Patrick MacFarlane

20 hours ago, LordPenguin said:

You could also dig a sort of tributary (a small tributary that fish can swim into, but not out of). 

Could you explain this? I never understood this method

2 hours ago, Abdul said:

Uploaded 5 hours ago. He knew you needed help lol One of my favourite youtube channels

 

Makes a fire. 

Wind blows a little. 

Bye bye hut

Recalculated my character with the new info

On 7/1/2016 at 2:42 PM, Fanag said:

Definitely don't recommend over 6 players you run into issues where combat drags and some people feel left out/everyone has less to do. 4 is optimal, 6 is what I recommend at max. I could DM and have several ideas for several settings and time periods, but I don't think I'd have the time and I wouldn't want more than 5 players other than DM for such a game (if I had plenty of time I would run 2 separate games, haha). I also wonder what gaming system (I'm assuming D&D) or rule set (3.5/5) people were interested in. 

We were going to D&D 3.5

Since you are ok being DM I think we can let @Keksalot play as a character. 

I like this site that LordPenguin provided:  http://dnd3rd.sourceforge.net/

"best out of 10 rolls, rearrange the results as you see fit and replace one of the numbers with an 18" is what Keksalot said and that's how LP and I have already have made our characters on that rule. 

@Fanag if you want, I think @Rin was still open to being co/asst DM. And you can start a new thread in the RP forum. Once it's up @LordPenguin and I will move our characters over there for the rest of the group.

I said a few weeks. That is about how long it would take me to get settled in a semi-permanent shelter, store some food and water, get a constant fire and some tools, and then do something unbelievably stupid without thinking that would result in me dying painfully in a broken body, getting eat by a bear, or, like Rin, falling off a giant waterfall. 

I'm not a lucky fellow

11 hours ago, Piratemonkey said:

The Amazon might prove to be kind of easy to survive in compared to let's say, a deciduous forest without a nearby river

Hell no it would not! 

That is one of the only environments this man could not survive in. Jaguars, insects that give you diarrhea, little food available that won't kill you first, so much rain. No one here would survive in the Amazon. 

John Doe has joined the party

2 hours ago, Keksalot said:

I mean I could technically DM but I've never done it over the internet and I'm kinda looking forward to playing my Gnome Cleric of Mask.

Would you mind perhaps co-DMing (if that's a thing..) with @Rin at least for a short game with a quick quest (or you can give us a long quest and just roast us) so we can try and figure out the mechanics of how the game might work on a forum? It would also introduce other new guys to the character development and other details. If not, no worries. I've been lazy and putting it off but I will start PMing people here and in-game and I will find someone else and you can be a midget priest incognito

I think if we can get the games small enough that we might be able to look into getting some D&D on Slack but smaller groups is a must! Being lucky enough and getting 12 people that can be on slack together at the same time without a war isn't going to happen I would wager, we'll be waiting seven years for that chance. 

I'm about to tell @Kosonome to start hacking and spamming people's accounts to ruin their lives like he's gonna do to the 2016 Rio Olympics. We need out DM

1 hour ago, Keksalot said:

You guys still doing this?

Still trying to get this going

Alright guys, we are up to 

 @John Henry Eden @japan77 @Amaryllis @NerdDragon @schirminator @LSU Tiger Josh @GalacticManatee @Patrick MacFarlane @Rin @Kayser @Keksalot and @LordPenguin

We will need a main DM who can have Rin to be assistant; that gives us 12 people on the roster and 10 characters. For the sake of simplicity it may be better at this point to get two small games going in different threads with 5 characters in each so that the threads don't get SOOOO much longer than they will already need to be.

I think 3.5 would be good for at least the first games and then we can work from there if we are going to get into newer or older versions.

And thanks to the wonderful @Infinite Citadel for this random die roll simulator thingie: http://www.knightsradiant.pw/dice 

I really want to see this thing get going guys. We need someone with some experience to step up and be our DM/GM. You'll have Rin for help and collaboration and you're leading a bunch of amateurs anyway so it's not like we're going to know if you don't get everything right. 

3 minutes ago, Lordship said:

Not sure if trolling lol

I legitimately know none of those acronyms. 

Let's see how many of these acronyms I can figure out...

HotS - House of the Sunnis

WoW - Weapons on Werewolves

D3 - D3=dyslexic guy in a cool theatre

SC2 - Sound Cannon 2

With the exception of the dyslexic guy, those all seem legit to me

PnW/CN  is the closest I get to gaming

No real desire to see other women. I would settle for just a RL everyday pic just to know what they look like *cough cough @Rin cough*.

I would, however, pay a pretty penny for some blackmail material like this from @Infinite Citadel

Or Alex

either is fine

1 hour ago, Sargun said:

My Grandfather smoked his whole life. I was about 10 years old when my mother said to him, 'If you ever want to see your grandchildren graduate, you have to stop immediately.'. Tears welled up in his eyes when he realized what exactly was at stake. He gave it up immediately. Three years later he died of lung cancer. It was really sad and destroyed me. My mother said to me- 'Don't ever smoke. Please don't put your family through what your Grandfather put us through." I agreed. At 23, I have never touched a cigarette. I must say, I feel a very slight sense of regret for never having done it, because your poll gave me cancer anyway.

This is the most tragic and amazing reply I have seen in a long time. 

20 hours ago, Woot said:

It's not a cosmic coincidence that Party A and Party B are always getting almost exactly 50% of the vote each.

Each party desperately tries to win over as much of the population as possible, and they change to reflect the things that people like.

Because of this they're extremely similar, they do the same wrong shit over and over, they don't follow any clear or intelligent ideology, they're just broadly tolerable to as many demographics as they can appeal to. That's democracy for you.

I agree one-hundred percent! 

20 hours ago, Woot said:

If you always vote third party or never vote at all, the 2 main parties will not give a shit about you, your vote has no influence, you're just one of those X number of guys who always vote Green and have no affect on the outcome of the actual race.
But occasionally voting third party or failing to turn out can send a message. The main parties have to change and win their lost voters back.

But in the meantime, a general election is lost. Is slightly changing Party A for future elections worth giving Party B power for 4 or 8 years?

While this may be true now, this was not always destined to be. If the American population had not given into this general-conservative versus general-liberal over and over again going back to the Federalist and the Democratic-Republican parties in the late 1800's, then we wouldn't be in this mess. The problem arose when we essentially gave up our true desires for this generalized opinions that kinda sorta align with our own. If citizens had been voting for their conscience the entire time, then we would have very many dominant parties, no FEC effectively eliminating third parties, and we would see actual individualized platforms. We would have people breaking from this fuzzy-edged traditional conservative or liberal platform and actually standing for something specific. 

You are correct, the voting for third parties now, even in large numbers is a slow change. The parties change as they see voters leave, and as you said, this affects the elections. Then we have people like Sanders who are outliers from the beginning of the race and yet has pressed Clinton, as far as I can see, further left than she ever was before these past two years. It is a slow change but it has to happen to preserve hope in a one day restored democracy that reflects the opinions of the nation's people rather than the regions of the people.

20 hours ago, Woot said:

In general I think it's most productive to vote for the lesser of the 2 main evils. If lesser evils keep winning politicians have to become less evil. The only problem with democracy, I think, is identifying the lesser evil.

I do not believe that you can treat people this way. It is not the democratic way to simplify the populace into numbers for evaluating. One cannot evaluate the "lesser of two evils" objectively, nor the average change in evil-ness over time. I think that, in principle, this should work but humans themselves are too dynamic to be simplified so far. You lose too much detail that is needed for proper determination of which person is best for the roles that they are being presented with at the time.

20 hours ago, Woot said:

When people think the most evil candidate is whichever one won't let transgenders into bathrooms, RIP effective democracy

I agree here but must add, if the American people felt that they had more than two options (the two presented by the Dems and the Reps) then we might not be seeing it as such a large issue in way of dividing the nation as a wedge into two, evermore angry factions. George Washington as he left office warned of the political parties and sectionalism that would fester and turn the nation against itself and the eruption of the War Between the States confirmed his belief. We are seeing it again only this time the party names have changed and the key issues dividing the people are not slavery, states' rights, and federal power; they are gay marriage, abortion, bathrooms, and federal authority. It has erupted before and as long as the nation is divided against itself, the volcano will erupt again. 

Bernie Sanders once said something to this affect: 

"if everyone who said ' I'd vote for that guy if I thought he could win' would actually vote for that guy, He Would Win!"

I am a huge advocate for the demolition of the Electoral College, the Federal Elections Commission, and the two-party system that those two institutions establish by default. However, none of these changes would matter if citizens will not vote their conscience! If everyone would do that and actually research who embodies their beliefs and values, we would see a multi-party system that gave a much more accurate view of American society as a whole and the one who would win the election would embody the largest portion of the American population. This crap of voting for the Reps or the Dems (even though you hate them both!) just because no one else can win, THATS A CRIME AGAINST THE VERY SPIRIT OF DEMOCRACY! 

Vote your conscience! Vote third party! Vote Gary Johnson for President in 2016!

Bernie promised his supporters he would push until the DNC and that's what he should do. Also, he, as stated above, can still affect the Party this year. Losing the nomination doesn't mean he is of no use to the Democrats

I hate Washington DC. It was established as a governing district and then people decided to live there and bitch about lack of representation. It seems to me, if you have to chose living in one house that's 1 mile from work with no representation and another house that's 2 miles from work with representation, I would settle for the mile difference. Washington DC should have no schools, and no representation in government or the election. Those people should be represented in Virginia, Maryland, or whatever other state they and their families seek permanent residence. 

2 hours ago, japan77 said:

Clearly why we need to start building Islands to host the olympics, and not let anyone live on them.

SECONDED!

A motion has been made a properly seconded. I now open the floor to any discussion of the motion before it is properly put to a no-confidence vote. 

Damn, alright. Respect

However, I do not like the idea of a stationary games/ They would have to be outside of any nation's borders otherwise that nation gets a lot of prestige, as @Robert E Lee said. That seems fair

I like that it moves around, it provides motivation and stimulation to multiple nation's economies. Even if for a short time. And it normally goes well. Unless we're talking about Sochi, Russia. That was a disaster! Communism at its finest!

I think what @Alexander II may not be too far off from a worst-case. Not just with Trump, but with Hillary and Sanders too. Both have a history of stirring the pot so to speak and all have the potential to damage foreign relations and the economy. The presidential hopefuls for this election have the lowest pre-convention approval ratings of any presidential hopefuls since 1984 when those polls were first going out about that. This means that if any of the three front-runners find themselves in the White House, there will be massive amounts of resistance to any changes. 

The wild card is the public opinion and the press and how those two combine come the next US President. Trump will face immense opposition, as you have said, from the NE and W USA. This will widen the rift growing between the Liberal and the Conservative Fronts in America. They were complicated and tense enough before this election cycle and now the public is facing the most outlandish and polar personalities on each Front and having to choose. There is no way that the public and press end 2016 in unity behind a new President. 

We will continue to see a rise in political and social activism and special interest groups and protests put on by these entities and in the end I do believe that regional conflict is inevitable. With the exponential increase in technological abilities over the past 2000 years, the world is long overdue a global conflict and a changing of the guard to a new superpower. The time has come and is hanging over our heads like a hammer. And, sadly, in conjunction with this, the United States is also long overdue a large-scale civil conflict which powerful nations tend to have. Within the next 75 years I would bet the US will see a large armed uprising and resistance of the whole nation as we know it today to stand in union with the leader in the White House. 

Now, do I think Donald Trump can be the catalyst to this civil uprising and changing of the guard globally? No. I believe the coming president, be they Conservative or Liberal will simply make the sectionalism we currently see impossible to mend. I do not see the climate right for this, there are no sides. It is only a shattered sense of Nation and Unity. When we see wide spread coalitions of politicians, industries, social groups, races, educators, and regional citizens solidifying ranks into cohesive units in order to resist the actions of President and/or Congress, then we are ready for that breakdown of American society as we know it. 

George Washington addressed sectionalism in a manner that seemed to foreshadow the coming war between the Confederacy and the Union. However, his words, in his so-called Farewell Address, still warn of the dangers of growing dislike and different cultures in the regions of the United States. These rifts will not be mended by any of the three front-runners to the Presidency, they will be fed and widened. The time has passed to evade this future and it is now only a matter of when. 

Ok, so what are the thoughts on this now?

THIS MAKES ME SO HAPPY!