Jump to content

jerdge

Members
  • Content Count

    4,517
  • Joined

Everything posted by jerdge

  1. Nobody has ever or will ever be "rehabilitated" just by being caged, it would be folly to expect that the average person will improve themselves just because they can't go anywhere for a short/long time. Modern "prison" systems aim, at least in principle, to avoid actual imprisonment unless it's necessary for security reasons, and they focus on redeeming the criminal instead. Imprisonment is left for when you have no alternative way to prevent that the criminal harms other innocent people. My comment/objection is thus that with your entry you're comparing imprisonment (which is a security measure*) with lashes (which are punishment). The former is a necessary evil (to protect the outside people) while the latter is a pointless exercise meant to "teach" not to break the law. At a certain extent it's like one compared ritual genitals mutilations and clinical amputation of both legs against gangrene, and then implied that it's hypocrite to condemn the first because we accept the second, where the amputation is more severe. * Then you have the real prison systems, of course, and there you have a point (but not in principle).
  2. Jail as a punishment or a correction method (what would be the difference?) makes little sense to me. Imprisonment may be good to keep the criminal and the society safe while the criminal is rehabilitated (if that's possible), but it's a stupid way to punish/redeem. In other words, I am not sure that both choices are actually "punishment".
  3. Curt irony is more your thing, Hakai, but here you're also showing talent for longer commentary. TBQH in this case you made it too short, though. Needs more depth.
  4. Pure numbers on an individual nation level is the new way to do it in the high NS ranges, which is where Cuba and the Doombirdsphere are especially right and you're not. The fact that it is an unprecedented paradigm doesn't make it any less true. I will not comment on the rest because it's politics and propaganda I don't want to have anything to do with: I am talking of the pure game mechanics only.
  5. Wait the neutrals united? I am really out of the loop.
  6. I am native Italian, I can speak a decent English and a very basic Portuguese. I don't count the couple of local Italian dialects (almost, but not quite different languages) I can hold myself in.
  7. Too many to list, and I can't choose just one. Most lists I could make will probably include (not all exactly "books"): The Lord of the Rings, 1984, The Forever War, the Odyssey, Ivanhoe, Macbeth, Guns Germs and Steel, It, Cryptonomicon, The Hound of the Baskervilles, The Art of War... I'd better stop here or I'll spend hours on this.
  8. jerdge

    CN Award

    Positive = people like what you post and they find it genuinely funny. Negative = people laugh at you. You get both, where Hakai gets mostly only the positive kind. It's not about being family friendly, which Hakai isn't always either, but it's about having genuine sense of humour and common sense. An example: you'll hardly ever see Hakai "seriously" arguing with people about war stats/performance, whereas you... But my congratulations are genuine. I think that you improved a lot, and at times I even find your posts really funny (the positive way), which almost never happened, before. This entire issue is 100% subjective, anyway, thus I don't claim I am in the "right". It's just how I see it.
  9. You should have won it, hands down. I blame the voters' (lack of) sense of humour.
  10. jerdge

    CN Award

    One may be funny in a positive or negative way. I am not sure that you can really brag about all the votes you got. Hakai and Luckao are way funnier (in the positive way) than you. But congratulations nonetheless.
  11. Without emotions there's little reason to do anything. Going purely by logic, there's no reason to not suicide (or to suicide, for that matter). Emotions out of control can be bad, anyway: on that I agree.
  12. Ça va sans dire* Nobody would have thought otherwise. * It goes without saying
  13. That metaphor is designed to or has the likely effect of conveying excessive humiliation against its target. Assuming that it's just the language that you use and not actually your intention to do so, I'll go out on a limb to give you a word of advice, also based on casual observations about your recent and not-so-recent past public displays. Bob, (internally) make sure that your words (and their connotations) don't become your thoughts - our thoughts are mostly limited to what we are able to say; (externally) make sure that your words really match your interests. This advice is provided "as is": it's up to you to discard/use it.
  14. I enjoyed reading this, thanks Tywin. I can't talk for others, but the GPA is more isolationist than sleepy. While certainly we have a significant share of members that just enjoy our peaceful nature and that seldom show up in our forums, we also have a relatively large and dedicated core of active members that create a lively community. I don't think that the GPA is any more "sleepy" than the average other alliance of comparable size. We just don't like the spotlight, and we find the struggle for power unattractive.
  15. Thanks for this interview, I look forward to kill time as pleasantly with the future ones. Everyone complains that stuff is always the same, and they then also complain when anyone makes anything any different/unusual. It's like they're crying for the loss of their boredom. The ironic and hilarious part is that always trying to discredit your enemy no matter what just earns one disrespect from everyone.
  16. I'll have you know that I am considering that image for a GPA war flag proposal.
  17. Nice interview, thanks for doing it. You never cease to be amusing.
  18. This! At first it was a bit hard to notice endure Tywin's silence, but eventually we coped with it. I meant "endure"! I still don't know how I could type the other word... I blame autocorrect.
  19. I recently developed this theory that CN isn't retaining players because it isn't as entertaining as it used to. It isn't the game itself - it's not really shiny or amazing, but it wasn't in 2006 either - but it's the people. CN politics. It's just too predictable to be exciting, I think.
  20. jerdge

    A Rant

    Gift cards are a good idea if you happen to know that the recipient is going to use it (e.g. a bookshop gift card to someone that actually usually buys books). Otherwise they're just lazy. At that point, cash is better.
  21. I think that this is a good analysis, and CN mechanics have probably generated a new feature, which is an "unbeatable" (i.e. "too costly to roll") very small group. Liking it to Citadel, and specifically to The Gremlins, is correct, as those structures had the same goal of "self determination" through political independence (read: "we can't get rolled that easily"), achieved by building superior stats. The difference is that Citadel was larger, in terms of nation count, and thus more unstable, and Gre fell prey to apathy and to Ramirus Maximus's political insanity. Which probably means that the wrong leadership is the most immediate threat to DBDC (not having a structure can work only to a certain extent, as someone will still have to make some decisions, and no structure means also no safeguards). The best asset in this sense is probably the activity on part of DBDC's veterans. I anyway find this analysis a bit lacking on the "political" side of things. Grouping most of the active players with terrific stats is not easy to do and keeping them together may prove to be difficult: being "outside" of politics, but politically and military active, means not having a safety net while still having enemies. People may at some point become wary of such an "unchecked" independent power, which "arbitrarily" punishes top tiers, and unite/make plans to undermine/co-opt it. In a sense, DBDC is neutral and can thus also be compared to OBR (or to WTF/GPA's top tiers), but without the benefits associated with peaceful neutrality... It will be interesting to see where they'll be in six or twelve months from now.
  22. Except when in the MHA, I have always had that SoD hovering above my neck as well. After some time you tend to forget about it, though. I am afraid that now I am too old to care anymore about it.
  23. jerdge

    I Am Better Than All Of You

    Satire should be short, but it's a worthy try, Myth. (Rush's judgments are also a worthy attempt: some of their defects are basically inevitable, and few that criticize them would be able to do better, IMHO.)
  24. Keeping it short: I never understood why people consider their and everyone's treaties like they were pieces of a domino. I am talking of the idea of engaging "this" alliance or "that" one because of the defensive treaties that would be activated, trying to bring as much firepower to your side while you try to limit the firepower activated on the other side. While it may seem right from the perspective of the single treaty, if you look at the whole picture it means that you use people's treaties against them and - this is clearly the corollary that makes the entire thing fall apart - you admit that others can use your treaties against you. Treaties are agreements that you signed for your own purposes and to support your direct counterparts. If some party that is distant in the treaty web started some conflict and you find yourself entering on this or that side depending on the order in which treaties are "activated", well... something is definitely wrong. An alliance shouldn't let their Foreign Affairs be dictated by those that can best manipulate the treaty web, but they should rather operate with their objectives in mind. This isn't necessarily "realpolitik" - you can still pursue an honourable and "losing" stance (or whatever else you fancy to role-play) - but it's just self-determination: you do what you want to do, you defend/attack what you want to protect/destroy.Your true allies will understand when you can't help them (or rather: their allies) because it's incompatible with your decisions. In short: your treaties are yours, not anyone else's.
×
×
  • Create New...