Forum
A place to discuss topics/games with other webDiplomacy players.
Page 118 of 1419
FirstPreviousNextLast
RiffArt (1299 D)
15 Jul 08 UTC
Support Question
The rules on the site state that support can be given to HOLDING units.

However, normally I believe support can be given to any unit that DOESN'T MOVE. (see http://www.diplomacy-archive.com/resources/rulebooks/2000AH4th.pdf)

So if I order two units to support each other and one is attacked (and the attack is supported), what will happen? The site rules suggest that the attack will succeed (can't support a unit that wasn't holding), however normally it wouldn't do so.

Please help. (Soon).

Thanks in advance.
2 replies
Open
Kent C. Tugood (483 D)
15 Jul 08 UTC
Spain Movement Question
In this game: http://www.phpdiplomacy.net/board.php?gameID=4222, last night I decided to move my Portugal Fleet to South Coast Spain, while moving the fleet at North Coast Spain to Portugal. At the time, I didn't think of it as a bounce since both fleets were not directly crossing movement, but it was interpreted by the adjudicator as bounces, which makes sense when I woke up this morning. I just want to make sure that it is actually a bounce.
2 replies
Open
Shino (113 D)
15 Jul 08 UTC
New game called E3
come join me to celebrate e3 WOOT WOOT 50 pt kicker fee
0 replies
Open
TheGhostmaker (1545 D)
15 Jul 08 UTC
Winner takes all game
Is anyone interested in a winner takes all game, pot of 60-120 points. If/When I have six names with emails either in profile or in the thread, I'll start a game and send joining links.
1 reply
Open
Iidhaegn (111 D)
15 Jul 08 UTC
Standard Format questions?
When you're looking at the chat screen on an individual game, is all the chat interaction supposed to show with or without scroll bars?
4 replies
Open
Pandora (100 D)
05 Jul 08 UTC
Pandora and Sicarius
we're going to quit for a bit, since we dont have reliable access to a computer, and we're both busy alot

we'll start again when we have more time

sorry for the cd

later boys
Page 2 of 4
FirstPreviousNextLast
 
Pandora (100 D)
10 Jul 08 UTC
for someone who's not an anti-semetic homophobic racist, you sure make alot of anti-semetic homophobic racist remarks
mapleleaf (0 DX)
10 Jul 08 UTC

Get your head out of the gasoline bag, Trixie. You're inventing conspiracies.

Go steal something.........
Tucobenedicto (100 D)
10 Jul 08 UTC
STFU MAPLELEAF THEY'RE JUST LIVING LIFE. MAYBE IF YOU WEREN'T SUCH A HOMOPHOBIC NAZI YOU'D REALIZE THIS.
keeper0018 (100 D)
10 Jul 08 UTC
tucobenedicto, i think it is you who is the hypocrite. was it not you who said, and i quote, "Oh Mapleleaf, you bring a smile to my face." now, call me crazy, but i think this implies that you enjoy mapleleaf's posts, and yet you are telling him to shut up and calling him a homophobic nazi... now, dont get me wrong, i dont necessarily agree with everything mapleleaf says, but you need to come to a consensus with yourself about your views of mapleleaf.
Karkand (2167 D)
10 Jul 08 UTC
I think Mapleleaf is awesome. I can read his posts, he constantly calls out the multiaccounter Pan/Sic, and his humor never flags.

So yeah, by my reckoning:

Maple: 2 Feckle: 0
Karkand (2167 D)
10 Jul 08 UTC
Poor Keeper. I wonder if he'll figure it out.
sean (3490 D(B))
10 Jul 08 UTC
pan and sic are not multiaccounters karkand. they are just opinionated members of this community. mapleleaf is a grump and needs anger management lessons but he is fun to keep coz of his silly posts.
Vampiero (3525 D)
10 Jul 08 UTC
i get the impression multi-accounting accussations is our version of salems witch hunts.
Pandora (100 D)
10 Jul 08 UTC
yeah we've already gone through oooo pandora and sicarius are cheating
and it was extremely obvious that we were not


thanls for the suggestion maple, I think i will go steal something
flashman (2274 D(G))
10 Jul 08 UTC
But you are cheating, not in phpDiplomacy but out there in the real world.

Now which do I think is worse?
Pandora (100 D)
10 Jul 08 UTC
I dont feel I'm cheating at all.
I am against capitalism, so I choose not to perpetuate it by not getting a job or purchasing things.
I live off it's excess
flashman (2274 D(G))
10 Jul 08 UTC
As far as I can remember, people have to work and pay their dues in a Communist state as well. Capitalism is not the issue here.

You live a parasitic lifestyle and boast about it. You can hardly be surprised if your hosts object from time to time.
Pandora (100 D)
10 Jul 08 UTC
for me, yes it is the issue


and for the record I hate communism just as much as capitalism
flashman (2274 D(G))
10 Jul 08 UTC
You miss the point. Your lifestyle is reprehensible to people from much of the political spectrum. You are stealing from the people, not the political system.



Pandora (100 D)
10 Jul 08 UTC
actually capitalism is an economic system, not a political one

besides your statement is too broad to respond to. do you mean literally, because then it would be untrue
flashman (2274 D(G))
10 Jul 08 UTC
I meant it literally. When you go shoplifting, for example, you are stealing from people directly and indirectly, which is true.

And all political systems are economic systems. If you were not so scathing of education you might have been able to learn a bit about that as well. Politics, economics, these are about the way people live.
Pandora (100 D)
10 Jul 08 UTC
sorry I dont feel too bad about stealing from huge multinational corporations who play a large part in the destruction of our world. I dont steal from people

there is a difference between political and economic systems. they are inexorably linked but they are not the same. besides it's kind of a low blow to insult my education, instead of having a healthy debate.

Katsarephat (100 D)
10 Jul 08 UTC
Huge multinational corporations have to cut costs to make up for the losses that you cause them to suffer, and the first thing to go is labor... so you end up hurting the people when you try to hit the corporation.

You've heard of the trickle-down effect, right? That's the truth of the trickle-down-- the bad things trickle down to the good people.
fraushai (1781 D)
10 Jul 08 UTC
flashman 1: pandora 0
flashman (2274 D(G))
10 Jul 08 UTC
Pandora, it was you, a few months back, who boasted about not going to college and not wanting to go to college and not needing to go to college. I merely threw your own boast back at you.

And Kat is correct, hence my reference to direct and indirect.

You steal, owners lose;
owners often include pension funds - they lose, their ultimate clients lose, and that really does include little old ladies;
you steal, prices go up - we have to pay;
you steal, insurance to cover theft goes up - we have to pay;
you steal, people lose jobs - they pay, their whole family pays...

As far as I am concerned every person on this Earth should accept responsibility for the lifestyle they live. We can argue about age but I think you are well past the dividing line...
Pandora (100 D)
11 Jul 08 UTC
Why I Love Shoplifting
from big corporations

Nothing compares to the feeling of elation, of burdens being lifted and constraints escaped, that I feel when I walk out of a store with their products in my pockets. In a world where everything already belongs to someone else, where I am expected to sell away my life at work in order to get the money to pay for the minimum I need to survive, where I am surrounded by forces beyond my control or comprehension that obviously are not concerned about my needs or welfare, it is a way to carve out a little piece of the world for myself—to act back upon a world that acts so much upon me.

It is an entirely different sensation than the one I feel when I buy something. When I pay for something, I'm making a trade; I'm offering the money that I bought with my labor, my time, and my creativity for a product or service that the corporation wouldn't share with me under any other circumstances. In a sense, we have a relationship based on violence: we negotiate an exchange not according to our respect or concern for each other, but according to the forces that we can bring to bear on each other. Supermarkets know they can charge me a dollar for bread because I will starve if I do not buy it from them; they know they can't charge me four dollars, because I will go somewhere else. So our interaction revolves around unspoken threats, rather than love, and I am forced to give up something of my own to get anything from them.[1][1] In a love relationship, conversley, people usually think of themselves as benefitting from giving to others, and vice versa.

Everything changes when I shoplift. I'm no longer negotiating with faceless, inhuman entities that have no concern for my welfare; instead, I'm taking what I need without giving anything up. I no longer feel like I am being forced into an exchange, and I no longer feel as if I have no control over the way the world around me dictates my life. I no longer have to worry about whether the pleasure I receive from the book I purchased was equal to the two hours of labor it cost me to be able to afford it. In these and a thousand other ways, shoplifting makes me feel liberated and empowered. Let's examine what shoplifting has to offer as an alternative way of life.

The shoplifter wins her prize by taking risks, not by exchanging a piece of her life for it. Life for her is not something that must be sold away for seven or eight dollars an hour in return for survival; it is something that is hers because she takes it for herself, because she lays claim to it. In stark contrast to the law-abiding consumer, the means by which she acquires goods is as exciting as the goods themselves; and this means is also, in many ways, more praiseworthy.

Shoplifting is a refusal of the exchange economy. It is a denial that people deserve to eat, live, and die based on how effectively they are able to exchange their labor and capital with others. It is a denial that a monetary value can be ascribed to everything, that having a piece of delicious chocolate in your mouth is worth exactly fifty cents or that an hour of one person's life can really be worth ten dollars more than that of another person. It is a refusal to accept the capitalist system, in which workers have to buy back the products of their own labor at a profit to the owners of capital, who thus get them coming and going.

Shoplifting says NO to all the objectionable features that have come to characterize the modern corporation. It is an expression of discontent with the low wages and lack of benefits that so many exploiting corporations force their employees to suffer in the name of company profits. It is a refusal to pay for low quality products that have been designed to break or wear out soon in order to force consumers to buy more. It is a refusal to fund the environmental damage that so many corporations perpetrate heartlessly in the course of manufacturing their products and building new stores, a refusal to support the corporations that run private, local businesses into bankruptcy, a refusal to accept the murder of animals in the meat and dairy industries and the exploitation of migrant labor in the fruit and vegetable industries. Shoplifting makes a statement against the alienation of the modern consumer. "If we are not able to find or afford any products other than these, that were made a thousand miles from us and about which we can know nothing," it asserts, "then we refuse to pay for these."

The shoplifter attacks the cynical mind control tactics of modern advertising. Today's commercials, billboards, even the floor—layouts and product displays in stores are designed by psychologists to manipulate potential consumers into purchasing products. Corporations carry out extensive advertising campaigns to insinuate their exhortations to consumption into every mind, and even work to make their products into status symbols that people from some walks of society eventually must own in order to be accorded respect. Faced with this kind of manipulation, the law-abiding consumer has two choices: either to come up with the money to purchase these products by selling his life away as a wage laborer, or to go without and possibly invite public ridicule as well as private frustration. The shoplifter creates a third choice of her own: she takes the products she has been conditioned to desire without paying for them, so the corporations themselves must pay for all of their propagandizing and mind control tactics.

Shoplifting is the most effective protest against all these objectionable attributes of modern corporations because it is not merely theoretical—it is practical, it involves action. Verbal protests can be raised to irresponsible business practices without ever having any solid effect, but shoplifting is intrinsically damaging these corporations at the same time as it (however covertly) demonstrates dissatisfaction. It is better than a boycott, because not only does it cost the corporation money rather than just denying it profit, it also means that the shoplifter is still able to obtain the products, which she may need to survive. And in these days when so many corporations are interconnected, and so many multinationals are involved in unacceptable activity, shoplifting is a generalized protest: it is a refusal to put any cash into the economy at all, so that the shoplifter can be sure that none of her cash will ever end up in the hands of the corporations she disapproves of. In addition to that, she will have to work less for them, as well!

But what about the people in the corporations? What about their welfare? First of all, corporations are distinct from traditional private businesses in that they exist as separate financial entities from their owners. So the shoplifter is stealing from a non-human entity, not directly from the pocket of a human being. Second, since so many workers are paid set wages (minimum wage, for example) that depend more on how little the corporation can get away with paying rather than on how much profit it is making, the shoplifter is not really hurting most of the workforce at any given company either. The stockholders, who are almost always far richer than your average thief, are the ones who stand to lose a little if the company suffers significant losses; but realistically, no campaign of shoplifting could be intense enough to force any of the wealthy individuals who actually profit from these companies into poverty. Besides, modern corporations have money set aside for shoplifting losses, because they anticipate them. That's correct—these corporations are aware that there is enough dissatisfaction with them and their capitalist economy that people are going to steal from them remorselessly. In that sense, shoplifters are just playing their role in society, just like C.E.O.s. More significantly, these corporations are cynical enough to go about their business as usual, even though they know this leaves many of their customers (and employees!) ready to steal anything from them that they can. If they are willing to continue doing business in this way even when they are aware how many people it alienates, they should not be surprised that people continue stealing from them.

Shoplifting is more than a way to survive in the cutthroat competition of the "free market" and protest corporate injustices. It is also a different kind of orientation to the world and to life.

The shoplifter makes do with an environment that has been conquered by capitalism and industry, where there is no longer a natural world from which to gather resources and everything has become private property, without accepting it or the absurd way of life it entails. She takes her life into her own hands by applying an ancient method to the problem of modern survival: she lives by urban hunting and gathering. In this way she is able to live much as her distant ancestors did before the world was subjugated by technology, imperialism, and the irrational demands of the "free" market; and she can find the same challenges and rewards in her work, rewards that are lost to the rest of us today. For her, the world is as dangerous and as exciting as it was to prehistoric humanity: every day she is in new situations, confronting new risks, living by her wits in a constantly changing environment. For the law-abiding consumer, it is likely that every day at work is similar to the last one and danger is as sorely lacking in life as meaning and purpose are.

To shoplift is to affirm immediate, bodily desires (such as hunger) over abstract "ethics" and other such ethereal constructs, most of which are left over from a deceased Christianity anyway. Shoplifting divests commodities (and the marketplace in general) of the mythical power they seem to have to control the lives of consumers... when they are seized by force, they show themselves for what they are: merely resources that have been held by force by these corporations at the expense of everyone else. Shoplifting places us back in the physical world, where things are real, where things are nothing more than their physical characteristics (weight, taste, ease of acquisition) and are not invested with superstitious qualities such as "market value" and "profit margin." It forces us to take risks and experience life firsthand again. Perhaps shoplifting alone will not be able to overthrow industrial society or the capitalist system... but in the meantime it is one of the best forms of protest and self-empowerment, and one of the most practical, too!



Shoplifters of the world, unite!




[1] In a love relationship, conversley, people usually think of themselves as benefitting from giving to others, and vice versa.
Pandora (100 D)
11 Jul 08 UTC
by the way mapleleaf it's called the ghost dance
and I hope you realize how ridiculous it is for you to accuse someone else of spewing hate while you're in the middle of a racist tirade
Katsarephat (100 D)
11 Jul 08 UTC
You've got nothing for me, then? My logic stands uncontested?

I'm disappointed.
Pandora (100 D)
11 Jul 08 UTC
I had thought I answered you. not directly, but nonetheless.
flashman (2274 D(G))
11 Jul 08 UTC
Pandora does not agree with logic.

The essay above is but a taste of what she posted frequently when she first arrived on the site. It was then in response to observations such as,

"would have read better editted", and "over-use of jargonisms", that she started off on a curve about not going to college, not wanting to go to college, not needing to go to college etc...

If Sicarius turns up, look out for sequipedalian tendecies and an affectation towards isms. Indeed, I even coined and copyrighted a word last time round, ismisms, just to characterise his style.

I think the only thing you will get Pandora to agree to regarding logic is that it is spelt cigol backwards.
Croaker (370 D)
11 Jul 08 UTC
Let me get this straight. Its ok to steal? You have a right to steal because you can't fairly put a price on food? Your rights of survival trump everyone else's?

Morally that is just wrong. Take the situation in Darfur. Herders from the north are forced by drought to the farmland in the south. The herders are certain that their rights of survival out-weigh the rights of the farmers. But the farmers do not cooperate. So the herders steal what is not given to them according to their rights. Oh yeah, they also burn, murder, mutilate and rape to establish their rights.

I guess if it was a group of shoplifters attacking Wal-Mart: killing the mangers, raping and mutilating their familes, then burning down the store after stealing what they could carry; it would be OK because Wal-Mart is a faceless corporation.

So revel in your chosen lifestyle Pandora.
Pandora (100 D)
11 Jul 08 UTC
no ones life is any more or less important than anothers.
you seem to have missed my point.

frankly I'm very offended you would compare me to a janjaweed militant.
Wal-mart is a faceless corporation, and if I beleived in objective morality I would call it evil. the workers at wal-mart are being exploited too.
Katsarephat (100 D)
11 Jul 08 UTC
You make the exploitation worse with your attack at the top. I have yet to see any proof that trickle-down (as I have defined it) does not hold.
Pandora (100 D)
11 Jul 08 UTC
But what about the people in the corporations? What about their welfare? First of all, corporations are distinct from traditional private businesses in that they exist as separate financial entities from their owners. So the shoplifter is stealing from a non-human entity, not directly from the pocket of a human being. Second, since so many workers are paid set wages (minimum wage, for example) that depend more on how little the corporation can get away with paying rather than on how much profit it is making, the shoplifter is not really hurting most of the workforce at any given company either. The stockholders, who are almost always far richer than your average thief, are the ones who stand to lose a little if the company suffers significant losses; but realistically, no campaign of shoplifting could be intense enough to force any of the wealthy individuals who actually profit from these companies into poverty. Besides, modern corporations have money set aside for shoplifting losses, because they anticipate them.
flashman (2274 D(G))
11 Jul 08 UTC
I will have to admit that you just made me laugh their Pandora. Hugely enjoyable read that last post of yours...

Page 2 of 4
FirstPreviousNextLast
 

119 replies
Treefarn (6094 D)
14 Jul 08 UTC
Thoughts on draws in PPSC games
I was wondering what people's thoughts were on draws in PPSC games.
13 replies
Open
Worldbeing (1063 D)
14 Jul 08 UTC
Worldbeing's Return
Hello again all!
I'm back, and raring to go. (Interesting word, raring- derives from a form of 'rear', presumably in the sense of a rearing horse... but anyway).
Could someone give me a brief overview of what improvements (if any) have been made since I was last around, which I think was shortly after the introduction of the points system?
I must admit, I was astounded to find I was still ranked well within the top 100...it seems the good only get better and the others don't rise...
18 replies
Open
anlari (8640 D)
13 Jul 08 UTC
Warsaw Uprising
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Warsaw_uprising

That caught me attention while I was in Poland - the way Stalin forced the Poles to rebel or be labelled as defeatists, then stopped his armies a few hundred meters away to let Germans crush them before moving in - Facing less of a defence in the city as well as preventing any future Polish resistance.. The bastard was a true diplomat.
6 replies
Open
TheGhostmaker (1545 D)
14 Jul 08 UTC
Game thirty three and a third pis
Bet is thirty three and a third pi to the nearest integer(105). Winner takes all.
3 replies
Open
jpchewy01 (100 D)
14 Jul 08 UTC
Anyone Can Join
Join the game Anyone Can Join. bet is 5 points.
0 replies
Open
q93 (373 D)
14 Jul 08 UTC
Slow interface
Anyone else having major problems with the site. I'm having a hell of a time getting orders in. As manay games as I'm playing this will take me the full 24 hours just to get my orders in.
10 replies
Open
Cheleon (1153 D)
14 Jul 08 UTC
Draw request: Give Us Bubblewrap
http://phpdiplomacy.net/board.php?gameID=4418

Posted by Italy.
The other players France, Germany and Russia will confirm.
3 replies
Open
dearmore28 (527 D)
14 Jul 08 UTC
Pow Wow Draw Request
Kestas, Please draw this game Italy (pokemon trainer) should confirm shortly.
2 replies
Open
flashman (2274 D(G))
10 Jul 08 UTC
Face to Face Diplomacy...
A little news...
31 replies
Open
Vampiero (3525 D)
12 Jul 08 UTC
Duplicitous Tactics Draw
this is turkey asking for a draw.
soon france and russia should also post.
8 replies
Open
fr1988 (100 D)
12 Jul 08 UTC
If YOU were accused of metagaming
Scenario: you put your time/efforts to play Diplomacy because you consider it rewarding and interesting. You disapprove metagaming, because in your opinion it comprimes the honesty/fun of the game (you believe everyone should start with same potential chances to win a game, then as game develops odds are going up or down).

In a particular game, you are playing Austria. You could have crashed Russia, but from previous games you learnt that, once Russia is gone, Turkey is a genie out of a box and the doom starts. So, instead of trying to destroy Russia, you let him stand as deterrent against Turkey.

Then Turkey accuses Russia and you of metagaming.

QUESTION: considering Turkey is an experienced player, at least according to his rank, what would YOU think?

a) Turkey is a smart, Machiavellian player. Using bogus complaints to move your focus away from the game. What a great player!

b) Turkey and Russia are up to something, and staging a fake disagreement. God saves me from allies, than I will take care of enemies :-)

c) Turkey is in immature player. He really believes what he says!

d) None of the above. Please enlighten me with your opinion!

In case this case falls in cluster "A", I will not add any additional message to the original ones. But I would love to know what you think about this.
22 replies
Open
alex_spro (284 D)
12 Jul 08 UTC
Question:
I am very new to this game, but from viewing the finished ones, it seems like Italy almost never wins? Also, it seems like Austria wins the most, followed by Turkey, Russia, England.
13 replies
Open
Rait (10151 D(S))
13 Jul 08 UTC
Kestas, pleas look at this
In the game http://phpdiplomacy.net/board.php?gameID=4374&msgCountry=Germany

shouldn't the attack from STP to Barents Sea have failed by the rules?
3 replies
Open
Treefarn (6094 D)
13 Jul 08 UTC
Disbands when in CD
I thought the rule for disbands for a country in CD was the farther away from home SCs. I am currently in a game where Austria is in CD. At the end of Autumn, he had 2 SCs at Trieste and Vienna. He had 3 armies in Galicia, Albania and Trieste. Trieste was disbanded. Why?
4 replies
Open
QuiSxu92 (110 D)
13 Jul 08 UTC
Build later orders
I have requested to build later, does the option to build in Autumn automatically ask me? if what do I need to do... thanks in advance
1 reply
Open
lyriac (121 D)
13 Jul 08 UTC
a question from a newbie
the situation is like this:
I am playing france and i have an army in spain. i want to occupy portugal but this turn is sping 1902 in order to set portugal as a supply center does my army need to stay there for another turn? or my occupation in spring is just enaugh?
2 replies
Open
aoe3rules (949 D)
12 Jul 08 UTC
Viva la Vida
has anyone heard the song "Viva la Vida"? i was just thinking about it and realized it we could write a great diplomacy-related parody of it; i've already got a few lines:

"I used to rule the word,
fleets would move when i gave the word.
Now in the morning i scheme alone,
scheme with guys i used to own..."

"...Be my puppet, my sword and shield,
My figurehead in a foreign field.
For some reason i can't explain,
since i joined, there was never,
never an honest word,
Even when i ruled the world."

also, maybe someone here who can sing could post it to Youtube. or they might record it at the FTF game in the UK.
7 replies
Open
Sun_Tzu (2116 D)
13 Jul 08 UTC
Move should have worked.
In the game "New Trade" Russia had fleet GoB support Sweden to Baltic Sea and fleet Baltic Sea was supporting another move, but was unsupported. This should have displaced fleet Baltic Sea. But it didn't.
3 replies
Open
Mrlimmer (396 D)
13 Jul 08 UTC
The Magical Magic Game!
Join Now!
0 replies
Open
anlari (8640 D)
12 Jul 08 UTC
Facebook
I was wondering the facebook usage density here - If we all add each other as friends it might make it easier to communicate considering many of us shy away from posting e-mails on public forums. I'm Anil Ari.
5 replies
Open
RogueMcGyver (455 D)
13 Jul 08 UTC
Convoy Disruption?
http://phpdiplomacy.net/board.php?gameID=4265

Shouldn't my attack from GoB -> Baltic Sea stopped them from convoying an army to Livonia?

If not can someone explain to me why it did not?
3 replies
Open
KaaRoy (0 DX)
12 Jul 08 UTC
Just for Fun 1 - Low points game but the winner takes it all
As stated above... One winner, 6 losers.
0 replies
Open
flashman (2274 D(G))
12 Jul 08 UTC
anlari, you're back!
Do you now how many ways I have tried to contact you?
28 replies
Open
jpchewy01 (100 D)
12 Jul 08 UTC
New game
Join Empires of Europe-2! the bet is 5 points.
0 replies
Open
Page 118 of 1419
FirstPreviousNextLast
Back to top