The Back Room

[Resistance]

In response to the above point by Rocco, I don't believe that a gun is necessary to defend oneself. Because people don't attack with guns then you don't need to defend with one, if in England guns were legalised then we would experience a much higher crime rate.

 

Do any of you plan on starting hegemony again?

[Seraphi]

Resistance, if nobody answers you, the answer should probably just be assumed as a no, since people obviously aren't interested.

 

Quoting and requoting can get annoying, as it makes you out to be pestering people.

[Resistance]

Resistance, if nobody answers you, the answer should probably just be assumed as a no, since people obviously aren't interested.

 

Quoting and requoting can get annoying, as it makes you out to be pestering people.

Sorry, I won't do it again.

[archimage_a]

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]

[a_bert]

YES

 

but only if i'm on a cool team

[Jehosaphat]

In response to the above point by Rocco, I don't believe that a gun is necessary to defend oneself. Because people don't attack with guns then you don't need to defend with one, if in England guns were legalised then we would experience a much higher crime rate.

Saw this quote and it made me curious... What exactly are you going to do if some crook shows up with a black-market gun?

[archimage_a]

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.

[Resistance]

@ Arch only if we pick the teams playground style.

 

In response to the above point by Rocco, I don't believe that a gun is necessary to defend oneself. Because people don't attack with guns then you don't need to defend with one, if in England guns were legalised then we would experience a much higher crime rate.

Willing to stake the lives of your friends and family on that claim?

Actually, we have been fine without a gun. We always have a broken snooker que, mannequin pole or cricket bat or chair leg to defend ourselves (a lot of our things we have are broken :P). Its a very small chance that somebody would arrive with a gun, if you were born here you would understand that seeing a gun in real life is a rarity.

 

In response to the above point by Rocco, I don't believe that a gun is necessary to defend oneself. Because people don't attack with guns then you don't need to defend with one, if in England guns were legalised then we would experience a much higher crime rate.

Saw this quote and it made me curious... What exactly are you going to do if some crook shows up with a black-market gun?

Its just very unlikely, I'm not going to prepare for when a bear attacks us because its extremely unlikely.

 

 

--

 

Archimage,

 

I would be honoured to take part in your new game! The game sounds extremely fun, it allows an element of deceit and adds the nice aspect 'not knowing the whole picture'. The game would be confusing with everybody acting on there own, of course if the president has to give the okay to everything then this aspect of fun would be removed.

 

I have two suggestions that might be of interest to you

Swiss Bank Account

With the game at the moment everybody is going to uncorrupted and trying there best to stop the other team winning, but what about if there was an aspect of sabotage and selfishness. I suggest an idea which would add some corruption to the game; I suggest that instead of having everyone defined as simply two teams you would have the individuals trying to get as much money for themselves in there Swiss bank account. You could do this honestly by pillaging your enemy or you could do it in dishonestly by siphoning money from your roles budget or even from other people. It could be done in different ways. Of course this is just a concept.

Squabble

Instead of simply joining the game and picking what you want to be how about some sort of squabble over who's in charge, backing by the people would be the main thing that allows you to get your title and its your job with in the first couple of weeks to give speeches that will put yourself at the top of the pecking order.

 

 

Whatever team I am on I would love to be the 'Armament's Minister', I am doing concept design as school (for my marks) and would probably benefit everyone with some CAD drawings and sketches.

[Retech]

Actually, in half the states in the United States, you can basically freely shoot people for trespassing on your property. And in the other half, that would be murder in self defence, which is not a crime.

[Nexaduro]

[archimage_a]

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.

[archimage_a]

If someone walked into my house with clearly criminal intentions and I had my gun near me, I would immediately shoot them in the face.

 

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.

[Resistance]

I personally think a discussion of Archimage's new game idea would be far more interesting.

[Icuownage]

I personally think a discussion of Archimage's new game idea would be far more interesting.

 

I agree.

 

It is impossible to put %'s on events like they're describing.

[The_Mather1]

I would either go hand-to-hand with the criminal, disarming them then delivering a headbutt, not caring if I get shot (if they shoot, they'll likely not shoot to kill) or I would grab a sword and either cut them to pieces, scare them of or cause them to collapse in laughter.

[Resistance]

I would either go hand-to-hand with the criminal, disarming them then delivering a headbutt, not caring if I get shot (if they shoot, they'll likely not shoot to kill) or I would grab a sword and either cut them to pieces, scare them of or cause them to collapse in laughter.

Ripping a criminal to pieces is a lot more awesome then firing a gun at them! :D

 

So, who is in favour of Archimages's idea?

[archimage_a]

I was thinking, before I went to pick up my sister, Rocco sounds a lot like Mather. They may have a gun, but I am a Norwegian with a sword ALL SHALL COWER.

Made me giggle.

 

 

Anyway, Rocco, I 100% agree with you.

America should have guns because guns protect Americans from the guns that other Americans ALREADY have. Outlawing them would lead to a lot more deaths in the short term, and probably the long term too, since the next government would bring in extremist stuff to bring back Guns.

 

Wouldn't it by nice if there were not guns? Probably. Wouldn't it be nice if I found gold burried under my house? Probably...doesn't make it any more likely to happen.

[Icuownage]

I would either go hand-to-hand with the criminal, disarming them then delivering a headbutt, not caring if I get shot (if they shoot, they'll likely not shoot to kill) or I would grab a sword and either cut them to pieces, scare them of or cause them to collapse in laughter.

 

Wat.?

 

Ok if a guy had a gun aimed at you to hold you up, attacking them would only be adviseable if they're distracted, even then you better hope you get the gun out of their hand, cause if they don't, they will just shoot you, and I don't think a street criminal will know the difference between shoot to kill and shooting to incapacitate. They'll generally just try to shoot you.

 

Also grab a sword? Where from? Any sudden movements like that will probably earn you a bullet in your liver. Life doesn't work like a comic book, a person will have a similar reflex time to you. Not only that, but the mentality of killing someone is hard to come by, I know many people who would say they would kill someone, but not actually do it. Infact I think I'm one of those people who would say they'd kill someone, but when it comes to it, not actually do it.

 

Anywho, onto the game,

 

If it's a side v side, we're going to have to work out who's playing before sides can be made.

[Resistance]

If a person dared to rob my house with a gun (I'm assuming its an AK-47) I would pull dual Wakizashi's out of my back sheaths and then throw multiple Shuriken at the burglar pinning him to the wall by his clothes and then cutting the gun in half with my dual wazakzahi's, after that I would hit his arm with a chainwhip to debilitate him and after a scissor kick to his head I would use my dual nunchaku's to smash him up a bit. After that I would lift him by the scruff of his neck and throw him head first out of the house, but first I would use a katana to slice off his arms then chiburi his blood into his face.

I would then offer him the samurai custom of seppeku by giving him a tanto, then I would close the door and leave him alone.

[/sarcasm]

 

 

I agree with most of the points that Rocco has made.

[Seraphi]

I would either go hand-to-hand with the criminal, disarming them then delivering a headbutt, not caring if I get shot (if they shoot, they'll likely not shoot to kill) or I would grab a sword and either cut them to pieces, scare them of or cause them to collapse in laughter.

I'm fairly certain that is a terrible plan of action. Going all "Macho action hero" in real life gets people killed.

[Resistance]

^ Hex thing to say (just pointing it out).

Sorry, it was just a joke though. I wasn't serious. Should I remove it?

 

 

There is a game that me and a couple of friends play named assassin, its a pen and paper game in which there are two teams, the assassins and the protectors. The protectors design a map on gridded paper and write down some special features of there guards (guards see three grids in front of them and walk in any direction). It is basically a lot like battle ship but the ships move and the water is interactive.

Its a hard game to explain but if anybody is interested in making it a tavern game I'll elaborate.\

 

Edit: :thumbsup: :thumbsup: :thumbsup: Wildys back tommorow!!!!

[The_Mather1]

Also grab a sword? Where from?

Basement, it's much better than going through the entire house to find and assemble the parts to my mom's rifle. Though It could be wiser to just take the airgun and hope the criminal doesn't know the difference.

 

And I'm not afraid of dying, so attacking the criminal with my bare hands would be something I would at least consider doing. I wouldn't even bother waiting until he was distracted:

Walk up to him (and probably get shot in the gut).

Quickly place hand on barrel of gun and twist down.

Move other hand in a circular motion to place wrist beneath the wrist of the criminal's hand.

Push up, rotate sideways.

Put on gun's safety, remove clip.

Duck the inevital blow towards torso/head.

Pistol whip kneecap.

Open palm blow to the solar while rising up.

Box ears.

Grab head.

Headbutt.

 

 

Rocco, he's not Hex, I'm sitting here watching Hex tell me how much of a suck up he thinks Resistance is.

[Earth]

Mather, you are [developmentally delayed]ed to think you waltz up to a guy with a gun and stab him to death with a sword. Usually i'm all for medival weaponry, but if it's that situation, i'm getting the pistols i have under my bed. And the other plan is worse, you'd get shot, go into shock, and not do anything else. Also, if it is Hex, then why shouldn't he say that to keep his cover?

[Resistance]

Double post

[Icuownage]

Mather that implies he would shoot you at a range you could touch him. Which is rather stupid if he has a gun. That also implies the pain from getting shot does not incapacitate you. Also, implying implications.