Min/Max Boards

Quote from: stanprollyright on November 23, 2015, 06:23:22 AM

1. Not everyone believes that statism is bad, and yes I've noticed changes when presidents change.  And when congressional control changes.  And when my governor changes.  Take a look around: we're no longer at war with Iraq and Afghanistan, gay marriage is legal, weed is becoming legal, the economy is marginally better, and more people have health insurance.

Not everyone believes the earth is round either.

And thank you for making my point: Who sits in the Oval Office has very little impact on policy if the rest of the political apparatus, from senators and congressmen on down to cops and file clerks, does not change. As other people have already pointed out, those issues you mention are not nearly as resolved as you seem to think they are. Honestly, who gets to be president is probably one of the least important things you could vote for.

I also vote for senators and congressmen and city council members when I vote for president.  And those other people change in reaction to the president.  Further, the Supreme Court actually does have a huge amount of power in this day and age, and they are appointed by the president.

Quote from: stanprollyright on November 23, 2015, 06:23:22 AM

2.  Since we have two diametrically opposed parties, if one uses underhanded tactics the other cries foul.  In a way, they cancel each other out.  Also, if voting doesn't matter, why would advertising and gerrymandering matter?  Those are both ways to get votes where you want them.  Ohio just passed an anti-gerrymandering law and will have its districts redrawn soon, and other states are doing the same.

Someone already tackled that "diametrically opposed parties" bit, so I'll let it slide.

Advertising and gerrymandering are part of why voting doesn't matter. Even if you try to vote, most people's opinions are more heavily influenced by the campaigns and their party affiliation, rather than actual fact. And for that rare voter who actually took the time to sort through all the BS and develop an informed opinion on the issue, their voice will likely be drowned out anyway--whether by the masses who didn't bother to think for themselves or simply by the way their district lines have been drawn.

Those people have the same number of votes as you.  You are giving them the power to "drown you out" by abstaining.  Again, you're creating a self-fulfilling prophesy of defeatism.

Quote from: stanprollyright on November 23, 2015, 06:23:22 AM

3. Which more effective ways do you speak of?

Education, for a start.

Education only matters if votes do.

Quote from: Libertad on November 23, 2015, 05:36:57 PM

1.) Bernie Sanders' policies are overall the best as a Presidential candidate.  The question is whether or not he will live up to his policies, but he's a far shot better than Hillary.

Spoiler alert: He won't. They never do, partly because a president does not have the authority to enact whatever changes they feel like, and partly because most candidates lie out their ass to get the job and then cease to give a fuck.

If you researched Bernie Sanders you'd realize that you are absolutely wrong.  He's been walking the walk for decades.  He also has a tendency to increase voter turnout wherever he goes, which affects other elections around him.  And, as I mentioned before, even if appointing Supreme Court justices and federal circuit court judges were the only thing the president had the power to do it would be huge.  And that's definitely NOT the only thing the president has the power to do.

Quote from: Libertad on November 22, 2015, 03:14:11 PM

To all my fellow Americans in my age group, who are totally for same-sex marriage, getting rid of the War on Drugs, protest our disastrous policies in the Middle East, but can't get off their ass to bother voting "because the system's broken anyway..."

Vote for the Socialist.  It's important.

A few questions there:

1) How would voting for a socialist president, or any president, address problems that stem from statism? Or have any real effect on those issues? Did you notice a whole lot of change after the last time we switched presidents?

2) Why is it in any way important who we vote for? It's not like the popular vote actually means anything, and even if it did, advertising, gerrymandering, and outright fraud have far more impact.

3) What makes you think the only options are voting or sitting on your ass, rather than pursuing more effective ways to bring about political change?

4) What is your age group, anyway?

1. Not everyone believes that statism is bad, and yes I've noticed changes when presidents change.  And when congressional control changes.  And when my governor changes.  Take a look around: we're no longer at war with Iraq and Afghanistan, gay marriage is legal, weed is becoming legal, the economy is marginally better, and more people have health insurance.

2.  Since we have two diametrically opposed parties, if one uses underhanded tactics the other cries foul.  In a way, they cancel each other out.  Also, if voting doesn't matter, why would advertising and gerrymandering matter?  Those are both ways to get votes where you want them.  Ohio just passed an anti-gerrymandering law and will have its districts redrawn soon, and other states are doing the same.

3. Which more effective ways do you speak of?

4. I assume the 18-34 range, which consistently has the lowest voter turnout.

Quote from: stanprollyright on November 22, 2015, 03:16:17 PM

Cracked.com article comparing Trump to Hitler's rise to power.  And this was published before he advocated the whole "Muslim database" thing.

It is quite disturbing. Thing is, this is just the tip of a trend that's been building for most of my lifetime, if not longer. Just like with Hitler, Trump would have been laughed out on his ass almost immediately if the political climate wasn't already primed to support someone so destructively, obviously, batshit insane.

Our government doesn't even bother paying lip service to the constitution or the frigging Geneva conventions anymore, what makes you think it'll listen to us?

Americans have sat by and allowed--even supported--torture, widespread domestic spying, the detention of U.S. citizens without trial, cops brutalizing and murdering unarmed people on camera, a drone "assassination" program that basically amounts to robo-terrorism...

...it's a little late to stand up for freedom and sanity. Last call for that was over a decade ago.

I see lots of lip-service being paid to the constitution.  And I would argue that it's never too late, simply because the idea that it's too late is a self-fulfilling prophesy.

Quote from: stanprollyright on November 21, 2015, 12:13:03 AM

Ran into my cheating ex today and her boyfriend who used to be a good friend of mine 

Don't even acknowledge their existence, it's for the best.

I tried to do that, but she waved and I waved back.  That was the extent of our exchange but now I'm paranoid every time I go out that I'll run into them.

I use it, typically with Skype.  I've had good experiences.

^^^

The latency of online conversation throws off communication cues.  Quite often, people give a brief pause to allow others to talk, they don't get any cues that someone else is going to start talking, and the original person talks some more.  A split second later, someone else receives that slight pause as an indication that someone else can jump in, but the original speaker has already started again because by the time he receives the cue that you want to talk, he has already started to speak again.

That, and not necessarily being able to see each other.

My name is Andrew and the demons are winning.

I can't eat, I don't sleep
I smell like a sty;
All the thoughts in my head
Make me want to cry.
Despite all my angst
My cheeks remain dry-
It's old hat, you see?
I keep telling this lie.
My fantasies crumble
Worlds melt in the sky
The only safe place
Is a cage in my mind.
I don't know what I want
Or know how to try
Too broken to live
Too chicken to die.

My name is Andrew and the demons are winning.

It was actually really fun.  Thankfully we chose classes after rolls, but no casters were allowed.  My only positive ability score was charisma, so I convinced him to let me play a Bard1/MarshalX with no spells.  I had 4 str and 5 con.  We did lots of running away, in true goblin fashion.

Quote from: stanprollyright on November 12, 2015, 05:50:04 PM

Quote from: Unbeliever on November 12, 2015, 11:16:21 AM

I don't know how related this is, but I'm consistently sort of ... shocked, I guess, at how un-rules-oriented most Pathfinder players are.  It's not an inherently bad thing to prefer a lighter rules system or less involved and time-consuming encounters.  That's a personal preference and one that strikes me as completely reasonable. 

What makes less sense to me is why people who demonstrate those preferences gravitate to what is among the most rules-laden, splatbook proliferating, and so forth systems in the market right now.

It seems a bit counterintuitive, and I have noticed this as well.  It does make some sense though if you look at it from a certain perspective: people who prefer lighter rules may want to pick and choose which rules they follow.  In a rules-heavy, splatbook-laden game like PF you can choose to ignore certain rules, certain books, certain subsystems, and modify other rules as you see fit without changing the basic structure of the game, all because the material is already there to be pruned into the game you want.  In a game with fewer rules its harder to cut something out or change a mechanic without drastically changing the game.  Metaphorically, your perfect game is a bowl; PF is a lump of clay, while more streamlined systems are plastic bowls that may or may not be the right size.

On the contrary, the "more streamlined systems" are bowls of clay. PF is also a bowl of clay, but one that comes with a bunch of plastic molds to quickly shape that clay if you don't feel creative.

Basically PF has a crapload of campaigns, monsters and statted-up NPCs. It's actually quite easy for a new DM+party to jump in and start playing, and then have material to keep going for years.

Meanwhile the "more streamlined systems" only offer you half a dozen NPCs and one-two adventure paths. If you're lucky. More often than not it's "You'll have to stat up every NPC from scratch. Have fun!"

I bow to your superior metaphor-fu.

Given my experience with Pathfinder players I've encountered, a completely armchair theory might be that PF claimed a huge advantage by moving when they did.  The story goes something like this.  4E soured a bunch of people, who liked 3E but were also a little janky on its rules and fiddliness.  Pathfinder swoops in, rescuing them from 4E while giving them something like 3E but new, a little streamlined, and so on. 

Now 5E has a very hard uphill battle.  It's got to compete with a game that's well-established and that really benefited from its similarity to 3E, which had, I think, huge market dominance in its heyday.

Yeah that's the general narrative that's been referenced a few times on this thread.  I'm sure there's more than a grain of truth to it, but it's not the whole story.

I don't know how related this is, but I'm consistently sort of ... shocked, I guess, at how un-rules-oriented most Pathfinder players are.  It's not an inherently bad thing to prefer a lighter rules system or less involved and time-consuming encounters.  That's a personal preference and one that strikes me as completely reasonable. 

What makes less sense to me is why people who demonstrate those preferences gravitate to what is among the most rules-laden, splatbook proliferating, and so forth systems in the market right now.

It seems a bit counterintuitive, and I have noticed this as well.  It does make some sense though if you look at it from a certain perspective: people who prefer lighter rules may want to pick and choose which rules they follow.  In a rules-heavy, splatbook-laden game like PF you can choose to ignore certain rules, certain books, certain subsystems, and modify other rules as you see fit without changing the basic structure of the game, all because the material is already there to be pruned into the game you want.  In a game with fewer rules its harder to cut something out or change a mechanic without drastically changing the game.  Metaphorically, your perfect game is a bowl; PF is a lump of clay, while more streamlined systems are plastic bowls that may or may not be the right size.

Warblade?