Dietrich

Oh, Pubstomper, my old friend, your words are like swords; it pains me to see you do this. It is evident that the Sun Emperor has fallen far since the day that I first pledged my undying loyalty to him; but my first loyalty must always be to the Great Sheep, and if you have turned your back on the Holy Church of Baa-ism, then I must turn my back on you, much as it pains me to do so. I will pray for you, my friend. I hope that you will soon see the error of your ways and repent, so that the Great Sheep may forgive you and I may give you my loyalty once again.

I object to this bastardization of the Holy Church of Baa-ism! This proclamation is nothing but blatant and unbridled heresy against the Great Sheep! There is no "Caliph of the Faith"; there was once a Holy Emissary who reigned with the explicit blessing of the Great Sheep, but as his body has been put to rest and his soul has joined the Great Sheep in the Green Pasture before he indicated a successor, no mortal man or woman has the authority to declare themselves above any other on this wretched plain. In declaring yourself this false position, you have levied a grave insult at the Great Sheep, the former Holy Emissary, and any future Holy Emissary who may arise; you are on the verge of declaring a schism within our most holy faith, and that is absolutely unacceptable. This is a transgression against the Holy Church of Baa-ism itself and everything that it stands for! Repent now, CMDR Adama, for you must know in your heart that what you have written here today is pure sin, and if you maintain this heretical position, your soul will be damned to the Brown Pasture when your body is put to rest. If you repent now, the Great Sheep will surely forgive you; but if you do not, and you insist on continuing to espouse this vile heresy, nothing but dead grass, lifeless dirt, and tangled wool will await you in the afterlife.

I can't contribute on the technical front, as I my knowledge of programming and whatnot is limited to a few Web Design classes several years ago, but if it's being worked on, that's enough for now as far as I'm concerned, I suppose.

That's a makeshift solution to a structural problem with the design. Again, the functionality is not impaired in this particular case; I can navigate the mobile Messages page without trouble, but that doesn't make the design acceptable or appealing. The fundamental issue at hand here is that this new design is supposed to be a permanent improvement. If the default response to problems with the design is not to solve them but to insist that it's still possible to use the site despite them, then the design should be scrapped entirely. I don't think that the design should be scrapped entirely. If Sheepy trusts you to improve the site's design, then who am I to object? My only concern is that various problems are arising, and they are being waved away as inconsequential when they are in fact very consequential.

http://imgur.com/mSeJot3 http://imgur.com/PMC9UtW http://imgur.com/x1ohQLK http://imgur.com/rINJKbg http://imgur.com/ltpm2Q7 http://imgur.com/JPmMHwu http://imgur.com/sQDCPNe http://imgur.com/aEDeFdv I zoomed out as far as possible in every instance; this wasn't always enough, and where it was, it made certain features much wider than others. The screenshots should pretty much speak for themselves otherwise; everything is just sized really, really irritatingly, sometimes even in a way that actually hinders the site's functionality. Again, I'm on an iPhone 5, which one could argue is outdated now (but one shouldn't, because as far as I'm concerned, the iPhone 6 is more tablet than mobile), but there are still a lot of people using it, so this could be a serious shortcoming of the new design, especially considering that one of its primary purposes was to be mobile-friendly.

I'm partial to "Orbisian".

The pious Baa-ists of Ostseeland celebrate Baa-mas every 25th of December, but... what's so special about mid-September?

I don't think that the new design is an improvement on desktop, but given the noticeable performance increase, the new design isn't jarring enough to make me complain. Thumbs up for the desktop version. As for the mobile version, I'm using an iPhone 5, so maybe the design was optimized for Android or the ridiculously massive screen of the iPhone 6, but lots of things (especially large tables, graphs, and maps) are either cut off or otherwise horribly sized; for example, on the Military page, the descriptions appear to all be squeezed into a little half-inch margin of space, making the page about a mile long and putting loads of empty space between every image. Thumbs down for the mobile version. Was the mobile version even tested? And if so, was it tested on more than one type of phone? Because the functionality is still basically there - zooming in and out never bothered me and I rarely misclicked after my first few times using the old design on my phone, so the functionality is essentially the same for me - but it's not at all easy on the eyes.

The quiz decided that I am a Communitarian. It's not as bad as it might have been, anyway, I suppose. It's useful enough if you want to determine your place within the American political paradigm, which is obviously all that it intends to do. I like how it attempted to explain some context surrounding each question before presenting a variety of answer options; one doesn't see that often enough in political quizzes and whatnot.

To be honest, I've noticed that this rule also fails to make sense in the Debate forum. This rule means that if I want to discuss a particular topic, and a particular discussion thread has been quiet for a week and a half, I can no longer reply to "What do you think of Topic X?" and thus I have to instead create a new thread called "Topic X: Your Thoughts?" in order to continue the conversation, which is redundant and irritating. I feel that this stifles continuing debate (recognizable as the literal entire purpose of that forum) because some of us (recognizable as me) don't want to create new threads when it would be so much easier and more logical to reply to existing ones.

I agree wholeheartedly with everything stated here. I also discovered my political ideology by conducting independent research and listening to anyone willing to talk about anything vaguely political with me, and my ideology also happens to be somewhat anti-democratic in nature.

This test is published by the Advocates for Self-Government, a libertarian political group (if you're willing to wait ten minutes for the page to load fully, you will be offered "the tools and training to spread the LIBERTARIAN MESSAGE"). Biased? Definitely. The questions are all worded in such a way that answering them positively will push you towards a more "libertarian" score, while answering them negatively will push you towards a more "statist" score. This test is no better than the lengthier, more convoluted one in the OP, unless your first and only criterion for a high-quality political test is its brevity. But then, libertarians do prefer everything small, don't they?

The test spits out not-inaccurate results, but my response to most of those questions is a lot more complicated than "Yes", "No", or "Maybe". I think that I probably should have tossed in a bit more "Maybe" where I saw complexity in a question, just because that was the closest answer to the truth, but really I didn't use it that often. Incidentally, it's worth noting that the test calls me a "Non-Interventionist" despite the fact that I approved intervening in foreign civil wars and fighting unfriendly ideologies abroad. This is probably because I advocated withdrawing from the United Nations and refusing to enter a currency union (both of which answers are highly conditional and probably should have been "Maybe"; I wouldn't advocate unilateral withdrawal from the U.N., and I would accept a currency union with certain closely-related countries). I also believe strongly in the free market, but in order to get a low "Collectivism" score, one would have to essentially believe that all government intervention in the economy is always bad, vast economic inequalities should not be touched, and Donald Trump would make a bang-up next president. It's a heavily flawed test, one way or another. I think that anyone with the slightest fraction of a working brain can pretty much roughly ascertain the political ideology of anyone that they speak with after a few minutes, if they stumble upon the right topics, so tests like these - no matter how diversified they think they've managed to make themselves - are really just an opportunity for those of us who don't fit squarely into the American political paradigm to bemoan its assumed universality.

Gentlemen, we've done the impossible. Future generations of steel tycoons shall let our names drop from their lips only in the most hushed and awe-inspired of whispers. We are living legends. What did we do, again?

Why?