aramike

Wow, if it's this easy, we should ALL sue someone!

quote: Originally posted by Gallion: Nothing much that ye can't get caught up on by perusing the forum Welcome back none the less aramike TTFN [/QB] Heh, I can't peruse crap anymore. Now where'd my access go??!?!?!

quote: Originally posted by Gallion: hehehe, now where has aramike been a hindin'? TTFN Hehe, had myself occupied for a few months. I have to say, it's good to be home... Now what'd I miss?

Look what the cat dragged in ... a Rat Long time no see ... When you comin' home to Snafu and gonna start catching up?

quote: Originally posted by echo: MIKE!!!!!! HEY!!!!! >>>>> I am late as usual! Welcome back!! So glad to see you! Hi Tammy! (I've remembered the name correctly, right?) Hope everything's going well with the children. Glad to see you're still lurking! As for the rest of you guys... word.

I know this is late and hardly up-to-date but I feel like spewing my opinionated venom nonetheless. Derek, you know me, and I assume you know that I'm a stubborn sonofab****, so you probably know most of the background to this story: After BCM came out I was *pissed* that MP wasn't anywhere visible on the horizon. Livid. Up-in-arms. Whatever you want to call it. But hell, back in that day, opinions were like arseholes and elbows; everyone had 3 of them. Right around then was the time that Derek was considering shutting this place down (for you newbies that are aware of the BCC Forum, that's how it originated). In any case, us veterans around here had been working on organizing fleets, filling them, and getting them primed for real MP action. We even wrote some kickin' RP stories based upon these fleets. Well, we had things pretty well in hand when BCM was released. Those individuals privy to the beta tests and, primarily, the mailing lists, were aware that BCM MP wasn't going to be shipping with the release well before the general realization of the fact. Okay. Fine. We'll wait. No big deal. Time passed and still no concrete signs of MP. Not exactly earth-shattering but disheartening nonetheless. Fast forward to now. As you may or may not be aware, I've been overseas for the past several months with my family. No real time for BCM or gaming in general. And besides, one could make a laptop with a 500GHz Pentium 14 and I would still say that a K6-2 400 would make a better gaming rig. Anyway, upon my return one of the things I wanted to do was stop in here and check up on things. I'm thinking that maybe BCM MP is going full-forced, or that us veterans are screwed out of a lot of work. After a few beers and some quiet, instropective ponderings, I've decided that it's neither. In fact, I'm in support of no MP whatsoever. The following is why: Okay, so we've created fleets and invested serious work into this. Many fans and gamers have purchased the game. Some have registered here. Fewer still have joined fleets. So what we'd have are several organize fleets, with few members, in different time zones around the world, all with differing schedules, trying to play an organized game together. Yeah, right. Now consider that practically every MP game to have been released that emphasizes teamwork turns into an unorganized meshing of individuals fragging each other into oblivion. Considering that most of the dedicated fans that would keep some semblance of order are on quite different schedules, one must deduce that there are not hardly enough people to make BCM worthwhile in MP. Hell, I don't want to see BCM degrade to a simple shooter. In the end, what we'd have is a few unorganized fleets, or a few people on LAN just shooting at one another until everyone's either dead 40 times or bored. BCM's addictiveness comes from it's depth, not respawn locations and rates. And besides, considering that most gamers see themselves as superior to the next I had a feeling we'd see a bunch of Gammulan traders / raiders / drug dealers on the servers rather than any semblance of what would make MP actually fun. The BC series is a single-player game. Yes, it screams for multiplayer. But if what we'd end up having is an MP Wing Commander with lotsa big and cool ships, I really don't want anything to do with it. So here's my advice to those who REALLY need an MP component to the game, or ANY BC game: MAKE IT WORTHWHILE. ONLY the fans can do that. Get involved in fleets. Get those fleets populated. Get your friends into the BC series. The relatively small amount of time you'll spend contributing here could yield insanely large rewards for your gaming future. That's it for now, I think... ~Mike PS: I am aware that there are plans for a new BC MP in the works. But even so, to make *that* game worthwhile with the richness of the game universe, fan participation is KEY.

quote: Originally posted by rtoolooze: Sup Mike, good to see you back. What planet did you visit on your vacation? Hehe, Planet Europe. And some of Africa too. Mostly charity work. Been trying to live out retirement with a purpose (seriously, I'm not *THAT* old). Anyway, has anyone seen Rattler or Chris (Gallion) around?

Thanks guys! Now where the hell is Derek? I have to find something stupid or another to argue with him about.

Hey folks! Been awhile. Just wanted to stop in and give a quick hello to all of the old crew still hangin' around. Been missing you all. Was thinking about just sliding in under the radar but decided on giving a general shout-out to the crew. Gallion, Jaguar, I've been gone for awhile so if you could help me figure out where to start catching up I'd love you for it. Oh yeah, in case you're wondering I plan on sticking around. Derek: Glad to see the old haunts are still as completely intact as before. Some things just won't die...

Hoax. Got it some time back. Ignored it. Still use ICQ.

As of today, I resign as head of Spectre Fleet and forgo any membership with the Insurgency. The obvious fact is, I just don't have time to be a part of it any longer. It's been a great time, with a lot of awesome memories and wonderful friends. Gallion is now in charge.

Maybe I'll rent it when it hits DVD. Star Wars never really did anything for me, other than a quick 2 hours of mindless entertainment.

quote: I don’t know about you, but I see no reason to work under the yoke of morality except where required by law....Except that 95% of law is derivitive of some incarnation of morality.

quote: Originally posted by Charles Lindsey: quote:Oh yes you can! It worked marvelously in Vietnam, remember? Way too much of an inside joke. Care to explain? Not really an inside joke. Soldiers in Vietnam were mostly draftees. They found themselves fighting each other constantly, going so far as to toss fragmentation grenades in the tents of officers and soldiers who weren't well-liked. That's where the term "frag" came from, by the way.

quote: I think your nuts, such a program would not and could not work. You can not shove people together on purpose and expect them to "just get along".Oh yes you can! It worked marvelously in Vietnam, remember?

quote: 1) Who and what defines a person as a terrorist? It's a matter of personal definition as far as I'm concerned.Group which employs force against unaware targets in order to create fear in hopes of inciting political change. This force in no way stands a practical chance of inciting political change on its own.

$ilk, don't forget to take a leak with the toilet seat down, and forgo flushing!

quote: Originally posted by goaliejerry: I know that you didn't intentionally imply that effort and input are directly related, and the remainder of your post highlights that quite clearly. I was just playing with the semantics to get a rise out of you. Admititly I haven't been following "the issues at hand" as closely as I should, however every now and then I just gotta speak up and strech my mind for a little. As I've said, finals are coming up, and every now and then I need to switch mental gears. Seeing as you said you've been having a sort of on-going debate with Menchise, I'm sure there will be ample time for me to hop-in in the future. Thats all, peace and goodnight. Don't worry about it, dude. We all have our days. Besides, I've decided that input, effort, AND output aren't really applicably measurable. Upon thinking it over, VALUE is the term. For instance, without the guy at the top the production wouldn't occur. However, without the single worker at the bottom, the production would still go on.

quote: CONTRADICTION!!!!The only CONTRADICTION!!! is that you claim to have discovered one when you actually have not. quote: ...And your contradiction, where I based my claim off of in the first placeLet's see... quote: Again, how does one measure input? It's impossible.Fair enough. That is contradicting ... when taken out of context. Here's why, and I explained this THOROUGHLY in my last post. Theoretically, the person who designs the process, makes the initial investment, hires workers, and controls production would TECHNICALLY be responsible for ALL of the output. However, his input in terms of EFFORT may be substantially less than the actual production workers. There, crystal clear, I hope. quote: You clearly imply that input and effort are directly related, as your use of the word "again" implys that your previous point with regards to "effort" is also applicable in later usage of the word "input." Input and effort are NOT related, and I've NEVER implied that. Especially considering that I've been saying the opposite all along. I could input production control advice to a company effortLESSLY, yet cause a gain in output. Got it? Good. quote: Thats all I was trying to highlight. Don't get all mad at me for pointing out the holes of your argumentNot a hole in an argument, man, I think you were taking my argument to mean something different. My usage of the words "input" and "effort" meant different things at different times in DIRECT response to what Menchise was saying. quote: And I appologize for any sort of personal attack I may have made. That was unnessecary and ungentalmanly of me.Ditto. No harm man. quote: And fellas, I must reiterate, I believe, as you do, that socialism is a political theroy whose success relys on the inherant goodness of man, which I fear does not exist.Like I've said, politics based upon feelings are a pipe dream, because everyone feels differently. quote: Suggestion for aramike: 1) make sure your right before you claim you arep LOL. I think I've cleared that up sufficiently.

quote: I remember one debate where you and Jaguar wrote, "Who are you to decide how much money is too much?". To have any money is to immediately survive in capitalism. To have more money is to insure long term survival in capitalism.To have money is to survive in capitalism. To have excessive money is to excel in capitalism. If humans are animals who "allergically" react to violent actions in the immediately, I'm pretty blamed sure that they're not thinking about their long term portfolio. quote: I know that. It's called demand. So what's your point?Why don't you read the entire thing in context and try to figure out the point yourself, when it is as CLEAR AS DAY. But, considering you need your hand held, the point is that humans cannot be lumped into pacifistic categories; that human nature is a diverse one. quote: And now you contradict your previous posts that attempted to lump all of humanity into the Aggressive n' Greedy category.Why don't you show me where I did that instead of making unbased assertions? And where the heck is that economic breakdown you SAID you'd provide? Finding it a little thin? quote: The experiment speaks for itself.Ah yes, that single experiment. I'll just ignore the millions of violent criminals locked away and focus on your ten people. quote: I have supported my argument with a real world example that neither you, Jaguar, or $iLk has invalidated, so drop the fantasy talk.You mean, a singular example? It's invalidated because we REQUIRE prisons to house violent criminals. It's invalidated because we REQUIRE weapons to defend against others. It's invalidated because we REQUIRE armies to keep our nations safe from opportunistic leaders. It's invalidated because, throughout human history, self-interest has governed all society. That little fantasy world of yours is getting a tad large. Perhaps you should stop citing experiments of ten people and use some real world applications. Did you ever think that the participants in your experiment reacted in such a way because it was not of their OWN initiative? quote: The reason why half pushed the final button was not because they were bent or tended towards torture or murder. They pushed because they were told to do so by an authority figure, despite the intense physical reactions that their own bodies were going through. This proves that such destructive behaviour is not within human nature; it is influenced by social constructs that have conditioned human consciousness.And what would allow a person to order another person to harm someone? More human nature for your weak arguements to contend with. quote: Don't be so sure. People have harmed themselves in many ways simply because an authority figure suggested it. Cult suicides are one example.Which is true. But that also detracts from your theory. First, there is someone giving the orders. I assume that person is human. Secondly, cult suicides and similar activities occur not because of the person giving the order, but because of the benefit the people see to FOLLOWING the order. Yet again we run into self-interest. quote: This is one assumption that really pisses me off. Marxism is not against individuality! It is not an imposition of sameness! It is not a beehive! Two plus two does not equal five!!! Marxism is about the application of a common cause: the free development of each as the precondition for the free development of all. It actually depends on individuality to work. Capitalism depends on the oppression and exploitation of individuals for the benefit of a plutocratic elite. I've got work to do now, so I'll respond to the rest of your post later. All of this has been invalidated by my first post on this page of the thread. You know, the one that basically ripped apart your theory on socialism and how it would be impossible; the one you ignored oddly enough. Stormshadow: AWESOME post. quote: How exact do you want me to be?You could start by addressing and not ignoring the economic invalidations I pointed out in my first post on this page. quote: It would not win because nobody would work there.That was a rather lame response. By the definition of the question, 1/3 of the world would work there. quote: History only proves that such acts exist. It does not prove that they are acts of human nature.By the fact that they repeat themselves over and over by COMPLETELY different and unique individuals, they PROVE that it is in the nature of a human being to be violent when self-interest calls for it.

quote: In the current social structure, money is required for survival. Assuming that the authoritarian stimulus is not present and that every subject didn't have much money in the first place, the experiment would only indicate the existence of a survival instinct. Such an experiment would not indicate greed unless the subject was committing the act for an unnecessary item.Just in case you haven't heard, excess money isn't a necessity for most of us. Also, in case you haven't heard, each human being is an individual capable -- and quite willing -- of deciding what consists of their needs. To one, luxary may be a need. To another, luxary is simply frivolous. Therefore, considering you can't lump all of humanity into one idealistic category, human nature defeats you again. Human nature is primarily the nature of our differences and the fact that each human reacts differently than the next. quote: They're hands were shaking, their bodies were quivering! The experience made them physically ill!!! How could such acts be acts of human nature when humans are INHERENTLY ALLERGIC to them??!!You mean, humans are allergic to hurting one another? You know, Jaguar and $ilk are right. You are living in your own world and you're obviously totally sheltered from what the REAL world is like.

quote: If you want to truly understand human nature, try the experiment again, except this time - have the people hook themselves up and push the button. Human nature - I bet they won't do it. Authority will not make them do what is not good for themselves. Many people can handle screwing other people over, some feel bad, but others realize that sometimes it's the nature of the game.Now that, ladies and gents, is an awesome counter-point. To address that experiment, let's change it around a bit yet again. Put the same buttons there with the same result. Yet, have the "victims" be on the other side of the world. Offer progressively more money to people as they press the higher intensity buttons. Human nature bites again.

quote: On what do you base that assumption?I don't mean to speak for $ilk, but I'm guessing he's basing that "assumption" on several thousand years of human history. Oh yeah -- and the fact that we're even conflicted right HERE. Where's your precedence? quote: Socialism is not about nurturing people like two year olds; it's about working people receiving what they earned as working people instead of receiving what the market says they're worth as commodities.How do you measure what is earned? Output. If everyone recieves equally regardless of output, you then have a shortfall. Economics 101. quote: It doesn't take perfection to make something that works.If that something that works requires perfection, then it does. quote: What's dangerous is the growing indifference to injustice that is spreading throughout our current society. Many people have become so demoralized by previous failures to change society for the better that they have given up on the prospect. That is how civilization stagnates.If you're worried about the stagnation of civilization, you should be cheering the next great war. Throughout history civilization has made its greatest strides through conflict.