Forum
A place to discuss topics/games with other webDiplomacy players.
Page 1220 of 1419
FirstPreviousNextLast
MichiganMan (5121 D)
20 Dec 14 UTC
Incidents of Cheating on the Rise?
Is it just me, or does it seem that (once again) the site is going through a period of increased cheating activity? Personally, I've noticed such, especially in GB games in which communication between powers is strikingly obvious.

Thoughts?
16 replies
Open
Your Humble Narrator (1922 D)
20 Dec 14 UTC
(+5)
I remember when +1s were first introduced
Do you? +1 if you do or don't
18 replies
Open
Wusti (757 D)
14 Dec 14 UTC
Breaking News - Islamist Terrorism comes to Oz
In a coffee shop in Sydney, Australia - my home town and about 300m from my office, Islamist terrorists have taken hostages.
68 replies
Open
abgemacht (1076 D(G))
20 Dec 14 UTC
Khan Dynasty
I'm watching a show about Kublai Khan and it's interesting, if not, I'm sure, woefully inaccurate. I'll have some time around the holidays and was hoping someone could recommend a good book about Gengis/Kublai/Khan Dynasty.
17 replies
Open
Jeff Kuta (2066 D)
19 Dec 14 UTC
World Silent Anon WTA, need 7 more
gameID=151969

Pot 1000+ if we get the last 7 players.
3 replies
Open
KingCyrus (511 D)
19 Dec 14 UTC
Who should be the next MOD???
Who do YOU think should be the next mod? +1 your favorite candidate!
16 replies
Open
tvrocks (388 D)
19 Dec 14 UTC
(+5)
+1 this thread
And you may be eligible to receive a gift worth up to 1 us dollar. (And yes i am +1 whoring)
26 replies
Open
Wayne-over-you (235 D)
19 Dec 14 UTC
(+1)
Start game without all players
Is there a way to have a new game start without all the player slots filled? I have had several games canceled because every slot has not been filled.
Over the upcoming vacation, I would like to start a game, possibly a World Diplomacy variant, for many players, but I can not count on filling every country. Any ideas here?
2 replies
Open
CommanderByron (801 D(S))
19 Dec 14 UTC
I'm Back
Sooooo after a 4 month hiatus to concentrate on my education. I am back, what's new. any new features or rules or anything? I've scanned the forums all day looking for myself.
7 replies
Open
mendax (321 D)
19 Dec 14 UTC
Some small piece of beauty to come out of the nightmare of Ferguson
http://www.stlamerican.com/news/local_news/article_bcd08906-8590-11e4-9673-239990c2313c.html
0 replies
Open
abgemacht (1076 D(G))
13 Oct 14 UTC
(+2)
webDip Player Map
We used to have a Player Map, but it seems like the server it was stored on is gone. I've started a new one here: https://www.google.com/maps/d/edit?mid=zkz1OHicklqk.ky67Va8gNVi0

Post your city here (no street address, please) and I'll add you to the map!
310 replies
Open
TrPrado (461 D)
19 Dec 14 UTC
Tonight We Shed Sweet Tears
Tonight is the last episode of the Colbert Report. Oh how we shall miss him between now and when he starts to hosts the Late Show. It was a good, satirical run for that personality.
6 replies
Open
2ndWhiteLine (2611 D(B))
18 Dec 14 UTC
Lusthog Squad 11
Congrats to trip for winning a hard fought game as Italy. gameID=148464
6 replies
Open
Kallen (1157 D)
18 Dec 14 UTC
Merry Christmas!
We're a week out, so I'd just like to wish everyone a Merry Christmas and a Happy New Year =]

Safe travels, hope you all are able to spend some quality time with the fam and/or friends. Enjoy the holidays!
6 replies
Open
tvrocks (388 D)
18 Dec 14 UTC
(+2)
Merry hannaca
I know it's 2 day late or something and that it's not spelled like that but merry hannica to all of you.
6 replies
Open
bo_sox48 (5202 DMod(G))
16 Dec 14 UTC
Taliban Attacks in Peshawar
http://www.bbc.com/news/world-asia-30491435

How, after fighting them for 13 years, is this group still in power anywhere in the world and able to do things like this?
Page 2 of 3
FirstPreviousNextLast
 
Jeff Kuta (2066 D)
17 Dec 14 UTC
I agree with Wusti's point #4, to reiterate:

"4. Appeasement probably isn't exactly right - but there are so many who think that crafting excuses and reasons and assert that we in the West are at least partly to blame that it makes me sick. Its like there is an orchestrated effort to shy away from what (in my personal belief) appears to be a faith influenced cultural issue, and to talk about everything but that is a potential factor."

Regardless of what you ascribe to their motives, these terrorist nutbags *are* frequently killing in the name of their claimed religion. Mainline denominations of any peaceful religion rightfully should denounce these actions. However, don't accept that denunciations and condemnations are enough to influence a fanatic to stop their terrorist activity.

It is worth noting that religions *do change over time.* Hinduism happened. Judaism started the monothestic party. The Council of Nicea caused a major early schism. Buddhism and Islam came into being. The Protest Reformation happened. Mormons happened. There are many other examples.

My point is that religious fanatics often believe that have received new divine revelations from their deity. They are the *chosen ones* and so they do crazy shit as a result. Sometimes this manifests as acts of violence against the established political or religious order. Gaining power is a time-tested way to spread your message.

In this respect, past colonialism and current economic imperialism is a convenient foil for terrorists. We *are* the other whether we like it or not. It is important for us to understand why they are able to make us look like the bad guy, whether we are or not, in order to win "hearts and minds" of the locals, because they are the only ones who can really stop them.
Jeff Kuta (2066 D)
17 Dec 14 UTC
One additional point, the nutbags *want* their violent version of religion to become the default. They really, truly do, even if it is a perversion of the original. We can't ignore them.
trip (696 D(B))
17 Dec 14 UTC
@ Jeff: At the same time, they are Islamic state sponsored organizations. States where most of those billions live. These organizations are allowed by Islamic countries to teach their ethos as part of an educational curriculum. Enrollment offices are allowed to operate freely within Islamic countries. The majority their monetary funding originates in Islamic countries. Their deeds are championed by the religious leaders, who are the connection to God for the populace, of Islamic counties.

Now, is the entirety of Islam on board? No. I'm aware that there are Mullahs and Muslims who are against how their religion is being misrepresented, but they've yet to make a dent in solving the issue.

And how can it not be about the religion itself when your whole argument is that one group of Muslims don't like that another group of Muslims is perverting Islam?
orathaic (1009 D(B))
17 Dec 14 UTC
"Regardless of what you ascribe to their motives, these terrorist nutbags *are* frequently killing in the name of their claimed religion."

Yes, but you can say the same for the Communists who caused famines in their rush to develop (see: Soviet Union, People's Republic of China, Cambodia); or Capitalists who cause wealth inequality allowing many to die in poverty and without simple medical care (see: US of A) All in the name of some ideology. Both 'allowing them to die of natural causes'

"However, don't accept that denunciations and condemnations are enough to influence a fanatic to stop their terrorist activity." - and don't expect that drones shooting hell-fire missiles down on villages will stop them either; it hasn't worked so far - but that doesn't mean the US is supporting terrorism (though they probably provide great PR)

"acts of violence against the established political or religious order" - and there are examples of this for many non-religious reasons too. Gaining power, and then holding onto it has lead to most of the violence in the world today.
Jeff Kuta (2066 D)
17 Dec 14 UTC
Why not both religion and power? That's really what's going on most of the time. To exclude one over the other is naive, though some individuals favor one over the other.
Jeff Kuta (2066 D)
17 Dec 14 UTC
Just to requote myself here:

"To take innocent life to achieve a goal is the hallmark of the most extreme people."

It has zero to do with any secular vs sectarian perspective.
orathaic (1009 D(B))
17 Dec 14 UTC
Because religion is a means to controlling people, it's only aim is power itself.

El Ron Hubbard said, if you want to get rich start a religion - money as a means to power....
Jeff Kuta (2066 D)
17 Dec 14 UTC
Tony Montana didn't say, "First you start a religion. Then you get the money. Then you get the power. Then you get the women."
OpTioNiGhT (100 D)
17 Dec 14 UTC
Jeff, you are taking the word secular out of context of the quote. The author didn't say taking innocent life is a secular ethic he said "the most extreme secular utilitarian ethic." Religious ethics are moral. I don't know of any religion that does not have moral ethics. Secular utilitarianism on the other hand may or may not be ethical. Taken to the extreme, one could use utalitarianism to justify unethical actions.
Yellowjacket (835 D(B))
17 Dec 14 UTC
(+3)
"How, after fighting them for 13 years, is this group still in power anywhere in the world and able to do things like this?"

Because bullshit rhetoric and drone bombing does very little to combat actual terrorism?
Jeff Kuta (2066 D)
17 Dec 14 UTC
OpTioNiGhT, I took the word secular out of the quote entirely.

I don't believe the blanket statement that "religious ethics are moral" or even that "religions are moral." This thread is about the actions of the Pakistan Taliban. They deeply and truly believe that their religious ethics are moral. So does the Islamic State. Most people would agree that their ethics are immoral, but they absolutely are grounded in their religion.

It could be argued that "prosperity Christianity" is an "extreme utilitarian *sectarian* ethic" because its followers espouse maximizing economic benefits to themselves. I took umbrage with the cheap pot shot at secularism when in reality it is *people* that make these horrible decisions regarding others regardless of what ethos or moral code is being followed, or whether its foundation is secular or religious.
bo_sox48 (5202 DMod(G))
17 Dec 14 UTC
"bo: You don't think there is a connection between Jihadists and Islam?"

Correct, I don't. Jihadists, a misnomer in itself, are not members of the Muslim faith. They twist it and reshape it to their own desires so that they can justify among themselves the murder of hundreds and thousands of innocent civilians and countless other crimes, just as so-called Christians did with the KKK. Terrorists in Islamic nations and those who spread their filth around the rest of the world are not followers of Islam, they only use it as a cover for their own actions.

Unfortunately, yes, they find their way into government, and on occasion, they have some substantial public support. Unfortunately, yes, those governments often affiliate themselves with such organizations. I'm no psychic - I can't tell you why reasonable legislators in the Muslim world choose to affiliate themselves with people like the Taliban, but I imagine that it is either a) substantial sums of money, or (more likely) b) threats of violence against them or the people around them. Otherwise, yes, there certainly are unreasonable legislators in that part of the world, as there are here and everywhere else, who support the wrong people. I hope that they simply fell down a simply slope when they first affiliated themselves with terrorists and aren't overwhelmingly in favor of such actions as it appears to us, and I hope that they aren't still in those alliances only out of hatred of the US and Western Europe.

I doubt that second point is an acceptable answer, but it's what I have. I hope they can figure out their own issues because lord knows we can't do it for them.
So, I don't mean to attack Islam here. Well, actually yes I do.

http://www.pewforum.org/2013/04/30/the-worlds-muslims-religion-politics-society-beliefs-about-sharia/

Egypt is a very influential cultural center for Islam. Some 80 something percent of people there believe sharia should be law. Another 80%+ of that figure believe that adultery should be punished by stoning to death, and there should be a death penalty for leaving Islam. There are differences between the middle east and the rest of the Islamic world, but not as large as I would like to see
Jeff Kuta (2066 D)
17 Dec 14 UTC
@bo: Are you a jihadist? Are you a Muslim? Many would call you an apologist for those statements, but I'll just assume you're misguided.

People who claim the mantle of Islam and commit atrocities do it in spite of the vast majority of Muslims who are committed to peace.

The bad guys believe. They act on those beliefs. That's it. End of story.

Call it a perversion of Islam or whatever you want.
THEY BELIEVE WHAT THEY BELIEVE AND ARE WILLING TO KILL FOR IT.

It's not just "them" either. It happens for all sorts of reasons for anyone who has a fanatic drive to action.

Personally, I'm not anti-Islam. I'm anti-people-who-kill-innocent-people no matter who they are.
bo_sox48 (5202 DMod(G))
17 Dec 14 UTC
I'm Jewish. If any faith in the world has a reason to hate on the Muslim faith, it's mine. That said, I don't, and I would sharply condemn anyone in my faith who does, just as I do pretty frequently. (Note that I said "hate on," not "hate" - there is never room for that.)

You can believe in something all you want. That doesn't mean you are what you believe. If someone came up to me and said they were a survivalist and believed in the laws of nature and that we should all live by them, then started crying when they put up their rain fly and improperly all of their things got wet, I would tell them to go back to the big city where they belong. There is an entrance exam for everything, including Islam, and terrorists fail it, no matter how much they believe they belong.

"It's not just "them" either. It happens for all sorts of reasons for anyone who has a fanatic drive to action."

Exactly. They are fanatics. They are terrorists. They are not Muslims. Their actions remove them from that class of people.
bo_sox48 (5202 DMod(G))
17 Dec 14 UTC
By the way, yesterday, December 16, was also the anniversary of the Pakistani Army surrendering to Bengali revolutionaries and the Indian Army, which concluded one of the largest genocides/humanitarian crises (whatever you want to call it) in history - 3 million deaths, 200,000 reported rapes (and likely many more), and over 10 million refugees. I would argue that that genocide was one of the most underreported and unrecognized events in the 1900s.
Invictus (240 D)
17 Dec 14 UTC
(+1)
"They are fanatics. They are terrorists. They are not Muslims. Their actions remove them from that class of people."

Oh please. This is literally the No True Scotsman fallacy.

Terrorists who commit their acts in the name of Islam are Muslims. Sorry. They're not typical Muslims, but they're Muslims. Just like how the Westboro Baptist Church with its extreme views on predestination and opposition to homosexuality are Christians, or how the extreme settlers in the West Bank are Jewish.

Doing shitty things in the name of a religion or ideology doesn't automatically excise one from that religion or ideology. It's ridiculous to pretend otherwise.
Jeff Kuta (2066 D)
17 Dec 14 UTC
I think there are peaceful Muslims and violent Muslims, peaceful Christians and violent Christians, peaceful people and violent people. While the mainstream is peaceful, there is a substantial violent element across all cultures.

Are Catholics also Christians? Are Mormons? Do Sunnis and Shiites consider each other legitimately Muslim? Orthodox vs Conservative vs Reform Judaism?

I think your hard stance that violent fanatics are terrorists and not [Muslims/Christians/Jews/Breathairians/etc] is willfully ignoring the reality.

"Those people" claim to be who they are, to belong to whatever religion or group they want, and act accordingly. Their actions are rooted in their beliefs. That is how schisms happen, and in many cases a schism *is* the end game.
TrPrado (461 D)
17 Dec 14 UTC
It would help if we branded them by the name of their sect instead of by the name of the religion as a whole since when people just see the name of the religion they will associate everyone in the religion with those actions. Terrorists are followers of Wahhabism. ISIS are Wahhabis, the Taliban (every group that goes by the name) is Wahhabi, even the Saudi government (not terrorists, but still true of them since they were the original followers of the sect and still follow it) is Wahhabi.
Invictus (240 D)
17 Dec 14 UTC
That's still hiding the ball. It's no less accurate to call them Muslim rather than Wahhabi. More precise, sure. But it's not incorrect to call the Islamic State or the Taliban, etc. Muslim. It may even be obscurantist, since people not familiar with the intricacies of differing schools in Islam may think Wahhabism is a religion of its own.

The death cultists ruling upper Mesopotamia are Muslims. Atypical Muslims, but Muslims nonetheless. There is no sensible reason to deny or minimize this.
TrPrado (461 D)
17 Dec 14 UTC
Is there something that makes it impossible to say both together? Can your mouth not say "Wahhabi Muslims"?
Jeff Kuta (2066 D)
17 Dec 14 UTC
I think it's easy enough to just say Wahhabists or Salafists or Muslims.

But you can't say shark or tuna without acknowledging each is a type of fish.
Invictus (240 D)
17 Dec 14 UTC
I certainly can say "Wahabi Muslims." But bo_sox48, and to a lesser extent you, are saying these people are not Muslims. They are. Referring to sect is better practice, I admit. But there's nothing wrong with calling members of the Islamic State Muslims. They are. This may trouble you, but it's true.
Jeff Kuta (2066 D)
17 Dec 14 UTC
Getting a bit far afield of the Pakistani Taliban, but this is a pretty good primer on Wahhabism.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/alastair-crooke/isis-wahhabism-saudi-arabia_b_5717157.html
TrPrado (461 D)
17 Dec 14 UTC
Don't worry, Jeff, the entire conversation has gotten pretty far afield from the event that spawned this thread. Especially considering it was not an act of religious violence, but political violence.
Invictus (240 D)
18 Dec 14 UTC
I can't see how you can divorce the Taliban's political and religious aims. They want to reestablish the theocracy which existed before the American invasion, and expand it to all Pashtun areas.
TrPrado (461 D)
18 Dec 14 UTC
Because this attack didn't have to do with that. It was retaliation against Pakistan's military initiative intended to destroy the Taliban.
TrPrado (461 D)
18 Dec 14 UTC
And that's also not part of the TTP's aims. Their aims, as well as the two different groups themselves, are separate.
Invictus (240 D)
18 Dec 14 UTC
Are you saying the Pakistani Taliban do not want to impose their interpretation of sharia law on society? Is that not their reason for existing? I think you'd find you're mistaken.
TrPrado (461 D)
18 Dec 14 UTC
The statement "They want to reestablish the theocracy which existed before the American invasion, and expand it to all Pashtun areas." is specific to the Afghan Taliban, that's what I meant. And this massacre, in any case, is not being religiously justified (or attempted to be justified since the attack isn't justified according to just about anyone) by the TTP. Only politically. And it's also really hard to find me mistaken when it comes to Pakistani politics, no matter how disenchanted I've recently become with it.

Page 2 of 3
FirstPreviousNextLast
 

71 replies
Yellowjacket (835 D(B))
17 Dec 14 UTC
(+2)
That's DOCTOR Yellowjacket to you
Bitches.
33 replies
Open
bo_sox48 (5202 DMod(G))
18 Dec 14 UTC
(+1)
Bullshit
In case you haven't heard...

http://www.adweek.com/adfreak/cards-against-humanity-got-30000-people-buy-actual-shit-6-box-black-friday-161973
4 replies
Open
MichiganMan (5121 D)
18 Dec 14 UTC
Fishy Game
Not saying which, because that would be a violation, but I've got a fishy game going -- something ain't right between Russia and England. I'm curious to see the names when it's over.
21 replies
Open
Sandman99 (95 D)
16 Dec 14 UTC
(+1)
Keystone Pipeline
Discuss!
74 replies
Open
bo_sox48 (5202 DMod(G))
17 Dec 14 UTC
(+2)
RIP Norman Bridwell
The author and illustrator of Clifford the big red dog died on the 12th. He deserves a mention. He imagined and drew my early childhood hero.

http://tinyurl.com/kdzexod
1 reply
Open
pangloss (363 D)
16 Dec 14 UTC
Terrorism in historical perspective
An article by the late Fred Halliday. It's a quick read, but interesting nonetheless. Recent forum posts made me think of it, although it was written pre-ISIS.

https://www.opendemocracy.net/conflict/article_1865.jsp
5 replies
Open
Valis2501 (2850 D(G))
15 Dec 14 UTC
(+1)
woop woop woop
Looking for players for a fun, high-quality classic WTA, semi-anon 36 H 33 D Diplomacy game. Priority given to those from previous woop woop woop games.
26 replies
Open
Chaqa (3971 D(B))
28 Nov 14 UTC
(+8)
Mafia VI: The Search for Mafia V
Do not post in this thread until I give the "Phase has begun" message.
2281 replies
Open
Hairball (100 D)
17 Dec 14 UTC
Email Notices
I am unable to find a way to have all in game communication forwarded to my e-mail address. I assume either I am missing it or this functionality does not exist. Can anyone shed some light on this?
5 replies
Open
KingCyrus (511 D)
17 Dec 14 UTC
Wait time for Mods
How much time is it usual to wait for mods to respond to an email?
7 replies
Open
bo_sox48 (5202 DMod(G))
17 Dec 14 UTC
(+2)
#IllRideWithYou
http://mic.com/articles/106442/australians-show-the-world-exactly-how-to-respond-to-terrorism-with-ill-ride-with-you?utm_source=policymicTBLR&utm_medium=main&utm_campaign=social

I really love this.
0 replies
Open
Jamiet99uk (898 D)
07 Dec 14 UTC
Mute in games
When an opponent stabs you, it's annoying, of course - but it's all part of the game, and I always attempt to keep communications open in case something can be salvaged later on.

When an opponent stabs you, and also immediately mutes you in the game.... what the actual fuck?
13 replies
Open
acornist (1023 D)
16 Dec 14 UTC
Fix Huxhxh
For the players from Huxhxh who were committed and want to play - here's another chance. PM for the password.

http://webdiplomacy.net/board.php?gameID=152200
0 replies
Open
orathaic (1009 D(B))
16 Dec 14 UTC
(+2)
Tories, what the ever-living fuck?
http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2014/dec/14/immigration-rule-change-assault-britishness-money-citizenship-rights?CMP=fb_gu
3 replies
Open
Page 1220 of 1419
FirstPreviousNextLast
Back to top