Harehunter

That is more my style as well. Although I have had a great dispute with some people on this forum about that very thing.

2D or not 2D,

That is the question.

 

 

(Sorry, I just couldn't resist.)

It was an IBM 360/30 with a whopping 32Kb of core memory. Card reader/punch and chain printer took up the rest of one trailer, eight disk drive (256Kb each) and six tape drives took up the other trailer.

 

Oh, BTW, did I mention that this was the army's idea of 'Mobile Data Processing'? We actually did operate in a field environment.

True, not all revolutions are that rosy. Some have been more bloody --after-- the victory. In fact such outcomes have been more common than the rosy one I depicted.

S. of Trinity, you are absolutely correct. The selection of rulers, when that selection is voluntary, is for the purpose of establishing a stable environment where society can flourish. Where rulers take power by force, then the ruled have a choice; allow the ruler to remain in power, usually because he basically does what is needed to sustain their countries stability (at the price of liberty), or they may revolt, and establish their own government, one of their own choosing.

The best choice, IMHO, is a government that is more defined by what it CAN NOT do, that by what it CAN. That is the nature of the U.S. Constitution. Most importantly are the first 10 amendments to that document which more specifically define those limitations. The price of liberty is not cheap, and the people who desire to live in a liberty must always be vigilant to protect it, at every level; from the local policeman who abuses his authority, to the soldier who goes on a rampage on a military base, to the administrator that forbids prayer at a military funeral, to the agency that routinely conducts illegal search and seizure with no probable cause, to the legislators who enact laws requiring that individuals must do something that should be left to individual choice.

There will always be people who would take advantage of our freedoms and attempt to usurp our government from the inside. Therefore, those who desire liberty must always be vigilant.

Power has 'been' for as long as there has been tribes of more than one homo-sapiens living together. It is inherent in human nature, in nature itself. What we do with that power is for each individual to decide. Do we band together to form governments to provide some sort of stability or do we let the individual bully run rampant and thereby we devolve into anarchy?


I do not insist that this will be defense enough against all bullies; only that in most cases it is effective enough. There are always those bullies that are more than emotionally challenged, who are downright mega-maniacal; people with egos that surpass insanity. For this type of person, only brute force can take him down. Whether or not a society has the moral strength to band together to take him down or not defines the difference between freedom or oppression.

As to the corruptibility of the police we have entrusted for our safety, I can only say this; I pray that there will always be a moral backbone in our society that will take the highground in defense of the liberties that have been so dearly paid for.

Oops, my bad. I need to catch up on my netiquette.

Yes, I did mean 'mental disorder' loosely. I guess what I meant was 'emotional disorder', or rather lacking the capacity to properly deal with their emotions.

 

My suggestion to stand up to a bully applies only in the context where there is no intervention option available. The intervention you suggest is surely superior, but until such intervention can be brought to bear, one does need to find some method of coping with the bullying.

 

The biggest part of the problem is the number of people with personality problems vs those people who know how to identify and treat those problems. All of the interventions you suggest would be highly effective, and the outcome is nothing but good. We just need more people capable of providing such care.

I may have. This discussion has taken more than a few dips into dark areas.

Jewel, you are a beautiful person, and such hope is to be respected.

However, we must live in the real world. Kids will always vie for social position, a behavior that continues into adulthood. It is a social fixture in all creatures that live in groups. Wolves, dogs, chimpanzees, gorillas, ... These are creatures who live in groups in order to survive. For this strategy to work they must have a way of determining social order, to determine who is to become the leader of the pack. Without such a process, the group falls to anarchy, something that would mean the death of the group.

This sorting out process involves much of the behaviors we consider bullying. This is most commonly verbal, non-physical abuse, by people only trying to establish their own rank in society. These people can be easily appeased with presents, or you can get them to leave you alone by simply ignoring them. No confrontation is needed to deal with this class of bully.

Then comes the next class of bully; the insecure, cowardly kind. These bullies have a mental disorder which compels them to bully beyond the normal levels acceptable by the social bullies. This class of bully needs to be confronted. Because of their nature, it usually does not have to be a physical confrontation, but the threat of physical resistance must be convincing.

Then you have the truly mentally ill people who can be stopped only by physically detaining them.

Jewel, you have a beautiful hope, but unfortunately it does not prevent bullies like Adolph Hitler, Idi Amin, Saddam Hussein who tear-gassed his own people. These people have cost the world far too much in terms of material goods and even worse in blood. Those people had to be taken down by force.

I pray that there will always be people of physical and moral strength who will stand up to defend the liberty that you now enjoy.

Whose fault was this? It can't be San Andreas's fault; he's in California.

There are people who are more than qualified physically to be a bully, yet they do not. In fact, these people will actually stand up to a bully in defense of someone who cannot. Who are these people? People who have been raised with a sense of morality and decency. Your assertion that someone who stands up to a bully and ends up becoming a bully is a possible outcome, but I think it to be more likely that such a person would become the protector figure in his area of influence.
It all depends on his moral education.

A rather pessimistic evaluation of society. I will grant that for many countries around the world, this definition is absolutely correct. However a country that has at its core the concept of limited government and codifies it in its founding constitution is designed to fulfill the idea that it be a "force for good". Does that necessarily mean that that government will achieve that goal? No, but that is why there are checks and balances designed into it, to prevent it from going too far off the course of the goals stated clearly in the preamble of the US Constitution. The only flaw to this system is that it is possible for one party to take control of two of the three branches of government and ramrod its policies through with a complete disregard of the position of half the population of the governed.

I think this brings us back to what level of bullying we are talking about. If you are talking about a pathological bully, then you are right. The only thing they understand is brute force. And while the underpowered may lack the physical ability to beat down a bully, they may join together and collectively gain the upper hand.

As for confidence being enough to back down a bully, it may not work in all situations. Most bullies are at their core cowards. They prey upon the weak because they can get away with it. Putting up a front to such a bully is often enough to give him pause. Is it really worth the trouble to have to beat this guy down, when there are easier pickings around? This can go either way, but more often than not the bully will back down. But only if the oppressed has real confidence that, even if he doesn't win the fight, he will have made it more troublesome for the bully to pick on him than the bully really cares to put up with. Faked confidence is just as visible as weakness just as surely as real confidence is visible as strength.

I had a terrier that would make larger dogs roll over in submission. Although he was only about 1/10th the size of the other dog, he had this dominant attitude when he approached the other dogs. In another analogy, I have had dogs charge at me with every intent of attacking. They would always stop short; I would simply turn to face them and stand my ground. By not backing down or otherwise showing fear, I presented to the dog the air of dominance. This is what I mean that confidence, true confidence, is visible, via body language. Dogs use body language for much of their communication. People do too.


Your suggestion that the weak have a desire to be abused is intriguing. This takes the discussion into a much darker layer. I will have to concede that there may be some truth in your statement,but again, it does not apply to all cases. I think I will have to refrain from delving into this region any further.

When there is no way the victim can physically overcome the bully, waiting passively is used to lull the bully into becoming complacent and careless. That is when the victim can use some other tactic to exact his revenge.

A soldier and a citizen. I did not volunteer to put my life on the line in defense of our freedoms just to watch them being given up freely by people who blindly accept whatever the government tells them. It is the purpose of government to police society, removing from it those bullies who take it to criminal levels. But the Constitution has an amendment that protects its citizens from illegal search and seizure. Our judicial system is based upon the principle of 'innocent until proven guilty'. When I see innocent people being treated as criminals, with no probable cause, presumably to make us safer, that is the definition of the government as a bully. When the director of a veterans memorial cemetery forbids widows and family members from having a prayer for their loved ones, she is violating their Constitutional right to freedom of religion. That is being a bully. And when people sheepishly give in to these violations of their rights, "Because they're the government." it makes my blood boil.

((Shuffle, shuffle, ...)) Excuse me while I put away my soap box ... ((Shuffle, shuffle, ...))

Handyman brings up a good point. Much of what we may perceive as bullying is merely a method of determining social ranking or status. In this situation, the bullying eases up once such status is ascertained. The person being bullied either rises above it and is accepted as a social peer, or they are relegated to the level of social outcast.

 

On the other hand you have what is truly a bully; someone who gets some emotional satisfaction in dominating other people. These people have deep psychological problems that drive them to cause hurt just for the sake of it. When dealing with one of these, it becomes necessary to resort to some higher authority to intervene. If that should be lacking, then physical violence becomes the only solution, at least for the one who strikes back. However, leaving this kind of bully loose is not a desirable outcome. This person needs correction or he|she will redirect their bullying against another victim.

Facing down a bully does not always have to be violent. In fact if you can find a way to do it without resorting to violence, the better. The key to this is self confidence. This shows the bully that their attempts to intimidate you are not going to have any effect. Jewel, your technique is no less effective than any other, so long as you can do it with sincerity and confidence.

The problem with most kids who are bullied is that they are unable to summon the courage to face down a bully by any means. They cower under the assault and that only encourages the bully even more. Training in self-defense is only one method to correct this. It teaches a person that they are stronger than they thought they were and more capable to defend themselves. It is not so much the martial aspect of the training that deters the bully, it is the new-found confidence to stand up to the bully and show no fear.

There are times, in every level of bullying discussed here, from the personal level, through gangs to national affairs, where the only way to stop a bully is to resort to violence. Only when all else fails should we resort to physical violence, but at the same time we should be prepared and not get caught up in a Neville Chamberlain, Peace at any price.

Good Grief!! Leave this site for a day and what a torrent!

 

Having been bullied, and learning how to cope with, and then to rise above, I have experienced this societal characteristic from all sides. In addition, I served in the U.S. army during a period we call the 'cold war'.

 

First off, does the victim incite the bully? Not in all cases. Having a trait that is not the norm will often make one a target. Society has been built upon the basis of 'us' or 'them'. If a person does not conform to 'us', then they must be 'not us' and therefore 'them'. Other traits that are deemed weakness are also picked on. I mentioned earlier my issues with low self-esteem in high school. This made me the target of many a bully. I learned how to deal with it by not reacting to their taunts; no reaction, no fun.

 

Secondly, can a person whose main character flaw is low self-esteem overcome that weakness, and does it change the bullying dynamic? My experience says definitely yes. Training a victim to confront a bully is the most effective way to stop the bullying dead in its tracks. I'm not talking about arming people with guns. Just learning self-defense tactics. Interestingly, knowing how to use them more often than not means you won't have to use them. Knowing self-defense gives a person a self confidence that was not there before. This self confidence shows visibly in one's bearing, causing most bullies to back down without further confrontation. Bullies are, at their core, insecure and cowardly. They bully to make themselves seem more powerful than they really are, but when confronted, they back down quickly.

 

Thirdly, does knowing how to deal with bullies in school help in dealing with adult life or does bullying exist in the work place? Yes it does. I have had to deal with bosses who use their position of authority to intimidate their employees. Knowing how to peaceably confront them has helped me to gain a position of authority and responsibility in the company.

 

Fourthly, as to the status of bullying between nations, I served in the army during the cold war. I did so because I believed that by keeping our military strong, we would not have to use it to defend our freedoms in a hot war. Theodore Roosevelt put it most succinctly; "Speak softly, but carry a big stick."

 

Finally, as someone who took an oath to 'Defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, both foreign and domestic', it saddens and angers me that there are so many people who would gladly give up the freedoms guaranteed us by that Constitution just so some bullying government agency can violate those freedoms with complete impunity while presenting the illusion that they are making us safer. Those rights did not come cheaply. They were paid for with the blood of the many men and women who have died to protect them. To see them so readily given up, compels me to speak out in their defense. We must not let the government bully us out of those rights, so dearly purchased.

 

I'll go back to sleep again.

Boy have you got that one right! The first computer I worked with was the size of two legal filing cabinets. And that was just the CPU! It took two 40 foot trailer vans to house all the rest of the equipment. This was the most cantankerist machine I've ever worked on.

Shooting, clobbering, tossing out windows, and otherwise smashing computer monitors in frustration at this consarned new fangled uncooperable gadgetry is a common thread in computer comedy.

 

I often complain that Windows is a pane in the glass.

What we term 'bullying' is a natural condition in all societies. It is a way to feel out each persons position in the societal hierarchy. It is also used to try to cause the victim to alter some undesirable trait. Non-conformity is often the target of such bullying. Lack of self-esteem is one trait that is considered a weakness.

 

My family moved around several times. Each time we moved, I would find myself stuck in a new society, one that had established its own status quo. As the new kid on the block, I was always 'tested' by the established alphas to see how I would respond. Not being as physically strong as them, not having a talent or drive for sports, I did not have much in common with those people. I also lacked a strong sense of self-esteem. I could not stand up to them and push back. Therefore I was designated as 'not in'. I had to put up with their 'testing' until I either found ways to avoid it, or to make it less fun for them. Ignoring their taunts was quite effective for that. But it involved swallowing my pride a lot, and that soured my belly.

 

I did not learn how to rise above being a target for bullying until I went to college and enrolled in ROTC. I pledged to join the special operations group there, which involved daily pledge classes and to what some people would term 'hazing'. These pledge classes, unlike an ordinary fraternity, involved a lot of intense physical training as well as advanced training in other military skills; patrolling techniques, map reading, leadership etc... I was pushed physically and mentally beyond what I thought I could do. I learned to develop confidence in myself, and that confidence became visible to others in my demeanor and carriage. When I became a commissioned 2nd Lieutenant, and assigned to be the platoon leader of a combat engineer platoon, this confidence was vital in my being able to be the leader, to project authority.

 

This has served me well in the many years since. I currently work for a boss who, shall I say, is difficult to work with. My self confidence has served me well here, defusing situations that could have turned out badly. My boss has now promoted me to a position of high authority, and responsibility. I had to train to take this position, but it also took showing my confidence in myself that I could do the job that gained me this position.

Cute.

Not so unusual as you may think, Alorael. I keep the entire set of Exile, Avernum, and Myst games installed on my pc. Also King's Quest in my DOSBox folder. (BTW, Exile plays nicely in DOSBox with a Windows 3.1 installed.)

On a second note, Slarty's definition of quality for RPG's is right on!

Thanks Slarty, that is what I thought. This is why I appreciate your work in understanding the mechanics of the game. It has value.

I think Jeff says it best.

 

I don't think that trying to build all PCs to have all skills is practical or desirable. Specialization is important in order to build a viable party; near the end of the game each skill set is needed at a high level and the only way to achieve the strength of a needed skill is to specialize. On the other hand, I don't see anything wrong with each PC being trained in a secondary skill.

Melee / bows is one example. Or you can choose Melee / priest if you don't like bows; either way it is dual tasking. Pole / tool use is a combination skill of some use; again, in some cases you absolutely need to have more than one single skill set.

Mage and Priest skills top out at a level far below the skills needed for other specialties, and the supporting skills (Int, Spellcraft, etc.) have their limits too. Which gives you more spell points to use, more Int or cross training in the other magical specialty? Does training your mage in bows make more sense to you than training priest levels? That is your decision to make. I just like the mage/priest combo better than mage/bows or mage/thrown. Likewise for my priest. Training in missile weapons does not increase your spell points, and since I use a lot of spells, that is important to me.

Who likes to play with a team of all sliths? Or all Nephilim? These options add another twist to the game making it replayable. How about the concept introduced in the Blades of Exile scenario Tatterdemalion? Try to play through with only one of the three disciplines, fighter, priest, or mage. Is any one of the Exile/Avernum games even winnable like that? There are many variables to play with, and while most combinations will be poor to utterable failures, many will be viable. Stretch your ingenuity by trying to make a 'less than optimal' combination survive the adventure.

I will grant that there is a very limited set of options that will allow a player to make it through to the end game with ease while playing torment, but I strongly believe that it is not a set of one and only one. Or you can enjoy the game just as much trying some other combination. In E/A 3 you get different dialog with the NPCs if you have/don't have a nephil or slith in your party. (Actually, I wish Jeff had continued that trend in the second Avernum trilogy.)

In conclusion, the goal is to have fun with the game. If that means trying to calculate all the interactions of the various skills in order to thoroughly understand the game engine, then enjoy! Having to reverse engineer programs by analyzing hex dumps of their files, I thoroughly understand the pleasure of gaining that kind of insight. But when I play RPGs, I like to kick back and just play through it. I do like to try to find all the hidden passages and special artifacts, but usually that is the limit of my exploration.

Actually Indiana does observe DST, with the exception of Indianapolis. I found it weird that inside the city limits it was one hour different than outside the city limits.