Goldengirl

Prefacing something with "I don't mean to be harsh" is almost always a great way to do the very thing. I am not confused, though IQ systems and Mensa may very well be. I'm just providing an example, and I provided a shorter one in the post as well about the differences between a child's brain and an adult's. The principle I'm arguing clearly isn't limited by that example, as Tavilo and Dint have shown. Every time there's an unproven theory we run across something that we might be unable to know. The fact that so far we've solved problems doesn't mean that we always will be able to, and every time we run into a snag in the math or a roadblock in the theory is another time that we might have reached our limit. That doesn't mean we shouldn't try anyway, as we can never be certain that something is totally beyond our grasp, but it indicates that there are caps. Death is a pretty hard cap.

I understand that hesitation. My rationale is based on a basic understanding of cognitive biases (in no sense formal) as well as my own personal observations of people. The notion of IQ can serve as an example, but there are other mental issues that can also serve as examples; learning disabilities immediately spring to mind along with the cognitive differences that emerge with the aging process. Anyway, let me explain my personal hunch about IQ. Between two people of IQ's 80 and 160, there's a glaring difference between what each is capable of grasping. One is classified as Mensa level genius, the other as developmentally disabled. We simply do not expect that the individual of IQ as 80 can grasp all the nuances of, say, quantum physics at the same level as the individual of IQ 160. Of course, there are a lot of fundamental issues that make this comparison far from scientific. Ableism will serve as a constraint on the person of IQ 80 such that they wouldn't likely be taught or encouraged into quantum physics in the first place. Nevertheless, I believe there to be a kernel of truth somewhere in this comparison about the cognitive capabilities of people. So, what's to say that there aren't even more vast differences between our genius with an IQ of 160 and some super human with an IQ of 260? Or a hyper-intelligent alien with an IQ of 1600? I don't know how intelligence scales, linearly, exponentially, or in a different manner altogether, but I'm willing to bet that our genius would have the cognitive abilities of a five-year-old (or less) in comparison. I'm definitely open to being disproved. I'm by no means an expert on psychology, learning, or cognition. I'm just skeptical to the people who hold so much faith in human rationality, and this is without even mentioning the hard cap on what anyone can learn merely due to death.

Serviles, ornks, or roamers would be my guess. Battle alphas or thahds if they're feeling particularly fancy or have a large load. Fortunately, the development of the junk bag in G5 and the new weight system in G4 really make the need for a pack animal vanish entirely.

I actually would suggest the very thing. For one, I believe that randomness and chaos is inherent in the universe. Even if it weren't, however, I think that humans ultimately just don't have the depth of consciousness and mental capacities to understand. Humans are irrational in ways that we don't even understand yet. Psychology has documented many irrational beliefs and biases in humans, and I'd be willing to bet that there are yet more discoveries on that topic to be made.

Your determinism ignores a lot of the randomness and chaos inherent in the universe, Nalyd. Statistics and measurements, even at their theoretical maximum sophistication, cannot every fully be predictive. There is a law of large numbers, but there is no similar law of small numbers. Sometimes stuff just happens.

That may have been true for a subsequent game, but I distinctly recall being the last mafia in the first game and eventually being executed as a result of that.

Why do you say that? As i recall, it actually worked very well. The only fault was when a bad role ended up being made, and that can be easily fixed by just not having that role again.

Two thoughts: 1. A game that preceded the Northern Islands game was a Darkside Loyalists mafia-style game. Would that perhaps be a viable alternative? I've just been feeling an itching to play that game lately. 2. Could we maybe have this Geneforge theme for a change of pace?

1. Free Will? Bah. If there's any question that is pointless in philosophy, it's this one, that's for sure. I don't care either way, given that an understanding of life as determined (perhaps pre-determined as the Calvinists would say) still holds plenty of opportunity for scathing moral judgment. I hold certain anti-humanist tendencies. Nurture and nature both shape us a lot more than we're willing to admit. That said, I believe there is still room for individual agency that contravenes cultural and 'natural' drives, but ultimately we are a scene of history more than anything else. 2. Epistemology? The world of knowledge is not tabula rasa. We are always already incorporated into a system of knowledge that is socially constructed, which ultimately is how I view epistemology. It's formally called standpoint epistemology. 3. Nominalism or Platonism? Nominalism. I'm no solipsist, but I do recognize that the socially constructed system of culture from which we derive a knowledge base as individual and collective units is ultimately arbitrary. I quote Nietzsche to say, "Plato is boring." 4. Universalism or Relativism? Of course things are relativistic. Nihilism makes the boring assumption that nothing exists, but in reality, though the morals and ethics we construct are just as arbitrary as any other historically contingent set of principles, the have a material effect on the world and are thus worth serious consideration instead of intellectual laziness in disregarding. 5. Normative Ethics? Virtue ethics leaves a bad taste in my mouth. It's calculative and ultimately could reduce the value of life to nothing. Consequentialism is also calculative, so I have a loose modification of it based on deontological ethics. That said, I'm not one to rigidly follow ethics myself, so it's not the most important issue to me. 6. Physicalism vs. Non-physicalism Physicalism. Descartes is the only philosopher who I despise on any level equivalent to Plato. The separation of "the soul" or whatever people will call it from "the body" as such is the justification for ascetic practices that deny life and instead enact ressentiment. 7. Meaning of Life? There is no Truth, so feel free to figure it out yourself.

BoA sucked. Empirically speaking, that is, in that it almost did Spiderweb in due to its low sales. As a result of that, Jeff has said that he's not going to make another Blades game. Of course, Jeff has gone back on his word before, such as when he made the second Avernum trilogy, but I feel like this is a more deep seated taboo for him. Making an easy to use design engine isn't easy, and the reward is limited. Moreover, as time goes on, both Blades games get less and less appealing to the general audience just due to age and old engines. I'm definitely not predicting any sort of Blades revivalism. If I were, it would only be a small bump from Jeff releasing the BoA code like he did with BoE.

Republic is a term with a lot of baggage, and I chose it intentionally. In my youth, I naively thought republic meant representative democracy. However, looking at the history of the term, it's clearly a lot more muddled. Plato's Republic, for instance, isn't a representative democracy, nor was the Roman Res Publica. Broadly, it was a catchall term for "not-monarchy," making it ridiculously broad. This broadness s seen even today; the radical differences between the Democratic People's Republic of Korea, the Islamic Republic of Iran, and the Federal Republic of the United States of America all demonstrate that. Thus, I was hoping broadly that people would define it as they wished and elucidate in their answers. As I said originally, I just wanted the poll to serve as a jumping off point for people.

There are two things that keep the boards lively. The first is Jeff creating content. A game gets made and people talk about the plot, make wishlists for the sequel, find ways to minmax, and ask for hints. The second is the users creating content. This thread is an example, but it's the kind of shortsighted content that doesn't go far. People will say, "Yep, this happens. It'll get better," and the thread ends after a short discussion. The other extreme is something that spawns continual investment and even spin off threads. I'm not particularly a fan of them, but AIMhacks are an example. (Is that what Bloodstained Sky even is, or has that format been abandoned?) Debate threads are another example. Play-by-post RP's, games of Mafia (Avernum-themed "Darkside Loyalists"), and others, which have all been variously popular here, are yet another.

How do you expect to build this master database of Spiderwebbers for your intelligence projects if you can't even phrase the questions correctly?

Once you attempt to kill a Councilor, you're in for the Rebel ending. There are plenty of opportunities to sabotage the others in all the other endings (Rawal*, Astoria, Litalia, Alwan, Taygen) but no one will accept civil war, so you're bound to Ghaldring. *Most people don't consider this a proper ending, but I do. It's just not a happy ending.

There's this cool Roman myth of this rich farmer named Cincinnatus*, who was selected to become the Dictator of the Roman Republic during a time of crisis. He dutifully led the Romans through war successfully, earning the admiration of his peers. He would have been able to be Rome's first emperor, most likely. However, after the war was over, he absolved power and restored the Republic. Because of that humility and lack of corruption, he was held by many to be the ideal Roman man. I know this is a really out there approach that would be a very big departure from anything any modern state has done. However, in ancient Athens, they chose their representatives in the Assembly through lottery, to prevent this sort of corruption. That was also the reason that they utilized ostracism, to banish politicians who were becoming too power hungry and thus might threaten their early democratic ideals. What do you think of that kind of system? To throw in my own two cents, it may actually be a lot more successful in a modern context than would be immediately obvious. Most politicians, as has been previously stated, aren't well-versed in all of the mechanics of each bill. These politicians are, however, often times lawyers, so they have an intimate understanding of at least some aspect of the law. This could be fixed by having more extensive political science and rhetoric lessons in the educational system, but that would surely face an opportunity cost of its own. *America's Founding Fathers had a weird obsession with him, because they wanted to make America the new Roman Republic if I had to guess. They founded an Order of Cincinnatus for veterans from the Revolution, plus they decided for some reason to build a city on the blight of land that became Cincinnati.

Mmm, A2 had basic restrictions at first, until Chapter Three (?) when suddenly the whole world was pretty much wide open. A3 had some prerequisites required to do anything in certain provinces. A4-6 all had a lot of railroading, with key plot points required to unlock the next zone, although you could wander around in each zone once you got there to your heart's content.

1. 20. 2. I live in Jeff's neighborhood, the Pacific Northwest, but I was born in the Appalachia area. I've only ever lived in the United States, but I've traveled to Canada once. 3. English is my mother tongue, mais je peux parler en francais pres de courrament. 4. White 5. I'm a girl, and I consider my sexual orientation unrestricted. Some say pansexual, others bisexual, but I just don't really think about it. 6. No, though I was raised Lutheran. 7. I'm in a serious relationship. No kids. 8. Poor college student. Not actually, though; I'd say I'm in the upper echelon of college students, thanks to my fairly well-off parents. 9. No military stuff for me, please. 10. I'm a sales associate, with some work on my bachelor's done. I'm planning on getting my doctorate.

I don't agree with some of your blanket assertions about how humans work, but that's ultimately just a difference in opinions. This is a question of history, though, so I'm glad to answer. Sorta. It really depends on whom the system goes well for. The answer, generally speaking, is yes, kinda. There have been reigns of dictatorships that weren't particularly worse than any other system of government in place. Of course, there were also terrible ones too, as one would expect. The idea of a benevolent dictatorship, though, isn't entirely without merit.

I can fully understand this notion. As much as high ideological values and esteemed principles are cool to think about, the material "real" world gets in the way of that more often than not. The case study I'm most familiar with is the United States, which was immersed in the full rhetoric and philosophy of the Enlightenment, all social contracts and basic human dignities, only to cruelly abuse those rights and disenfranchise many people. Nevertheless, there is surely more than just a correlation between the political culture of a nation and its functioning government, wouldn't you agree? Continuing on the example of the USA, those Enlightenment ideals formed a strong contradiction with the actual running of the state. That contradiction, in Hegelian form, had to be reconciled by a change of ideals or the changing of policies. I'd say this contradiction still exists, but it has undoubtedly gotten better. Slaves are free, women can vote, etc. I suppose, then, the question I'm posing to you is one of the bigger questions relating to political and social philosophy. What is the relationship between ideas and actions?

I'm asking for your views on government. What could go wrong, right? Well, to preempt some awful political flaming, I'm actually asking a more broad question than just any political topic about this leader or that legislation. Rather, I'm curious about political theory, in a way that supersedes the day-to-day activities of government while still holding them as possibilities for example and evidence. Speaking generally, what do you believe to be the ideal form of government? If it helps to shape your system of thoughts, what kind of constitutional framework would you set up if you were in control of a new country with resources and political culture to sustain any advanced form of government? I've listed a few preliminary options just to get the ideas flowing, but I'm definitely more interested in the specifics. Personally, I favor democracy, though I used to be far more in favor of a technocratic government. I used to hold a lot of anti-democratic views, and some of them have been retained even yet. Nevertheless, I remain in support of democratic ideals. Ultimately, and from a postmodern perspective, I don't think there is any universal Truth governing any society. This is because truth is always-already constructed and being reconstructed through the social configuration of knowledge. Therefore, it is crucial that all subjective truths be available. All biases, social standpoints, and personal histories completely open to free speech and discourse, simultaneously with safe spaces to serve as rhetorical laboratories. I believe when all perspectives are accounted for, in a truly egalitarian way, then the best debate and discussion can occur in the public sphere. Through agonistic rhetoric, knowledges can clash in a way such that the strongest, most persuasive, (and in a sense, then, most true) ideas can emerge in such a way that the best policies can emerge.

G1 is Obeyer or Non-Aligned G2 is Non-Aligned G3 is Rebel G4 is Rebel Not all of the endings fit perfectly with what happens in the next game, which is worth noting.

I like board games, which is generally the extent of multiplayer that I care to put in. The veil of ignorance shields some pretty despicable behavior in which the player is both fully present and fully absent in any given situation. That's true because I also play FPS when I get an itchy trigger finger and feel like being beat by a bunch of thirteen year old kids with more skill at shooters than I'll ever have. I like lo-fi games, which have a unique ability to strip down all the mechanics and just tell a really good story. Game developers like Gregory Weir (the Majesty of Colors, Looming) and Daniel Bermengui (Today I Die, I Wish I Were the Moon) both come to mind as the creme de la creme. Pixelated art and simple controls that have some powerful messages. I almost universally love all of the games on Casual Girl Gamer's list of games that make you think. A long-time favorite (that I wish still showed up on these forums *grumble grumble*) is play-by-post RP's. The World of Avernum, an abortive Geneforge faction RP, and others have filled my time with great writing and good fun. I was a NationStates junkie too, once, where I roleplayed constantly on the International Incidents forum as a fascist nation. There are rare times I miss it, but I just don't have that time anymore. I also like more flashy games. Fable: The Lost Chapters is my immediate connection, a game of sunk a lot of hours into. It has some cool ideas and a few interesting side quests; the main plot is fairly cookie-cutter. A lot of its most interesting features don't ever get fully explored, I think, which is a shame. Nevertheless, it's pretty, it's stimulating enough, and it's fun. Unfortunately, not a lot of games like this get made anymore for PC, so my list here is a lot shorter. I'd say Jeff's games fit a nebulous region in between the two worlds. It's polished enough to not really be lo-fi anymore, but at the same time it's decades behind the big studios. They are high-end lo-fi games and low-end flashy games. I love the world-building ideas, I'm generally interested in the plot though it can be mundane, and I find the occasional gems of character development and humor worthwhile. I also like games that are purely mental exercises. I'm an undying Myst fangirl, and I also enjoy strategy games while almost always hating their plots. Age of Empires, StarCraft, even WarCraft back in the day all filled many an empty afternoon.

No problem! I'm a huge Geneforge nerd, haha. In addition. a lot of the points you have are accurate. It's certainly shown through the games that the civilians don't really like the Rebels, since they sow chaos and release rogues. The landscape would also definitely be devastated by conflict, though not as wasted as they might seem otherwise. And, admittedly, my conjecture about the reopening of Southforge Citadel was just that - conjecture.

That violates canon. First of all, the Unbound were not released in Burwood Province at all, so none of the damage you cite that turned the lands into a desert would be accurate. The Unbound were marched through the land under the strict control of the Drakons, who with Akhari Blaze were able to control them long enough to get them to the Western Morass. From there, the only instruction that the Unbound had was simple (and would save the Rebels): Go west and kill everything. There's reason to believe that all of the Unbound in the Mera Tev fen are the remainders of this first generation. The rebel ending also states that the Rebel army was able to retake Illya province. Not the Unbound, but the human/servile coalition that still had residual troop presence in the form of the Illya safehouse. The Shapers were reeling to stop the Unbound, as was evidenced by the fact that the Storm Plains were initially almost wiped out before Alwan came into control, so that indicates tactical retreats would have happened all throughout the east. This is further supported by the fact that the Drakon's main base is in the Drypeak Mountains, which are accessible only through the Storm Plains or Illya Province. Moreover, in the Trakovite stronghold a servile straight up says that as long as they didn't mess with the settlements in the east, the Rebels didn't care about the Trakovites. That shows pretty clearly to me that the east was more or less peaceful and under reconstruction.

Assuming a straight rebel run for G4 (which G5 indicates is canon) it makes some sense for me to see Southforge being reactivated. Sure, its location is compromised, but it is pretty far from the front lines. The agents and chemicals all would have been safely transported to Northforge Citadel by caravan, under the protection of Warmaster Kharikiss and the remaining soldiers from Southforge Citadel. There's some dialogue in the G5 that suggests that the Rebels have taken over the sea advantage. This is further suggested by the fact that they are able to send in Lifecrafters to the Dera Reaches by boat under cover of night. These Lifecrafters then can make a swarm of rogues and leave the way they came, scrambling the loyalists. Moreover, the Rebels aren't overly active in west Terrestia. In the Dera Reaches, they are mainly running hit-and-run tactics to harass the loyalists, rather than open warfare. The Drakons are bogged down at the Line in the Storm Plains, with a few infiltrators working in the province. There's a truce in the Mera Tev, with the majority of the human Rebels in waiting in the Okavano Fens. Again, a few infiltrators are working to sabotage the Shapers, especially by means of the Shadow Road and the experiments going on there, but that's a low key operation. The Rebels are nearly absent from the Foundry, and completely absent from Lethia Province, the Nodye Coast, and the Shaper Citadel. This leads me to believe that the brunt of the Rebel Army is doing clean up. The Burwood Infiltrators wreaked a lot of havoc on one of the last strongholds of the human parts of the Rebellion. Even the Grayghost Mountains suffered some damage in General Alwan's last ditch effort to stop the Unbound. Monarch literally tore apart the only city in the Fens of Aziraph, and the Rebel fort there would have likely been all but abandoned in a retreat to Burwood Province after the Shapers were free to focus on that meager camp. Illya Province was thoroughly occupied and ruined, save for Dillame. The Forsaken Lands were forsaken, even occupied by the loyalist Therile colony, and Southforge Citadel devastated and abandoned after the assaults by General Crowley. Between the ravages of warfare, the prevalence of refugees, and the disdain the civilians had for the Rebels, there would be a lot of work to restore productivity and win the hearts and minds of east Terrestia.