Are you Iberian? Does HISPANIA flow in your veins?
Are you from Spain?
Are you from Portugal?
Are you from Andorra?
Are you or have you ever been a member of the Iberian nation?
31 replies
Open
redhouse1938 (429 D)
09 Jan 12 UTC
Join the Tournament!
See below
50 replies
Open
obiwanobiwan (248 D)
22 Jan 12 UTC
NFL Pick: 'em: Championship Weekend--BRADY, FLACCO, ELI, ALEX...PICK 'EM!
Baltimore Ravens@New England Patiots:
Can Flacco step up, and can Brady's O outmatch Ray Lewis' D?
New York Giants@San Francisco 49ers?
The two hottest teams in football meet, EACH coming off huge upset wins...who grabs the crown here?
22 replies
Open
President Eden (2750 D)
17 Jan 12 UTC
Facebook Networking: The webDiplomacy Edition
So if you've heard of it, there's this social media site called Facebook. It's pretty neat, you make a profile of yourself and communicate with people over the Internet. Well, there's a project to network webDiplomacy people via FB in progress...
83 replies
Open
youradhere (1345 D)
24 Jan 12 UTC
CD Italy
http://www.webdiplomacy.net/board.php?gameID=74369

Italy in decent position. Be a hero!
0 replies
Open
Thucydides (864 D(B))
23 Jan 12 UTC
Protip: look closely if a game is WTA
This has been said before - but there is nothing crueler than realizing at the end of a game, to your dismay, that people are "playing for second." What a shame.
10 replies
Open
obiwanobiwan (248 D)
23 Jan 12 UTC
The AFC/NFC Championship Fallout: 4 Great Teams, 2 Great Games, 2 Heroes, 2 Goats...
PATRIOTS: Winning on a day Brady wasn't Brady-like, 5th SB appearance of that era...can they avenge their lost undefeated season?
GIANTS: Eli Manning--better than Peyton with a SB win here?
RAVENS: Did Flacco prove himself Sunday? Evans--TD, or no? Cundiff?
49ERS: Is it fair to lay the blame for the game on Kyle Williams? 2 TDs and 40+ Rushing YDs, BUT 1-for-13 on 3rd down...how do you view Alex Smith?
3 replies
Open
Bob Genghiskhan (1233 D)
23 Jan 12 UTC
EOG for a Gunboat
gameID=78672
To be used when the game is over. There's some good, some bad, and some ugly.
0 replies
Open
Sandgoose (0 DX)
23 Jan 12 UTC
Cure to Cancer?
Hey, have you guys heard about this? Thoughts?

http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-18563_162-57358994/calif-hs-student-devises-possible-cancer-cure/
8 replies
Open
Dharmaton (2398 D)
23 Jan 12 UTC
EoG : " January GR Gunboat Live. "
11 replies
Open
abgemacht (1076 D(G))
18 Jan 12 UTC
What would you like to see instead of SOPA/PIPA
I've been thinking about this for a while, and I can't come up with any effective alternatives. More inside:

77 replies
Open
redhouse1938 (429 D)
23 Jan 12 UTC
I see there are still people talking to TC
I wonder why that is
0 replies
Open
DJEcc24 (246 D)
20 Jan 12 UTC
Are you from or in Asia?
Japan? Korea? Phillipines? Mongolia?
This thread may be of interest to you
10 replies
Open
Page 849 of 1419
FirstPreviousNextLast
Back to top