|
Somfin posted:The best moment of board gaming in my life was actually nailing someone with a hotel on boardwalk, something I thought was a pure theoretical I'm a simple man of simple tastes. I prefer the thrill of having someone land on your transportation company after rolling a 12. It can happen from the first turn, too!
|
#
?
Oct 8, 2020 01:07
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 20, 2024 11:08 |
|
|
Tangentially related matter I'd like some help with. A brazilian friend (well, not anymore, but we have friends in common) has recently visited the USA and is having his phase of "OMG it's the land of liberty, virtuous capitalism with no corruption or flaws". I can relate, since it happened to me...20 years ago, when i first visited. Me and a few others have tried to temper his outlook a bit, but he's adamant that RICO is perfect and inescapable and all corruption is found and punished. He's a lawyer, by the by. We brought up presidential pardons of crooks, no one being indicted afterthe financial crash, even the Dupont heirs skating free from rape and murder, and he said those were different. Are there any big cases of unpunished corruption, graft, and other shenanigans that you consider flagrant and emblematic?
|
|
#
?
Oct 8, 2020 01:20
|
|
|
Somfin posted:The best moment of board gaming in my life was actually nailing someone with a hotel on boardwalk, something I thought was a pure theoretical I once punched up 3 points in a single round of Twilight Imperium catapulting me from 3rd place to a win. My life has plateaued from there.
|
|
#
?
Oct 8, 2020 02:24
|
|
|
Sephyr posted:Tangentially related matter I'd like some help with. robosigning is a fun one we made it legal for banks to falsify paperwork so they could steal your house, congress passed a law to get them to stop, and Barack "The Good Guy" Obama vetoed it on the grounds it would be too financially damaging to the big banks if they couldn't commit fraud at your expense
|
|
#
?
Oct 8, 2020 03:14
|
|
|
JustJeff88 posted:I have no idea what you are talking about in the second example Basically it was a jackpot- rolled a hit, the damage was a critical hit (10 sided die came up 10), the "wound" deck gave me the one card (out of like 30 cards) that has an instant kill option if you crit and then roll an additional die and it comes up 10, and I got it. It was the first attack of the first round. That game is real rough if the fights are allowed to go too long, too.
|
|
#
?
Oct 8, 2020 06:30
|
|
|
|
|
#
?
Oct 8, 2020 13:09
|
|
|
VictualSquid posted:I literally don't get which part of my statement you are even disagreeing with? You are taking a loving video game where the win conditions have been set and people have preassigned roles. There is no win where the imposter just. . .lives among others and doesn't kill, the win conditions require them to attempt to kill the other players. You are taking a very deep and nuanced subject and boiling it down to a binary good/bad and win/lose setting. You are being reductive by the nature of this. VictualSquid posted:Games can easily be examples of organisations and they can represent structures that exist outside of the game. Do you seriously consider that fact questioned by your exaggeration that any depiction must always strongly brainwash people into agreeing with them? They can represent structures that exist outside of the game, but by cutting us off from being able to. . .investigate or temporarily corral suspicious people, the rules are once again forcing us into a binary 'Do we kill/Do we not kill' on the side of the non-imposters. My exaggeration was pointing out that if you are calling the voting process 'anarchism' then by that logic crowning a king in checkers is monarchism. Clearly I aimed too high.
|
|
#
?
Oct 11, 2020 15:28
|
|
|
E-Tank posted:They can represent structures that exist outside of the game, but by cutting us off from being able to. . .investigate or temporarily corral suspicious people, the rules are once again forcing us into a binary 'Do we kill/Do we not kill' on the side of the non-imposters. My exaggeration was pointing out that if you are calling the voting process 'anarchism' then by that logic crowning a king in checkers is monarchism. Clearly I aimed too high. I do think that your?* initial argument that all ideas of justice can be reduced to a classification as adversarial or inquisitorial and so on is already excessively reductive. And so using a simplified example is perfectly justified. Especially as I still have no idea where direct democratic votes land in your classification, simplified or not. ?*are you even the same guy I was initially replying to?
|
|
#
?
Oct 11, 2020 16:11
|
|
|
VictualSquid posted:Crowning a king in checkers is a simplified representation of monarchism. I admit that among us is so simplified that the voting process is a representation of all variants of direct democracy and not only anachism. I first butted in on the Among Us statement you made. Justice is ultimately the attempt to decide who 'deserves' what, which I have issues with because we have that little lizard brain in the back of our heads that gets enjoyment of people getting their 'just desserts', and has been used to otherize and dehumanize others multiple times, such as with convicts being considered lesser human beings because 'they did a crime once', and being discriminated against. My personal belief regarding justice should be 'What is best for all involved, including the one who did the offense', with some understanding regarding what might have led to these circumstances. The 'law' such as it is currently is draconian in that if you do a crime is the end all, be all. Sometimes even simply being accused of a crime will haunt you, even if you're entirely exonerated.
|
|
#
?
Oct 11, 2020 17:48
|
|
|
E-Tank posted:I first butted in on the Among Us statement you made. Justice is ultimately the attempt to decide who 'deserves' what, which I have issues with because we have that little lizard brain in the back of our heads that gets enjoyment of people getting their 'just desserts', and has been used to otherize and dehumanize others multiple times, such as with convicts being considered lesser human beings because 'they did a crime once', and being discriminated against. And it is actually part of why I brought up the analogy. Because it is a system where the accused gets a equal vote in the proceedings. Which goes against the tendency of dehumanization most official justice/enforcement systems.
|
|
#
?
Oct 11, 2020 18:05
|
|
|
VictualSquid posted:Crowning a king in checkers is a simplified representation of monarchism. Wtf, no it's not. Not in any single possible way other than nomenclature. To claim otherwise is so unimaginably stupid that I cannot begin to describe how stupid it is. It would take a series of words that cannot be created by mortal man, an inspiration that is not only divine in nature but divine in it's construction as well.
|
|
#
?
Oct 11, 2020 18:11
|
|
|
Cpt_Obvious posted:Wtf, no it's not. Not in any single possible way other than nomenclature. To claim otherwise is so unimaginably stupid that I cannot begin to describe how stupid it is. It would take a series of words that cannot be created by mortal man, an inspiration that is not only divine in nature but divine in it's construction as well.
|
|
#
?
Oct 11, 2020 18:17
|
|
|
VictualSquid posted:OK. I bow to your superior expertise on the history of checkers. No, please, expound on how the stacking of chips in a board game in any way represents dynastic succession. I'd loving love to hear it.
|
|
#
?
Oct 11, 2020 18:32
|
|
|
Cpt_Obvious posted:No, please, expound on how the stacking of chips in a board game in any way represents dynastic succession. I'd loving love to hear it. And even though it lost the representation of the monarchic legend that the monarch is the only important part of the realm that is needed for it's survival, there is still an -- admittedly much weaker -- representation of the "king" as a measurably superior being compared to the peasants. Actually the checkers->monarchism thing was brought up by someone else initially. You should ask them why they think checkers should represent monarchism instead of generic dictatorships.
|
|
#
?
Oct 11, 2020 18:47
|
|
|
I mean the general idea of "if you walk to the other end of the board you get superpowers" doesn't seem... very much to do with any sort of governing system?
|
|
#
?
Oct 11, 2020 18:49
|
|
|
OwlFancier posted:I mean the general idea of "if you walk to the other end of the board you get superpowers" doesn't seem... very much to do with any sort of governing system? But, "if the king dies the realm is dead, everybody should die to protect him" does. It is the same king, just in a new fanfic.
|
|
#
?
Oct 11, 2020 18:52
|
|
|
That.. isn't how checkers works as far as I know, or chess, you don't get more kings if you get to the other end, and crowned pieces don't make you lose the game they're just better. Unless checkers is different from draughts? OwlFancier fucked around with this message at 18:55 on Oct 11, 2020 |
|
#
?
Oct 11, 2020 18:53
|
|
|
quote:The pieces are usually called men, stones, "peón" (pawn) or a similar term; men promoted to kings are called dames or ladies. Do they let children play this?
|
|
#
?
Oct 11, 2020 18:55
|
|
|
VictualSquid posted:But, "if the king dies the realm is dead, everybody should die to protect him" does. It is the same king, just in a new fanfic. If the king dies, his son inherits the throne. That is what dynastic rule means. "The king is dead, long live the king."
|
|
#
?
Oct 11, 2020 18:56
|
|
|
Checkers admits multiple kings per side so it represents the spectrum from anarchy through monarchy and then to polyarchy/oligarchy. This is very important to get right because Checkers has anything too do with actually systems of governance and real world power, for example the fact that Men can only move diagonally forwards but never sideways, straight forwards, nor any flavor of backwards absent the Divine Right Of Kings. In the rest of this TED talk,
|
|
#
?
Oct 11, 2020 18:58
|
|
|
OwlFancier posted:That.. isn't how checkers works as far as I know, or chess, you don't get more kings if you get to the other end, and crowned pieces don't make you lose the game they're just better.
|
|
#
?
Oct 11, 2020 18:59
|
|
|
VictualSquid posted:But, "if the king dies the realm is dead, everybody should die to protect him" does. It is the same king, just in a new fanfic. In chess, the king never dies. You put him in a situation with no retreat, and then force a surrender, which wins you the battle. It hearkens back to a time when monarchs did lead their troops into battle. But even then, it's an abstract. You don't bring bishops into battle because they're really good at running at an angle, and you don't bring a castle with you because they're motorized and run down the enemy. Armies don't take turns standing there and letting one person move at a time either. You also certainly don't bring the queen into battle and expect her to run across the battlefield and start murdering the enemy side with reckless abandon.
|
|
#
?
Oct 11, 2020 19:04
|
|
|
Cpt_Obvious posted:If the king dies, his son inherits the throne. That is what dynastic rule means. "The king is dead, long live the king." Arthur became "king" by drawing a sword from a stone and after his death nobody took over. I see that Arthur or a chess king is not a king by your definition, I don't see this strict definition as relevant for any part of the argument that started this derail.
|
|
#
?
Oct 11, 2020 19:05
|
|
|
King arthur wasn't real though...
|
|
#
?
Oct 11, 2020 19:08
|
|
|
Dirk the Average posted:In chess, the king never dies. You put him in a situation with no retreat, and then force a surrender, which wins you the battle. It hearkens back to a time when monarchs did lead their troops into battle. But the king is still the king in basically all variants.
|
|
#
?
Oct 11, 2020 19:08
|
|
|
OK, I see that you all are opposed to overanalysing games for political meaning. How about a variant of among us comes out. Where there is a cop character assigned and it is impossible to win without cooperating with him. Would you say that it is unlikely that the creator of this new variant has different political views then the creators of the original?
|
|
#
?
Oct 11, 2020 19:12
|
|
|
Most places the bishop is some kind of cannon, officer, or battle elephant. A rook (from Persian rukh) is a chariot, but lots of places call it a tower, in Eastern Europe the queen is a chancellor. In summary it's a probably a poor system of governance and the game where men jump over each other in order to get topped and become dames sounds a lot more fun.
|
|
#
?
Oct 11, 2020 19:13
|
|
|
Sephyr posted:Are there any big cases of unpunished corruption, graft, and other shenanigans that you consider flagrant and emblematic? The Trump presidency.
|
|
#
?
Oct 11, 2020 19:23
|
|
|
This thread took a turn. Remember when the only time games and libertarianism intersected was when they complained that Caesar III didn't allow you to be an ancap?
|
|
#
?
Oct 11, 2020 19:26
|
|
|
VictualSquid posted:OK, I see that you all are opposed to overanalysing games for political meaning. Honestly we're probably not, we've just gotten all tangled up here.
|
|
#
?
Oct 11, 2020 19:34
|
|
|
OwlFancier posted:King arthur wasn't real though... As real as the possibility of an ancap state.
|
|
#
?
Oct 11, 2020 19:42
|
|
|
*reads worst series of comments ever involving board game metaphors* Okay which one of you bitches is Bret Weinstein?
|
|
#
?
Oct 11, 2020 19:51
|
|
|
Golbez posted:This thread took a turn. Remember when the only time games and libertarianism intersected was when they complained that Caesar III didn't allow you to be an ancap? Super Mario Brothers Review: the platforming is fun, I enjoyed homesteading the different power-ups by mixing my labor with the question blocks, but disappointed there is no option to tell the princess bootstrap herself to her own rescue which would surely be more effective E: also she is too old to be a realistic love interest for a libertarian plumber
|
|
#
?
Oct 12, 2020 00:47
|
|
|
Not if he "rescued" her via some kind of underground pipeline.
|
|
#
?
Oct 12, 2020 01:01
|
|
|
VictualSquid posted:OK, I see that you all are opposed to overanalysing games for political meaning. I mean, there are explicitly political games. Tammany Hall, Twilight Struggle, Wir Sind Das Volk, etc. They're probably the best starting point if you're trying to set something like this up, but even then the game is usually a game first and a historical simulator second.
|
|
#
?
Oct 12, 2020 03:23
|
|
|
Guavanaut posted:Most places the bishop is some kind of cannon, officer, or battle elephant. I looked up the source of that image to see what the other pieces' maps looked like (here) and wow, Estonia really likes doing its own thing.
|
|
#
?
Oct 12, 2020 05:13
|
|
|
https://newrepublic.com/article/159...campaign=bufferquote:When a group of libertarians set about scrapping their local government, chaos descended. And then the bears moved in.
|
|
#
?
Oct 15, 2020 14:04
|
|
|
Was just about to post this, amazing piece. The black bear population of New Hampshire was just collectively like gently caress these libertarian shitholes. Also the implication that from a Darwinian standpoint humans in New Hampshire overall are losing due to human infighting over how to live free without the burdens of the state or taxes but the correct way. I for one welcome our new black bear overlords.
|
|
#
?
Oct 15, 2020 14:34
|
|
|
This is a pro click. Just complete and total incompetence the whole way through, so, standard libertarian affair.
|
|
#
?
Oct 15, 2020 14:36
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 20, 2024 11:08 |
|
|
Like ancient man was somehow able to deal with wild animals existing like wolves that were straight up competing for food and because of that humanity still exists today, black bears just want to be left the gently caress alone and the free market couldn't cope in even the most basic ways lmao
|
|
#
?
Oct 15, 2020 14:48
|
|