Bored now Leafing

Na gnitsertni daer tsni

Woh revaelc fo uoy

Ah hah I knew it all along Hillary clinton is really a Robot!

LIES ALL LIES THERE ARE NO WEMONS ON TAH INTERNETZORS!!!!!!!

Excellent another excuse to never visit alliance pages.

You are welcome Duane And as for almost everyone else if you don't know it is better to just shut the hell up instead of trolling.

(AS) Agree Strongly (DS) Disagree strongly 1.AS 2.AS 3.DS 4.AS 5.DS 6.AS 7.AS 8.DS 9.DS 10.AS Answere the ten question under social policy in that manner should get your policy to Fascism

You don't have to be a communist or socialist to have the mindset warp your thinking when you have spend multiple years exposed to it, and the same is true with any collection of ideas that do not get effectively challenged for a prolonged period of time Universities/Colleges tend not to challenge there own ideas and sorta become a incubation chamber for one line of thinking that being pro state thinking as they get much of there money though government action/intervention if not out right funded and more often then not the left is pro state. In the policies page in game you can see the suggestion that the right is anti environment and pro short term profits thus suggesting that Capitalism, which the right is so often tied to, is foolish stupid or otherwise shortsighted. Given that Nazism has and still is in some circles thought of as the most extreme end of the right, because Hitler embarrassed the left and it has sense been taboo, if you look at news reports before the war you will find progressives praising Hitler for his policies.

My guess is that Sheep is or was in higher education AKA College and University and at present Higher education in many places in the west has a major hard on for Communism and all things left right now so it is ether allowed a free pass on these things in his mind or a common argument i have heard is that thous places weren't really Communist ether way the result is the same, but again that is just my guess.

Communism/Socialism advocates the ownership of the means of production by government according to Marxist thought, and before someone wanders in and says "Not government but by the public" or something else along similar lines first understand that ownership means having sole say in what is being owned thus collective ownership of anything is a myth first because collectives are not beings they are concepts of reference to a multitude of beings and second because as soon as 1 person chooses not to go along with everyone else they prove that they in fact do not own the thing in question, thus the government AKA the guys with the biggest guns in the room own everything. The means of production is thought to be the factories the mills the places where stuff is produced however if you take people out of these places nothing gets produced thus these places are not the means of production but people are the means of production so with that statement ownership of the means of production takes on a whole new light namely it means slavery, to own the means of production the people must be owned and if the government AKA the guys with the biggest guns in the room own the means of production then you have a slave state. Socialism can't respect private property because the first property any person owns is themselves and as stated above to own the means of production is to own people. Government can not give anything it has not first stolen to allow one group in society to steal with no downside to thous doing the stealing will result in time to the complete collapse of society as the idea of taking what you have not worked for becomes The right thing and that spreads in society as the trendy thing to do as each person encounters the people who can steal with no penalty they will want to do the same.

This poll is clearly biased after all you forgot to include Sheogorathism.

Don't flash me bro..

You don't need to add an extra function just have the cost to maintain mines have a slow increase over time/power that would represent the increasing cost of reaching deeper and deeper veins as the low hanging fruit is collected first. Something that needs to be understood is you can't get that pyramid effect in free-market conditions so the fact that there is a bulge in the middle aka a growing middle class slowly turning wealthy the current system is having the effect it should be having, now maybe it is not the model Sheep had intended to simulate given all the political hubbub about free-market failures creating super wealthy super minorities but free-market or near free-market conditions are in fact rare. It must be asked what is the most important factor in that equation the pyramid type formation to the stats of nations or that new/small nations focus on raw exports, mid focus on manufactured, and old/large on money creation? Your idea to be able to steal the deposits of a limited resource does in fact favor raider rushing new players something you would be able to do quite effectively given your low score and military strength and saying higher tier raiders also might want the ability to deplete there foes is not an argument in it's favor. The most important aspect you have to think about is what happens to the players that for this or that reason end up getting stuck on the bottom no one wants to be the third world nation and the pyramid model has to be forced on the player base causing most players to be on the bottom where if they can't grow large enough to be able to engage in the more interesting elements of the game other then being shark bait they will not stay, i honestly have to wonder how many people this game ends up turning away because they got in they did a few things got real excited about being able to try that next new thing and then BAM they get mobbed by raiders setback and just said to hell with it, at this point you could say well they should join an alliance well the massive failure in that logic is that. 1) you are effectively condoning these events by saying that yes as much as you might refute this when you say just join an alliance it's like saying well if you didn't want to get raped ya shouldn't have worn that slutty outfit, pardon the crude reference. 2) the number of alliances that are willing and able to protect the lower members is far and few between just look how often an alliances start out sucking in new members by the barrel full only to end up seeing all the Parana feed on the lower ranks and resulting in the end of the alliance or a very limited recruiting policy just after a significant slim down in membership numbers. 3) you can not solve the problems of individuals based on collective logic as individuals are not all equal and do not all act the same one size fits all this is not. This is not a king of the hill style game in that we get cities that hold a score all there own thus raising the base nation score for the lifetime of the nation if it was KotH style of play thous cities would not have a score/would be destroyable and there would be no war score regulation this game functions on a rising floor/inflation model so continues growth is expected and required.

Any kind of continuous increase in production cost would be a little like having the cost of infrastructure never go down when it is sold or destroyed. Personally i want my nation to keep growing not have it stagnate because a few low score raiders want a method of cornering the market.

The economics policy is just like the social policy in that it is only a cosmetic thing as the creator did not want there to be a 1 best policy so all the income and tax numbers will always equal out to the same amount. Left policies= higher taxes and lower incomes. Right policies= lower taxes and higher incomes.

This idea would have some really nasty side effects yes you would get more war but mostly from the already militarized sectors of the community there would be a rush to claim as many resources as they could and that would result in a join or die attitude from most alliances once a nation has had it's resources ripped from it a few times it would be all but worthless as the price of all resources would shoot through the roof leaving these nations with little or nothing as far as recourse, an important factor in engaging competitively in war is being able to make or buy bullets/gas/steel/any military resource. Summery Perma death for nations would be more humane. And that is only one factor, it does not comment on how much it would slow the game down in general terms. Scarcity is not a good idea unless you also want regular game resets.

As i seem to be a bit late i will post the answers for extreme right economics here for reference and for thous wanting to go left just put in the opposite. 1. Disagree strongly 2. Agree Strongly 3. Agree Strongly 4. Disagree Strongly 5. Agree Strongly 6. Disagree Strongly 7. Disagree Strongly 8. Agree Strongly 9. Disagree Strongly 10. Agree Strongly

And the downside? but seriously with all the hubbub over them guys i hardly think this is a compelling argument against it. I should not have to point out the the word NO all by it's lonesome is not an argument and using it on a guy who is ether a troll or needs to step outside his communist death camp er i mean University campus and see how the rest of the world lives is the height of laziness. As for why i would oppose this idea the game is not setup for capturing stuff from other nations as it is now we may have spots on a map but it is functionally little different then if we all resided on our own little islands that have no definitive location, and as for capturing land that was briefly brought up that would also be a bad idea as that along with cities are the only things at the moment raiders can not raid out of existence.

Truly this is Politics, you picked a fight you could not win and are now demanding rule changes. Such a rule change would in fact help raiders more then it would hurt them after all a raid is about first strike and getting the blockade/superiority. You should not whine when you fail in raiding a lone target with your buddies it makes you look pathetic and yes you are the bully in this situation.

Isn't Eve also one of thous games that you can take money back out of? this game is most definitely not at that level. Credits are this game's gold so unless you also want to see perma nation death and restarts it is kinda pointless to remove a players ability to save in game money (in some form) till they have enough to make it to the next step rather then getting stuck because you want to add that extra level of bulling, and stagnation is a game killer both for the game as a whole but also more importantly on an individual level if a player gets to a certain size and can't get any bigger for whatever reason they will get bored and or frustrated and stop playing the game.

You might want to define your terms when you say conservative as i can't tell if that was directed at me or other people, these terms Liberal, Conservative are meaningless to me as i have seen the imaginary boundary these two groups claim hopped over countless times to the point that they end up merging into one another like some kind of chimera. How does failed government meddling justifies even more government meddling? Is it like the standard government logic of when something fails it is not because it was a bad idea it was because we did not shovel enough tax dollars at it? cause that is basically how every government program functions and why government always grows and manages to grow at an ever faster rate the harder it fails, it is like some kind of mathematical equation sorta like how when something falls it keeps getting faster till it hits terminal velocity.

Forcing people to buy a product is one of thous legal barriers i talked about in this case fining people for refusing to buy crappy insurance, now they can be as crappy as they want and people still have to buy them or face fines/taxes. Wonder if i should mention that i didn't have insurance then and want it even less now.

Pardon me Solomon while i take a wrecking ball to that fantasy for a moment you can put it back together when i am done. Even in the most top down government model the Great Leader still has minions and can't be expected to watch them every moment of everyday so even if the Great Leader is the most just leader you can imagine the minions will still commit terrible crimes in the name of the Great Leader.

These things fail because the majority of people have already stopped using the failed service and have switched to a new service, the money from the people who use the service tells the provider how they are doing when they get free money from government it takes away the influence the people have, when they do something wrong and government erects legal barriers it prevents problems from being corrected, any service that requires money from thous it serves have to be very flexible and willing to change at the drop of a hat, but when a service relies on tax money to operate it requires an act of congress to fix any and all problems that crop up and that can easily take years even when the provider is receptive to change, not even mentioning when 3rd parties get involved to feed on problems that have risen do to government being the most resistant and slowest to change thing in all of society. The customer is King and when government provides the money the government becomes the customer.

April fools? Capitalist kinda requires that they be allowed to fail when they fail and government intervention has always been about making sure no one fails even when they make everyone else fail, it's kinda hard to call something privatized when government protects it from it's own fail. People learn a lot from fail that's why people seem so stupid these days they got big governments protecting them from there own fail and force the fail of others onto them thus they learn the wrong lessons and end up adding fail to the cycle of redistribution of fail thus government must get bigger to protect them from the new fail and on and on until the people no nothing but fail.