archimage_a

Makes me giggle. You just shot the Tax Man. You just missed his head. People wander around with these delusions that the Criminal will waltz into the house, gun in their pocket and calmly swipe a pair of shoes to let you know they are a criminal. They also have these delusions that they, far from being slightly worried by having a gun in their face would calmly pick up the gun, remove the safety catch, lift the gun, take careful aim at the Criminal's face, and not hestitate to pull the trigger. Real world: Criminal isn't going to kick down your front door and waltz in. They are gonna sneak in because, suprise, your TV is not behind a locked safe. If you are out they can take it fairly easily. Supposing that you were in, listening to music or watching TV, you probably aren't going to know they are in the house until they shoot you or tell you to stand up...or until several hours later when you go downstairs to get a glass of milk to find the refrigerator has been stolen. Supposing that these were particularly incompetant criminals, who who had kicked down your front door. Your gun is not going to be conveinantly lying on the coffee table, loaded with the saftey off. If it is on the coffee table it will be covered in magazines, with various coffee mugs and other rubbish around it. It will probably not be loaded and have the safety off because you will shoot someone accidently like that. So it is probably(I would assume) loaded, with the saftey on. So, you hear the door fly off its hinges: 'What the hell' 1-2 seconds. 'Where is my gun' -0.5-1 second Goes to get gun 3-10 seconds So...minimal, 4.5 seconds to pick up your gun. Your body has just released a surge of adrenaline, so you are shaking, so you will probably fumble with the gun for a second trying to get the safety off, if you remember to take it off(I would say you would, since I assume you are trained). You are looking at 5-20 seconds...In that time it is fairly easy for them to grab your sister or whatever and hold them hostage. Also...you said it yourself, criminals aren't trigger happy. You start waving a gun around, they are gonna shoot you. If you are powerless they will tell you and your family to sit down and shut up. Then consider that a lone criminal is unlikely, so you shooting one of them in the face is likely to result in them shoot you in the face and revenge killing your family for the brother/whatever. I agree, if you are sitting their with a gun, pointed at their face as they walk through the door, and you say 'Get out or your dead' (assuming more than 1, shooting the lone criminal = sensible) would work. Which is why any criminal worth his salt isn't going to walk in through the door, alone.

Ok...So rethink: If I was an American: If I didn't have my gun I would do what they said until I acquired my gun. If I did have my gun I would shout everyone get behind me, fire a round into the air and tell him to drop the gun or die. (Murder is still murder, in a moral sense) 50% chance of me getting shot. Some chance of going mad from killing someone who turned out to be carrying a table leg...Or other relatively harmless object. Moderate chance of going through a minor 'episode' when you realise you have taken someone else's life. If I was a gungho and living in America: If I didn't have my gun I would punch him or her in the face and take his gun. 90% chance of me getting shot. If I did have my gun I would open fire with my semi-automatic shotgun. 20% chance of me getting shot. 50% chance of getting sent down for murder of innocent civlians. Some chance of going mad from killing someone who turned out to be carrying a table leg...Or other relatively harmless object. Moderate chance of going through a minor 'episode' when you realise you have taken someone else's life. If I was in Britian: If I didn't have my phone I would do what they said until I acquired my phone. If I did have my phone I would wait until he or she wasn't nearby quietly call 999 (911) and wait until the police turned up. 10% chance of me getting shot. If I was gungho and living in Britian: If I had a few seconds of warning, hide behind a door with a cricket bat and whack them in the head. 40% chance of me getting shot. 50% chance of me injuring a relative or someone innocent. 30% chance of killing someone If I had no warning, do what they said until I could find a weapon, then try to take them out. 60% chance of me getting shot. 10% chance of me injuring an innocent by accident. 30% chance of me killing someone. Of course in Britian you have an 8% chance that the person has a gun, in America you have a 78% chance they have a gun. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gun_crime Now...that strikes me as something a little more than random difference. Perhaps it is the Gungho attitude that Americans need guns. Perhaps it is that American police officers carry guns. Maybe it is that Britian has less of a problem with gettos. Perhaps its because we have the NHS... I don't know...What I do know is, but, in Britain you are 70% less likely to get shot... Now, assuming you have a gun, and have equal skill at shooting it as a hardened criminal, and you don't hesitate when firing because you didn't realise that killing another human being is not something you were mentally prepared for...Then you have about a 75% chance of getting shot: 50% you shoot them first 50% they shoot you first IF you shoot them first, its about 50% chance that they won't be able to shoot you also. So 50% plus 50% of 50% is 75% overall of you getting shot. With a 78% chance of them having a gun, there is a 58.5% chance of getting shot. In Britain, 8% chance of someone shooting you. You have a 20-40% chance of cracking them in the back of the head or something(60-80% this fails), and a 50% chance of that working to render them unconscience(50% that fails). So, 50% of 80%... Which is 40% chance of getting shot. However, since there is only an 8% chance they have a gun, this falls to 3.2% chance of getting shot. So...on balance, I am 55.3% safer in Britian, where it is illegal to carry a gun. Also to consider is that I have a 0.00145% chance of being involved in any kind of crime that leads to my, or their, death. Americans have a 0.00755% chance of being involved in same. Thus: America = 44.1675, in 1,000,000 chance of getting shot. Britian = 0.464, in 1,000,000 chance of getting shot. Hence, you are 95 times more likely to be shot in America, while carrying a gun, than you are in Britian when not carrying a gun. Does this mean we should outlaw guns in America? Of course not, that is just silliness, you cannot apply rules that work in one place to another place and expect the same results. If you outlawed guns in America the chances are: A) People would riot. B) Alot of people would get shot. So let me answer your question, Stork, with some more questions: What are you gonna do when a Terrorist shows up in a Stolen Jet aimed directly at your house? What are you gonna do when someone in the Ukraine digs up a nuclear warhead and decides they are gonna nuke your neighbourhood? What are you gonna do when the Empire launches its Death Star towards Earth? You have no Surface to Air Missiles, Nuclear Deterents, or X-Wings crewed by Luke Skywalker and R2-D2 because the chances of actually being involved in any of those issues are astronomically small. In America you have a <0.05% chance of getting shot in a year. So, if you lived to be 100 you would only have a 5% chance of getting shot in your entire life.

Know what will bring about the fall of the city-state? Flood. Its counter-productive to have a 'kill everything' policy when you have only one or two people capable of carrying it out. So you might as well let them steal from you in order for you not to die, thus losing everything, until you are in a position to kill them...or, if it goes badly, retreat behind a wall. And when you have a city, the ability to defend yourself and all that jazz...at which point any random person walking around inside is gonna be a new member OR an attacker who has broken through the palisade or been let through...In which case you have far more pressing concerns than 'PUT DOWN MY BONE SAW!'...Then you can kill the thief with no real risk of problems. Its not about treating people fairly, its about not dying in some idiotic display of 'death or glory'. And yes, there are some who would kill you for rolling over...They are a minority and a minority that would kill me anyway. So...simple solution. Build a wall. Keep the good stuff inside. Profit. Eventually get weapons and armour. Defend yourself. Profit.

If I was an American: If I didn't have my gun I would do what they said until I acquired my gun. If I did have my gun I would shout everyone get behind me, fire a round into the air and tell him to drop the gun or die. (Murder is still murder) 50% chance of me getting shot. If I was a gungho and living in America: If I didn't have my gun I would punch him or her in the face and take his gun. 90% chance of me getting shot. If I did have my gun I would open fire with my semi-automatic shotgun. 20% chance of me getting shot. 80% chance of getting sent down for murder. If I was in Britian: If I didn't have my phone I would do what they said until I acquired my phone. If I did have my phone I would wait until he or she wasn't nearby quietly call 999 (911) and wait until the police turned up. 1% chance of me getting shot.

Kill them with rage...how...exactly? You live near a swamp and body dump before they wake up? Pre-emptive strikes only work when you are gonna win right now...See Operation Barbarossa, The Finnish-Russian Winter War, Pearl Habour, Napleon's march into Russia and World War 1 for more information on what happens when this isn't the case. I would also say that a pre-emptive strike does not involve: A) Bombing a country for 50 years until it finally attacks you and then saying 'Look, pre-emptive strike, if we hadn't bombed them then they would be far more powerful.' Nor does it involve: B) Bombing a country after its neighbour bombed you... Both of which seem to be American 'Pre-Emptive Strike' tactics. The only country to effectively use a pre-emptive strike I can think of is Israel. Blitzkrieg doesn't really count, since none of the countries were gonna attack Germany. But anyway...Killing someone without murder...not easy...not advisable. Picking a fight with someone when you don't have murder, easy...still not advisable. If there was a person, who you killed before they did anything, then you are the one who will write the history that said they were a thief... Hardly the most unbiased survey... But, then again...If you learned it from a Government that storms into random countries, overthrows the elected leaders, installs a dictator and calls it liberation...Its kinda self explaintory.

Raging a random person... On the plus side, suprise, on the negative side, you can't kill then...no guarentee the reverse is true...better to ignore them until they become a threat, then kill them or run away if you can't kill them.

Or...You can be generally nice. Given a small amount of luck (as we have had so far) people won't instantly kill you. Though ultimately you will die because ultimately you will meet Sere's brand of omnicidal kleptomanic.

How do people feel about a Dual Committee game? Two sides in a war. Each side has 6 roles. Each person can fill one of those roles. Roles like: President (Has the final say in most things, but almost no information of his own) Armament's Minister (Decides what to build and research, protection is their main interest) Spy Master (Controls the spy network and propaganda, main concern is keeping dissent down) Army Chief (Controls the army) Air Marshal (Controls the airforce) Grand Admiral (Controls the navy) Each 'turn' is a 4 days long(and represents a week) 1st day, people are given information. (People can take actions at any point) 2nd day, people are informed of any developments and any attacks are launched the previous turn. 3rd day, a committee meeting is held, where plans can be hammered out. 4th day, there is a break. (in case of delays to decision making, and to give people a chance to cool off.) Any thoughts on it? [hide] A game in which the players decide on a course of action within a committee format. Usually the players are equal in game terms, although there may well be a chairman. Normally associated with Hidden Briefings to each of the players (some or all...) of which may be mutually incompatible. This type of wargame has its origins in the management games used by various organisations and role-playing educational games. The players are assigned roles and will have personal objectives to fulfil, possibly at the expense of the overall objectives of their particular team or side. The organiser will prepare a general brief which outlines the background to the game with which all the participants will be familiar. Each player will also receive a personal brief. This will give information specific to that player which will give him something to bargain with in the game. This information may give details of forces or resources under his control. As a secret brief it will also outline his personal objectives (of which other players will be unaware) within the game and let him feel that he is different from the other players, and individual with his own contribution to make. It is likely that all the participants will be of equal standing but any hierarchy should be outlined. The overall briefing will have made clear the relationship of the players to each other and the ultimate aim of the group. Play will proceed, usually under the direction of the "chairman" of the committee (he may, for example, be the commander in chief of a council of war) until the required decisions are arrived at. If there is more than one dominant player then arguments may be lengthy and even heated as each player reacts to challenges for dominance by other players. The organiser may, during the course of the game, present input in the form of events happening outside of the meeting (e.g. updates on the strength and location of the enemy) and at the end will assess the degree of success of the players in terms of their own objectives and the overall aim. If the aim was to plan a campaign it is, of course, not necessary to actually play this through; but equally it can form an interesting start to an otherwise conventional campaign. An example of committee games should make the concept clearer: In the first, each of the players had a role on the Ruritanian Strategic Planning Committee (e.g. Head of the Army, Director of Logistics, Head of Intelligence Services, etc.) and war having been declared on the neighbouring state of Begonia, the committee had to arrive at a strategic plan for victory. Each of the members was also to ensure that the final plan involved his service playing the major role. [/hide]

I have lots of bones, if you want to come to the Hub. Either way, whats your HS?

Usually I agree with this kind of an arguement(To me known as the airplane metal detector arguement). However, look at the tavern..How many times have we got really annoyed with each other...In the heat of the moment one of us could shoot someone else, and then where would we be? In Britian we could hit each other, but the chances of that leading to something serious are somewhat lower. Also, taking the argument one step further: 'Why don't you ban Surface to Air Missiles like in Britain?" Because that doesn't work? Serious criminals will acquire the Surface to Air Missiles anyway, all that does is keep the common man from defending himself from someone with a hijacked Plane or Helicopter Gunship.

Sigh... Your plans never make any sense because they hinge on the rest of the world carrying on while you exploit them. And yes, I can prove you wrong...it would just tie up about 5 hours of my time looking for facts and figures rather than relying on my memory...I have done it before with your Russia-Alaska economic plan. However, I am running Space and really am not that bothered...so yeah.

Sigh... City of London =£4 Billion(100% profit) Yoghurt =£3 Billion(17% profit) Children's Toys = <£3 Billion(<10% Profit) You are trading 4 Billion for something worth less than 510 Million. Call my old fasioned, but that sounds like a bad deal. As far as I know the USA doesn't have Coffee and Chocolate Plantations...or are you making your chocolate out of oats and rye? Also, the world economy is interconnected, China, Japan and Korea invest in America, America invests in China, Japan and Korea...the cycle goes on and money is magicked out of the air. Also, did you know that the market in Credit Default Swaps was over 67 Trillion Dollars. You stop trading with China, you lose 67 Trillion Dollars. :angry:

Also, how would you exile them? Them walking to the border is gonna annoy your neighbours...who wants a murderer?

Sigh... Third world countries like China, Korea and Japan?...Aka countries that make childrens toys and TV sets? If you stopped trading with third world countries Bread, Chocolate and Coffee would shoot up in price and your economy would collapse because China, Japan and Korea got annoyed with you. Hence your balance of trade dies a death, your country collapses and you come back from the next election with one seat.

In a perfect society you wouldn't have any prisoners, and so your economy collapses. Also, the City of London, in the 80s, brought in 4 Billion Pounds a year.(I am assuming New York and such generate similar amouns) If you screwed up the balance of trade then that collapses... Domino effect of 4 Billion pounds a year disappearing is gonna be a collapse of confidence, a run on the pound/dollar, price hikes and inflation... Yoghurt, present day, world wide, has an output of some 3 Billion Pounds a year. Of which 17% is profit(if I remember correctly). We can, therefore, assume that childrens toys and other unskilled labour tasks would not fetch more money than would be lost with the collapse of trading centers. Its kind of like saying 'The boat is flooding! Quick, turn it over to let the water out.'

Balance of trade as in other countries wouldn't buy your goods because you aren't buying theirs... Gandhi, Hunger Strike, your government falls after 20 prisoners starve themselves to death/your men kill one while trying to forcefeed them. A century of Liberalism can't be undone in a matter of weeks. There are logical reasons why we don't do that kind of thing...and alot of illogical reasons...Emanicipation proclaimation being one of them....

Which hurts the balance of trade, which destroys the economy ect. Also a prison riot would stall your economy...so...

Destroying your economy as prisoners take the jobs that the working classes had, leading to increased crime, leading to a better economy and slave labour.

A) Horrible idea, imagine if your mother was accused of something and was carted off for life imprisonment. Or your son... B) Worst of Both Worlds, Best of Neither? Exiles = Terrorists.

Practically speaking any form of society that uses written laws is fundermentally flawed. 1) Laws are like spiderswebs, they catch poor houseflies, but are torn to shreds by rich lions. 2) The Law is open to interpretation. 3) People lie. Not using written laws also leaves you in a fundermentally flawed situation. 1) The judgement maker can be brought. 2) The Law is entirely subjective. 3) People lie. It is, thus, that regardless of what system of law you use, it will fail because: 1) Money will destroy law 2) People interpret things differently 3) People misled people for advantage. Thus, the problem is greed, difference and fear. ...And we wonder why crime figures are so high in a Capitalist, Multi-Cultural, and Unforgiving world... Sentencing and such...WWND, the only answer. :thumbsup:

Yes, walking around train stations with my eyes closed, that sounds like a recipe for success :thumbsup: Earplugs should avoid the troublesome conversations I overhear too, I think you are onto a winner here.

/join #space31 tavern Logs: http://dl.dropbox.com/u/12603519/Space/Logs/%23space31.Tip.It.log

One of the interesting points of law around this subject is that if a kid take a picture of themselves and distributes it, it is still classed as child abuse, even if they do it without any influence from anyone else. So they prosecute the child for abusing themselves... It is/was the only crime, other than suicide, where the state dictates what you can do with your own body. Though I think that is out of date, since Tounge Bifurcation(I love the word) is illegal in some areas, abortion too, probably, idk. On subject... No. Frankly the level of flesh and crap out there is already too high...When I am waiting for a train I don't want three posters looking aluringly(SP) at me, with females covered in nothing but a handful of rose petals...I don't want to listen to ten year olds talking about how terrible their parents are for not buying them a playboy bunny outfit for their birthday. I especially don't want to constantly have girls thrusting barely contained chestlet at me. Seriously...If you want to waste your life in front of a computer screen in your own home(Irony senses tingling) watching girls, guys, animals, cartoons, whatever going at it, then fair enough...But do you really need more? Does EVERY newsagents need to stock two dozen different magazines on the subject? I know we are morally corrupt as a speices, but can we at least have a modicum of dignity...If we are still around a hundred years from now, I wonder how much further we will have fallen? If Earth will not just be a brothel for some Alien race we have sold out to...

There are many societies that don't have a poorest person...typically when hardship affects everyone then the idea of being 'better' than other people fades into general survival. Also when there is no one way to harvest food and always be productive...As then one year you might have a plentiful supply, the next year you have nothing...So any 'wealth' is transient, and you are depending on the goodwill of others when your crops fail. Ultimately any society like that breaks down because one person works out a clever way round the problem of transient wealth...for example giving someone a contract which states 'If I feed you this year then I own your land and you pay me 10% from now on' and then some clever method of enforcing said contract...Thus meaning they are rarely affected entirely, allowing them to grow. Direct exploitation works too. The same is true in communistic systems, as there will always be someone who is either more intelligent, stronger, faster or more adept at something than anyone else...thus they get a little fame...For example, in the Tavern we are a communistic setup...none of us gains anything but enjoyment and education. But if I so chose (and was skilled enough), I could run Dungeoneering, Space and Hegemony games and monopolise moderating in the Tavern(I wouldn't, not even I have that much time and will power)...Then, people who didn't like the way I ran my games(so long as the majority supported me) would be forced to endure my systems or be cast out(akin to poverty in the economic example). A lack of strong inclination...by anyone...prevents this from happening. In the same way a 13th century village, with the alternate years of starvation and plenty, has no real incentive to expand or reorganise...Every year everyone survives...The people who don't end up dying on one of the bad years because they hacked everyone else off. Nowadays we have a hard time getting our heads round concepts like that because of the 'WIN' mentality...the idea that if you aren't screwing them then they have to be screwing you, and every second you let them take advantage the more likely you are to 'lose'. But hopefully the tavern example demonstrates how even in today's world purely communistic endevours exist and function without the need for a 'poor' person role. :thumbup:

Well...I suppose because it is different from pornography... It is not, for example, pornographic to draw the male member on a text book...Doing so would be unenforcable. Therefore laws are required to cover the industrial distribution of sexual images that are not photographic, but are not doodles either...one assumes.