Warburg

Wouldn't the truly Utilitarian thing to do be to remove the threat to society without killing Hitler/the serial killer (i.e. avoid mass killings and avoid killing the murderers)? Because the Hitler/killer are part of the Utilitarian model, and killing them would hurt them. Killing them is more Utilitarian than letting them hurt many others, but I can imagine scenarios other than murder that are more Utilitarian (throw them in the Fletcher Memorial Home for incurable tyrants and kings, or something), making murder objectively immoral under the Utilitarian philosophy.

It's national plumbers day. Make sure to take a moment to appreciate all the shit that they have to put up with.

all you need now is an IRC channel yo

I wouldn't mess with him, man. Don't poke the bear. He's the smartest dude in his grade in his state.

Thanks for clarifying Hereno that made lots of sense

I think Ogaden's argument was that, without as many treaties (only essential ones), you'd see a lot less wars too, as you wouldn't be dragged into wars but would have to prompt them yourself. So even if treaties serve to deter some wars as you pointed out, they also drag you into other wars, and the net sum is argued as being positive (more wars). You said it yourself, having a web of treaties allows the key players to "line up" and predict what will fall where, which increases the incentive to attack (for whoever is on the stronger side of the predicted alignment). I don't know if that's true or not, I don't know the history of the game or have any statistical backing, but I think that's the argument being made.

I really liked this post. Treaty webs initially appear like they help the little guy: the small, newly formed alliances out there that get to attach themselves to the dominant players. By doing so, they don't have the worry about being rolled by a larger alliance, when in actually--as OP points out--they are pretty much sacrificing any hope of being able to develop a sovereign foreign policy by becoming a subset of whatever "sphere" they've aligned with. A separate entity in name, but not in function. Statistically, I am curious: How much danger is a new small to medium sized alliance in if they don't attach themselves to a political sphere through signing lots of treaties? Is the treaty web system supported by force, or simply by being perceived as general orthodoxy? Is it a verbal smokescreen, or a physical cartel? If that makes any sense

Country Name: ONAN Link: https://politicsandwar.com/nation/id=37665

Hello everyone. I'm an older (That terrible game that is totally irrelevant and I shouldn't be bringing it up anyways)/PN player who's returning to nation-building games with fresh zeal! I'm excited to explore the dynamics of this particular game (which I have never played before) and help continue to build it by becoming an active and easygoing member of the community. I'm a very active forum/irc user, and find "forum work" and social interaction to be the funnest part about these games. I'm looking for any sized alliance that has plenty of need for help in various departments, though I'm primarily interested in Finance. Obviously I'll have to learn the game mechanics first, but I'm prepared to spend as much time as needed to get them down pat and help work to make whatever alliance I join as rich and powerful as possible. I look forward to meeting and interacting with many of you! Thanks Warburg