Hereno

half of them are just saying that shit so they can get elected like if you guys really think donald trump went from decades and decades of pro-choice clinton friendship to being the arch-conservative, lol

they really aren't

it would be nice if the web were more fragmented and so you could have more minor, isolated war incidents that weren't global, but again, the web exists for a reason. not having allies either on or off paper and doing anything results in you being rolled by anybody larger than you or anybody who has a single friend willing to do it. it is in the interest of less politically-prominent alliances to tie themselves into the web for protection. yes, this allows them to be used by the "shot-callers" in their wars, but that's the game. you can't change game theory without changing the game. as an example, the prisoner's dilemma will always be the prisoner's dilemma until you change how the game works to encourage a different result. you guys are sitting there trying to convince the prisoners that option A is in their best interest. but they aren't stupid. you might not like option B for this reason or that but until you change the circumstances you will not get people picking any other option. pretty much everybody here agrees that strength should be in numbers - okay well everybody ganging up together to pursue (sometimes very vaguely) mutual interests is a result of that. what's even worse is that you've almost set it in stone who the most powerful alliances will always be because you've given them all seniority which translates to being the most powerful nations in the game more or less forever unless they really, really screw up. i've suggested changing it - everybody calls me stupid and says "good luck". well, there you have it. you guys have the game you wanted. and you're still complaining.

treaties let you actually see who is going to do what and plan things out paperless alliances aren't actually paperless. they would be better referred to as "alliances who hide their treaties from public knowledge". it is a strategy in and of itself - by obfuscating things you make it a lot harder for someone to know exactly how strong you are wrt who will actually defend you if attacked if everybody was paperless, i think you'd see a lot less wars. you're more likely to get wars if people can sit and add things up and know that they're going to win (or at least that there's a good chance) beyond that, treaties serve as a way to deter attack through showing how much force you have. they let you put things, well, "on paper", where they can serve as a political tool in numerous ways. this isn't a reason that they're necessary, but all in all, i think the treaty web is a lot better for the game than you guys want to make it out to be, for all of the above reasons. in short, it exists for a reason, and just trying to get everybody to agree not to have it is probably never going to work without a serious disinformation campaign.

>playing the "relevancy" card in a nation simulation browser game in 2016

as much as i think you know my answer to this question, these are some pretty interesting numbers

i mean i don't know how i feel about letting elephants vote but we also don't let children vote in general i think keeping the more intelligent animals out of our animal industries (apes, monkeys, elephants, many types of birds such as crows and ravens, cats, dogs, horses, pigs, cattle, dolphins, etc.) would be a great first step. just let them live their lives in peace.

i'm sure this has nothing to do with attempting to "troll" me, either just like your question that you asked full well knowing it set me off on someone else by being in TBC you're a dumb !@#$ and if you ever find yourself in my area, LMK and i'll shove a baseball bat halfway up your ass for you after i break your legs with it in before warn points, don't care, this dude is garbage and should be banned

the decision that is being made by the government is whether or not they will allow people to take their own lives think about that for a minute and the answer should be obvious that the collective does not own your life more than you do the question then becomes what, if any, measures should we take to help people who are suicidal. 1. giving them a "fake death" to see if they freak out and immediately start wanting it reversed 2. making them wait a certain period of time, like the 72 hours the state can legally mandate you be on suicide watch, to see if they still want to do it at the end of the day, if someone wants to die, you cannot stop them while being humane. sure, you can straight-jacket them and throw them in a padded cell all day, but that's not humane. prisons full of people in solitary confinement because you just value their lives so much (clearly) should not come across to you as a good thing. personally, i think the above measures are just fine. you might want to make them wait a week, or a month, or whatever, but just extending the time period doesn't make me heinously "wrong". and the more barriers you put up, the less likely people are to even go to the hospital, instead just opting to take their lives themselves where you can't do ANYTHING for them. ever heard of rat park?

you're not arguing against me, you're arguing the superiority of your credentials. doesn't matter, but trust me, I know what's it like. you're gonna have to do better than assuming I'm some idiot who has never dealt with mental illness.

first and foremost i haven't really suggested anything, so i don't know what you're on about. but at the end of the day, that's why it really shouldn't be up to YOU to decide. it's their life. they have to live it. if they don't want to anymore, trying to force them to continue suffering so you can feel better about yourself and the system you work in is primarily selfish. for the most part, care for the mentally ill is patchy at best, and plenty of people have horror stories to tell about it if they do end up finally getting care. i think it really sucks if people end up killing themselves but at least if you give them a way to, say, wait 72 hours and see if they still want to before doing it, you can let them die with dignity and not need to be cleaned up off of the pavement. the system already clearly has failed these people: just stop trying to control everything and let people do what they want. you should know that most suicides are more of a "i don't want to die but i'm not dealing with this shit anymore" type of thing, and that a lot of people who go to kill themselves end up trying to reverse it later on. there's no reason why we can't take these things into account to maximize the lives saved that could be saved while at the same time providing a real benefit to people. all you get by trying to force your way on people is people foregoing you entirely.

where implemented you usually can't just be like "okay kill me" and 15 minutes later you're dead you have to be of sound mind, etc. also, obligatory "talking about this as though it is a hypothetical when we've seen it done and it worked just fine"

this guy here is so in favor of assisted suicide that he's willing to assist you with it even if you're not suicidal

he knows what he did

heh don't worry about it, that RGE alliance literally goes around warring people as a recruitment method and nobody gives a shit just keep it on the DL and don't do it to the people you know everybody wants to suck off because they've spanned multiple games for over a decade e: as for this thread: good - i hope both ts and alpha die in a fire of their own creation

nah, i just dislike him

itt: alice shot mlk

yeah, this is why i thought it should be something that costs points it doesn't make a TON of sense to have cruise missiles be shot at airplanes but idk how else we could do it

it might be worth trying to figure out how these situations can be prevented (ie. if there is no leader, auto-promote in groups until there is someone at the top)

why would he be in favor of that when he thinks the whole thing is petty and stupid? i understand that you think you're a special snowflake who needs his own special reply, but it's pretty easy to extrapolate what he thinks by actually reading his posts

[insert unfunny shitposting here]

either sanders or clinton will mop up any of these guys we're having democrats for the next 4 years

this thread isn't even about that you guys don't think sheepy is intelligent enough to realize there are drawbacks to adding in a vacation mode? it's a necessary evil, get over it.

lmao yeah let's make a reasonable compromise between liberal democracy and concentration camps by just sending all our jews to africa how about it's just a dumb, unenforceable idea p.s. - 90% of the time you can't "do anything about it" because of the score range or alliance politics, so.

yeah, you're not gonna last