Sketchy

Clearly avatars mean nothing, since your avatar is based on the character Harold Finch from Person of Interest, who was a genius who created an artificial intelligence, while you are an idiot who needs to resort to attacks rather than continuing the line of discussion. At what point did I say I was an "authority figure on the feminist movement". I stated my viewpoint on the movement, and facts when suitable. The fact you had to resort to using my avatar as a counter-argument suggests to me you don't have any actual points to make of your own. And you wonder why people don't take feminism seriously, they use the same tactics you do, ad hominem attacks with no real arguments because you don't have any. As for "there isn't a single person of the opposite sex here", Why does that matter? I thought Feminism wanted equality of the sexes? Are men not allowed to have opinions in this feminist version of equality? Thanks for literally proving the primary argument against Feminism for me there buddy. Making it easy.

"Alt-Reich" haha that is a good one. That is another reason why I've been reluctant to ditch the term entirely. The "alt-right" is still a relatively young "movement", although I've never really been a part of the "movement", I just hold certain political views which I share with people who are also alt-right, I do hope it can be reclaimied, although with the media focusing solely on the negative attributes (while doing the opposite for BLM and Feminism), I can't see that happening. Regardless, I'm fully willing to disavow parts of the alt-right I disagree with. I don't support, or make excuses for racists. I don't trivialize racist attacks or racist actions or beliefs. I DO doubt "acts of racism" without evidence, that is not me being racist, It's me being a skeptic, and wanting evidence before assuming guilt. Black Lives Matter, especially their "thought leaders", have not done the same. At best, they say "well we aren't all like that", whilst not denouncing those individuals or saying what they are doing is wrong, or claiming they are not "True BLM supporters". At worst, they actively defend, and make excuses for acts of racism and violence against white people. Hell, some go as far as the claim it is impossible to be racist against white people, a convenient loophole to justify any acts of racism perpetrated against them. I don't think people who want to "preserve european culture and identity" are inherently racist, even though some of those articles made that leap without any real reasoning inbetween. But I'm sure some of those people are also white nationalists and racists, the overlap would be pointless to deny. I for one, don't give a shit about "european identity". That literally means nothing to me.

Actually my original point was 2 parts, you ignored the first part which was extremely relevant, those statistics are misleading. A very low % of potential rapists go to jail, this isn't a case of 1000 rapists rape people, and 994 get away with it. It's a case of 1000 possible rapes, with 994 of them not ending in a incarceration. Unfortunately, there is no way to know how many of the 994 indeed happened. It could be 900, it could be 20. I'm not sure if anyone is talking about rape/sexual assault besides feminists. They might be, I haven't done the research. But your argument still makes no sense. Either A: You believe feminists are helping the rape problem not making it worse, in which case you would argue that point instead of deflecting it, or B: you don't in which case, why would you settle for that? The first article literally proves nothing. It claims the "alt-right" is a rebranding of neo-nazism. Which it isn't. It also provides no actual facts or proof, just the authors word that this is the case. The second article is half correct and half bullshit. Initially, the alt-right was literally just a political term to describe someone who wasn't a traditional member of the mainstream conservative right. It has unfortunately, evolved into a movement. And that movement has over time because overtaken by people like Richard Spencer, who as far as i can see, is indeed a racist. The reality is that now the "alt-right movement" has become toxic similar to that of Feminism and Black Lives Matter. I'll admit, it might be time for me to stop referring to myself as "alt-right", the only reason I still do is I've yet to find anything that more accurately portrays my position, and a large portion of the people who consider themselves "alt-right" haven't let go of the term either. I also don't consider Milo Yiannopoulos a racist either, I follow a great deal of his speeches and the like, and I've yet to see anything "racist" just a bunch of people calling him that, which is no new thing when it comes to the regressive left, who are only liberal when it comes to the liberal use of the labels "racist" and "bigot" to devalue any point they disagree with. It's a classic case of "the boy who cried wolf", they call everyone who disagrees with them, even people who are clearly not, racist, and then it becomes hard to believe them when someone actually racist is accused as such. All you did was link me 4 articles saying "look the alt-right is and always has been bad, and everyone in it is bad too". That isn't even a claim you'd find me making about BLM or Feminism, I don't consider all members of those movements bad.

I suppose it's easier to gloss over everything I said and then throw a jab like "well I don't see any of these [insert political viewpoint you don't like] people doing anything about it either". That is an extremely unusual position to take. Everyone has different issues that matter to them, just because certain groups don't fight for certain issues doesn't mean they don't consider those issues important. By that standard, all movements should be striving to fix everything. That only serves to dilute the movement by creating too wide of a focus. The difference is feminists champion themselves as the "defenders of sexual assault victims", whilst the "mens right's alt-righters" do not. Also I'm not sure how that specific group is relevant, unless you are implying I belong to it. I've stated before I would consider my political leaning "alt-right", although the term has been distorted a lot now that it has been taken over by the actual right. Alt-right was originally a term to describe people with views that didn't line up with the traditional right, a large portion of them were left-leaning or right-leaning moderates, and they tended to adopt more libertarian viewpoints rather than the conservative authoritarian ones. What I am not though, is a Men's Rights Activist, or a "second amendment folk". I don't advocate men's rights, I prefer to focus on the whole pictures rather than a specific group, and I'm pro gun control being an Australian. I'm going to give the benefit of the doubt and assume that wasn't an ad hominem attack.

That is terribly misleading. I assume you were getting this statistic from here According to this, 344/1000 are reported to the police. I assume this means that 1000 people ring this hotline, and only 344 report the crime to the police. You assume all 1000 reported rapes in fact happened. You assume that all 344 rapes reported to the police, without any evidence, were in fact cases of rape. You assume that the 63 cases when people were arrested for rape, which still haven't been proven in a court of law, are indeed cases of rape. Now, I'm not sure about this, so correct me if I'm wrong, but I assume the 50 rapes that aren't referred to prosecutors have little to no evidence, amongst other things. This isn't to suggest that these cases weren't rape or were, just that they are not proveable. Now I'm not sure why 1/7 of the convicted rapists are not incarcerated, but unless there is a proper reason then this is obviously not good. Now to pivot back to feminism. Feminism is not helping rape victims like it should be. Is there work to be done? Sure, but feminism is far too worried about "manspreading" to invest time in finding reasonable solution to these issues Your issue is you assume because "there is still work to be done" that feminists are the right people to do it. They are not. Let's talk about some of the solutions feminists have for rape. Teach men not to rape: Because apparently all men are born rapists, and we need feminism to stop us from raping people. This shifts the focus away from the real issue and finding real solutions. Instead the discussion becomes "men are not inherently rapists vs men are all rapists" instead of "how to help rape victims and prevent rape". Scare victims into silence with misleading statistics: What is a good way to convince women to speak up about rape? Oh I know, convince them we live in a "rape culture" that openly tolerates rape, tell them the police are horrible and don't care about their feelings. Demonize the idea of personal responsibility, leaving women more vulnerable to rape: What if we teach women better self-defense, so they can defend themselves incase of an assault? OH WAIT NO, because to feminists, helping women defend themselves against rape is VICTIM-BLAMING. Trivialize rape by broadening the definition to encompass sexual harassment, then trivialize sexual harassment by broadening the definition: Catcalling = Sexual Harassment. Sexual Harassment = Rape. Therefore, Catcalling = Rape. That is certainly one way to trump up rape statistics. I could go on, but the point is fairly simple. Feminists use rape as a talking point, they use it to push their agenda, to noplatform or demonize men when they can. BOTTOM LINE: FEMINISTS ONLY MAKE THE RAPE PROBLEM WORSE.

INTRODUCTION AYY So we have a city manager and it's extremely useful and is a good quality of life feature. I'm suggesting you add an "alliance manager" page. It would be laid out in a similar fashion to the city manager, but would show the stats for members of the alliance. Step One: READ THIS SUGGESTION If you are reading this you are 1/4th done already! Step Two: ADD A BUTTON TO THE ALLIANCE PAGE There was room for the 10th button. Clearly this is a sign. Step Three: ADD AN ALLIANCE MANAGER Add a link to their nations when you click their names too obviously. Alliance manager should track the following. City Age (Average) Number of Cities Total Infra Average Infra Total Land Average Land Total Population Average Commerce Average Pollution/Disease/Crime Powered Yes/No % Total Number of Each Improvement Step Four: REALIZE THIS IS A BRILLIANT IDEA, ADD IT. I know you are not a big fan of adding quality improvements to the game. BUT THINK ABOUT IT THIS WAY. AT LEAST NO ONE WILL COMPLAIN.

No you are wrong. Feminism is for men too. After all, if we didn't have feminism, who would teach us men not to rape and keep us out of prison?

Idk wtf a Feminista is, but Feminism is cancer.

If you are actually serious about testing the mechanics, then you won't "cheat". All the arguments against this are so redundant. It's a test server, if you signed up to it to "play", you are an idiot, period. As of now, in order to organically test things you want to, you need to ACTUALLY PLAY, aka invest time in the test server. Which is retarded. I'd even got further, and suggest the ability to literally add/remove cities, spawn units at will, reset your cities etc. If the point of the test server is to test, then it's going to be alot more efficient if the people who ACTUALLY want to TEST these mechanics can just get in and simulate various different scenarios in order to better figure out how shit works.

Then don't do any of those things? If people are "playing" on the test server, they shouldn't be anyway.

Basically, I think you should allow players on the test server the ability to spawn resources, cash, military units, etc. If it's purpose is to test not to play, you should make it easier for people to do so that they can actually test the mechanics and spend less time growing so they can test w/e they want to. Also remove inactive account deleting.

I must have missed the part where Rook said "Fastest growing alliance". Here I thought he said "Most promising".

So Rook says "Obelisk" is the most promising alliance in the game, an alliance made up of two alliances, and to prove him wrong, you took Resplendents growth chart and shared. That's um...great detective work there.

He said Obelisk is the most promising alliance in the game.

That is because the forums are a massive t$-oo circlejerk. The only people calling that out last time were people on the opposite side. I could be completely wrong, but I don't remember you saying anything about this at the time. Much easier to contest the narrative to give yourself a moral high ground when the whole situation has already blown over. But hey, maybe you were vocally and publicly opposed to it, I can't be !@#$ed checking.

I dunno about that. I find that is usually when it happens.

I like the core concept of specializing for bonuses and meta, but the examples provided are kinda eh, and I'm way too tired to bother coming up with my own right now.

Ayy my bois joining the big leagues now. And everyone else said you couldn't do it.

1: This has been brought up since the beta. I used to like the idea but tbh shortening the timer doesn't seem like a good idea anymore. 2. This is the best solution imo. Baseball is a horrible attempt at this. Captchas ruin it. You need something that is fun, worth the time, but not too profitable and with no damn captchas to ruin it. 3. Eh 4. Most of the community has moved to discord, it's about time Sheepy disavowed IRC and made the switch proper.

Should also be able to import a single city template so that it applies to all cities.

This is a fantastic idea, although I'd tone it down abit. Why should active players running active alliances not be given more tax control just because some inactive people exist. You should be building the game for the active people no? They are the ones who give it life.

You quoted the answer to your question.

Yes you could. And it would be up the alliance to remove you for it if they wanted to. It's a perfectly fine trade off for more control over a taxes.

Ok how about this. If you are worried about "inactive farms". Simply make it so that gray nations aren't taxed. Problem solved. Even better, you've just made them even juicier raid targets, AND incentivised alliances to drop inactives instead of keeping them for the tax they provide. Everyone is happy. Your move sheepy.