DEC 2013 TS forum game archive

[undercovergeek]

lol, i ammended my previous post for answer bob

[bob48]

sneaky bugger.....

[undercovergeek]

Thanks, GJK.

Does the COMECON event fire for us?

pfffft, i dont frikking think so!!!!

card launched into spaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaace - you get no influence bonus

[BanzaiCat]

That's okay, Capitalist dog! Continue vith your mewing as the dialectic buries your countries! ;D

[undercovergeek]

oh balls hang on, its a new headline phase - i was thinking there wasnt one again...........

id say thats our opener, because well, it has to be!!

[JasonPratt]

Team America yet? Rats...

I don't concern myself with the justness or injustice of the behavior of the ancient Israelite's anymore than I do that of any other long vanished culture, other than as a curiosity. My only beef is with the moral bankruptcy of the supposed supreme authority credited with being behind the bible.

That would be like saying you don't concern yourself with the justness or injustice of the behavior of Stalin's regime other than a curiosity, your only beef is with the moral bankruptcy of the system they implemented or perhaps with the moral bankruptcy of the supreme authority credited behind the system. AND THUS I HAVE BOOMARANGED THE TOPIC BACK AROUND TO THE THREAD!  ;D (Also, I have discovered that either I or the forum software doesn't know how to spell boomarang...  :o )

Now you sound a bit like you're channeling the very noble, but ultimately misguided goals of the human descendants from half a million years in our future, written about in some of the books of Stephen Baxters epic science fiction Xeelee sequence of books.

That series sounds a bit like the plot of that epic (and rather grimdark) three book series of an alternate Joan of Arc story by... um... Mary someone. It's been several years since a friend told me about it, and I've forgotten who.  :-[ (My friend was comparing the author's concept with something in my own novel.) Anyway the concept is that the book is a historical narrative being compiled by an editor (the real author, who also researched a ton of things about Jeanne d'Arc's time and place) who leaves extensive footnote commentary on why she went with various ideas in the story (i.e. the real author showing off her work); but along the way the editor discovers the timeline is being altered by sentient machines from the future. Or something like that.

Yes, it's ironic that Gods morality slowly changes over time to precisely match that of his followers.

Or vice versa. :) Obviously it doesn't precisely match the followers, or the followers wouldn't be morally criticizing themselves so much. (Which also happens in the Jewish scriptures -- as bloodthirsty as they are, they're also the most self-critical religious scriptures I've ever seen. Granted I haven't seen every set of scriptures ever made. ;) )

I think that you're a primate, just like the rest of us. You don't eat babies of your own species any more than most animals don't, and for the same reasons. You don't need a fear of Hell to mostly behave in ways that have an overall benefit for your society.

Are they the same reasons the ancient Israelis killed babies of their own species (and later of their own group)? Or weren't they primates like the rest of us? (Actually, I seem to recall baby killing being a common practice by some other primates. But maybe I'm misremembering.)

More to the point, the ancient Israelites would have had a perfectly valid utilitarian pragmatic argument that genociding off most people except the young girls was the best way to have an overall benefit for ancient Israeli society, both short term (in the war band) and long term (taking over a depopulated resource area). Sucks for the other society, but they demonstrably weren't fit enough to survive and pass on their genetics to their own young females. The Soviets thought what they were doing to their own society, and to others nearby in reach, provided the best overall benefit to their society -- that was literally their rationales for doing so. (Same with the Nazis: the whole point to fascism is "whatever is best for our nation regardless of what that requires".)

I don't accept social pragmatism as being the most proper rationale for all behaviors. Social pragmatism behaviors definitely happen, but they aren't necessarily right.

That's why I can criticize what they did as being morally bankrupt, and why I can criticize theologians who appeal to that behavior as morally proper anyway as morally bankrupt, even if they appeal to the command of a strongest power (and even if that strongest power is something I myself believe exists: its behaviors aren't necessarily right in principle for being the behaviors of the strongest power, so its reputed behaviors don't get to have automatic moral defense on that ground either.) That's why I can criticize what the Nazis did as being morally bankrupt, even though they thought they were being socially pragmatic for maximum benefit. Even if they had been correct about that (which they weren't), it would still have been morally wrong to genocide the Jews, and still morally wrong even though the Jews long ago used to do the same thing to whomever they managed to get power over.

Am I back to the thread topic again yet?  :D (I can't remember if Soviet pogroms were still going on during the early Cold War.)

(Can you imagine THAT wall of text?  :o)

The thought horrifies and yet arouses me!  8) But I like to explain in detail why I'm morally and/or rationally complementing people; particularly when we're opponents. :)

Fwiw, I arguably overshoot the other direction too far in my novel: too many intentionally short paragraphs and paragraph fragments.  :D

[Ubercat]

We want them on the defensive. If they're busy undoing damage we did to them, they'll be slower to damage us. If we lead with Nasser, they might just turn around and coup Egypt away from us. If we give them fires to put out in the UK and Israel first, We may have time to secure our hold on Egypt and maybe even go into Libya from there.

I don't see any cards left in the deck that help us in the ME (if Americans are holding them). There are several that help us in Europe. If they have any of those European events, they may be distracted enough trying to shore up their position in Europe that we get away with slipping into Egypt. We still have to grab a non BG country in the ME to have a chance at Domination, though.

Well, let's not vote on this until AFTER our headline card is played. We don't want GJK to get confused and headline what we choose HERE rather than in the other thread!

[BanzaiCat]

I'm terrible at this game. I keep thinking I know the order of play, and totally missed the Headline Phase. Again.

Alrighty then. Let's see what happens.

[BanzaiCat]

Yeah, Indo-Pakistani War will give us a cheap 2 VPs and 2 MilOps. Too bad the West doesn't have a presence there so we might have a chance at replacing their Influence, but regardless, more VPs for us. I'm okay with that play.

What say you, Comrade Barthheartovich?

[GJK]

I'll double check the map - I may not of actually advanced it to turn 2.  I will do so and then upload when I get home.  The map as shown though should be where we are at going in to turn 2 however.  The VP's should be +10 for USSR, Defcon is at 5 and nobody has acquired MilOps points yet (obviously).

[BanzaiCat]

Nope, it's showing Turn 1, Defcon 4, and +8 VPs for us Commies. :)

No worries or hurry, though. Thanks for your hard work so far.

[Barthheart]

Da, I agree with you comrades. Let's have India invade... maybe take out the Paks finally...  :P

[BanzaiCat]

But ve are controlink Pakistan, comrade.  ;)

[JasonPratt]

Comecon, hm? A conventional if subtly naughty choice...

[Barthheart]

DOH! Er... I meant have the Paks take out India... should really read the map before spouting off......  :P