Well, back to business after our little side show, I see...

I hardly think abgemacht is on a power trip, fulhamish.
He's just doing his job.

I will say, obi, infanticide is an integral plot point to one of my favorite novels. Jude the Obscure by Thomas Hardy. Lovely read.

Well, attempted infanticide is an integral plot point for one of my favorite works too--

Oedipus Rex.

But neither Sophocles nor Hardy CONDONED infanticide in their works...

Much less condoned it on a religious and ethnic basis as part of a genocide. ;)

As an aknowledged mastermind of the diplomacy world, I'd like to sign Santa's petition because I think I have only achieved my elevated status because the cheaters on here are so inept and many other nations seems to go on holiday when I invade them or their government collapses juts as I reach ther borders. If the cheaters were half way decent and enermies even marginally organised I think I would struggle to become a political puppet. Please mods, can you redress this glaring error.

Yours ever

Maniac

I DEMAND JUSTICE

@Fulhamish … that is the warning. Just because it's not formal doesn't mean it didn't happen.

Then main drawback of putting up with games, like those mentionned at here, is that they happen to make for more adversity that do in no-wise simulate the 'real-life' game - where your friends are actually around a table, for they incurr situations and false balances of power, all in a wonderful calculation of D's.

But neither Sophocles nor Hardy CONDONED infanticide in their works...

Compare and contrast with Peter Singer: http://www.utilitarian.net/singer/by/1993----.htm

Or even Dawkins speaking to Singer:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YWkJ6cZ0FY8

???

The video doesn't seem credible, with so many dislikes...

And then what does Singer's bit have to do with Sophocles or Hardy?

lol maniac, i understand SC, I would start over as well - since my first 3 games were resigns and the next 25 or so extreme learning curve beat downs.

@ Obi, the video is short and may have been taken out of context, I agree. If, however, you read the text you will see that Singer is indeed a supporter of qualified infanticide. I suppose that is why I think that the video might be a useful ''document''.
In a way I respect Singer because at least he supports the view that a foetus can perceive pain. He is naturally pro-choice so this causes him to move the threshold of independent life to self-awareness/consciousness. It is a logical step in his eyes which thereby leads him to propose infanticide for severely handicapped babies. He qualifies this with a wanted/unwanted parental qualification, but what he doesn't say is whether this qualification applies to all babies, as his next logical step. I am afraid that I perceive this to be a very slippery slope indeed. No doubt many disabled people would agree with me.

"I do hope that this site is NOT becoming the personal domain of a particular vocal moderator on a power-trip."

Don't worry, it's not.

Allow me to add my perspective, which will be kept brief:

I left this site for a short period because of fatigue with stuff like this, whether a mod or not, people just this site way too seriously.

Your record is not important, and neither is mine. It's fun to have and to compare and to play here and talk, but if you care about it more than that, you need to relax. You can calculate your own record free of cheating if you so like.

Frankly, people need to internalize "it's just a game" and "it's just a website" and "it's just a forum" A LOT more than they do now.

Enough of this moderator politics shit, enough of the freaking out about bans and cheating. This shit has been a problem since the beginning of this site in 2006. 2006. SIX YEARS AGO.

For me, at least at my young age, that's a long time. Actually, I've been on this site now a little less than 25% of my entire life. And I can tell you that if you want to enjoy it, you should stop taking it so seriously.

I'm not telling you not to care and not to talk about these things at all, but the tone you ALL use is insane. It makes us all look like fucking obsessives. Just calm down, every last one of us.

Ultimately, it is too much damn work to allow people more than one account, whether they play together or not. Ultimately, it is also too much damn work to go back through and remove cheating games from the record.

Bottom line my friends? That shit is not worth it. No human being should have to waste that amount of time just for... what? A virtual record of playing an online board game with strangers? Yeah, ok.

This is not directed at any particular person, this is a message in general to the entire webdip community, mods and non-mods alike.

+1 _ _ _ <----that sounds a tad lame, lol, ... +1

I want the following rule changed:
If you make a cheating accusation on the forum and actually you are completely correct then that is not an accusation at all, that is factual information. Maybe the Mods should spend their time focusing on the bad guys, rather than allowing them to cheat for two years, but immediately punishing people who make their job much easier by actually telling them who the cheaters are. The only reason people post such stuff on the forum is because the cheaters carry on time on time and again, even admit it, and you e-mail the Mods and they do fuck all about it, obviously all too busy agonising over banning a constant cheater who was 'popular', what the fuck is that all about? Surely common sense should prevail at some stage......

@ thucy, I echo your sentiments. I have had very little to do with the mods since I have been here; although, it does appear to me that they are reasonable people who freely give of their time to keep the site running as well as is possible given their personal time constraints. I do feel that there is one exception to this rule, which is unfortunate. It is a bit like a good and bad foootball/soccer referees. The former go about their business quietly and with discretion, while the latter tend to think that the game is all about them. Luckily we, with one exception, appear to have good referees here.