It was kinda interesting how the view point changed, but I was surprised it took as few posts as it did

The first view point was for Sbyvl, the second one for dipplayer. I didn't change my point of view, I tried to explain something to Sbyvl, basically that characterizing Marxism doesn't make him right, and I tried to, well, explain something else to dipplayer :P They are both my point of view, the first one was just purposely with an idiotic flavour. However, dipplayer is paraphrasing and he's kind of doing it wrong. I was talking about millions of innocent people killed by America to spread democracy and weaken communism when I started and I ended up saying America has been in many wars, mostly *ARGUABLY* justified.

What I'm trying to say is that I still believe America killed millions of innocent people to spread democracy and weaken communism which I still think is a really bad thing.
They can just argue justification in most wars. I argue against it in most wars.

grking is right about Blankflag, for info. He was given a month-long silencing, which still has just under two weeks to run, if I recall correctly.

We should do something to celebrate the end of blankflag's sentence.

Yeah. Silence him.

I was thinking more along the lines of a game where each player would impersonate Blank Flag. Each turn, we could very publicly accuse other players of hatching conspiracies against us. Anyone who holds more supply centers than you do becomes part of the "elite." Press sent between players should include copious cribbing from Prison Planet web site, etc. Shameless promotion of your (conspiracy theory) web site could be fun, too. Various fringe sociology can be expounded, supported only by links to random facebook posts. And if anyone beats you, you should accuse them of colluding with staff.

Doesn't sound fun?

Does the winner get to choose a certain person he finds rather annoying to silence?
If so I suggest eliminating blank , then draw, then silence him 6 times.