Calax

That's not a valid argument, and you know it. It's not valid to point out the opposite end of the parenting spectrum? I'll be honest, I'm a bit surprised that everyone here is willing to end the guy's career. Do any of you have children? It isn't an on and off switch, it is a permanent change of consciousness. Ask your parents. Being a parent is no excuse to act like an unreasonable git, and abuse your position of power to be overly protective of said child. Parents can be terminated for abusing their job for personal matters just as a childless person could. Would you be arguing the same way if it was, say, a good friend of his who was the girl in question, and he pulled the same stunt, even though he had no parental responsability towards the either child?

You can scare a kid without abusing your power as an officer of the law. That's the sticking point, not the fact that he tried to scare the kid, but that he used his position of power, and the uniform he wore, for a strictly personal matter. When that uniform is on, he has to live by a separate standard than anyone else. He can't drink, he can't smoke, he can't take gratuity, and he certainly can't go doing a morally questionable thing like this as it reflects back upon the department and police as a whole. You view this as he is a father first, a cop second, which he is... when he's not wearing the uniform and representing his department. When that uniform is on, he is an officer of the law first, a father second.

Actually there is a window of about 2 years before statutory comes into play, and even then I think they're within the window for relations. And Hurlie, I think the fact that he wasn't charged until the officer was in danger of being jailed says something about the character of the department. They charged a minor with sleeping with another minor, only after one of their own was in danger of being placed under arrest. And even then, by placing the cuffs on the kid, the officer could be charged with unlawful detainment. As to the ages, I'm not surprised. Before I left sacramento, they had a problem, in 2005ish, of an STD being transmitted around several middle schools. Turns out what was going on was that the girls were giving out oral sex in the back of a bus on the way home. People are having sex younger, people are also going through puberty younger, go figure.

dang... the language filter broke my image

Emotional distress? What a crock. A healthy dose of fear is just what teenagers need. Fear of what? Of having relationships with people that can get serious? Of anyone over the age of 20? Come on, cops can get put on report for taking free meals from the local mcd's because then they wouldn't provide a fair protection for the neighborhood. This is FAR worse than that.

However, it would still stand that if a teacher did it, he'd get booted from his job because of parents complaining, as it is a blatant misuse of his position of power. Also hurl, would you cause the emotional distress of threatening a kids future to protect your daughter?

When you put on a uniform, you represent everyone in that uniform. His deliberate use of his position and power to "scare" the kid on a very personal matter is not something that is ok and he should probably be tossed from his job in a similar way that a guy who used his position of power to get laid by a prostitute should. May I ask you as a teacher, Would it be ethical of you to fail a student for half a semester because he's sleeping with your daughter? And then after a stern talking to, you turned around and gave him is real grade?

I'm gonna side with the family on this one. There is no reason the officer should have done the whole "scared straight" shenanigans with the son. The thing is, he put on the uniform, he was no longer acting in the capacity as a father and was acting as a cop once that uniform went on. In the same way that a soldier can't abuse his uniform to get stuff or an employee can pull stupid actions in their work clothes, he shouldn't be able to make everyone have a heart attack by "arresting" the son. Lets change things a tiny bit, lets say you're a GM on an MMO, and your kid is getting grief ed by some dink in another state. Is it perfectly ok for you to use your GM abilities to go in and make the griefers gear shatter, and take everything he worked hard for? Then give him a talking to in personal messages for an hour before going "Ha ha ha... here's your gear, don't **** with my family!" Is that ethical? or does it change because he's a cop and sex is involved?

He is. That guy is a series of walking in jokes towards monolith games (Snake Fist is also a reference).

Oh I will talk trash about him! After all, the guy got beaten up and had his back snapped by BANE That doesnt count in the official continuity anymore. Nor does Kevin Smith's "batman peed himself in year one" stunt. Its actually one of the great things about Batman, since there is a thousand writers working on it and churning out stories right and left, if you dont like something you can just ignore it ever happened. Actually it does, and old bats managed to singlehandedly rip apart the super hero community (twice) and is currently deader than a doornail.

Oh I will talk trash about him! After all, the guy got beaten up and had his back snapped by BANE

Yeah, trade networking can be... interesting.

I've been playing multiplayer with friends and I am annoyed because one of them (phoenix who der knows) won't stop griping because he says that the german racial is overpowered (basically you kill a barb, you have a chance to get it as yours). That said, I think some of the racials kinda suffer because of their necessity of terrain features (like the indian one).

I'm in love with the fact that city defenses are now actually worth it given they don't go obsolete and can often make the city hold out long enough for you to wipe out their units.

Alexander is flat out aggressive.

There is a difference between "friendly" and "allied". Allied city states give you things like units and resources, while friendly city states basically just give you an open borders agreement. Also the city itself will reflect the extra food in it's own production. There are several buildings that add food to the cities own tile rather than those around it. Granary and windmill being two of them.

it should be pointed out that every time you get a city your culture price jacks up by a % for the next policy. So Ghandi due to his power, will have 3-5 MASSIVE cities, and quick policy creation.

This is like asking "How would German getting all radical involve France?" Circa 1932

Which is their prerogative. That's right, a regular person can't understand the law, so obviously democracy is unworkable. We should just go ahead and install a wise Latina as a dictator. Just because a judge knows all the legal tricks doesn't mean he won't push his personal political agenda using the law as an excuse. Nice try but no. You're being specifically obtuse again. I wasn't saying that normal people can't interpret the law, but I was saying that a Judge probably was more qualified than you or I could ever hope to be to interpret it... given that they have YEARS of law school to go through, and usually have the access to the judges opinions on other cases similar to the one they're judging. Of course, that wasn't totally my point, my main point was what Rostere said. If a person doesn't conform to your personal interpretation of the Law, then you're assuming they're legislating using the law rather than anything else. Guess what? You're not always right, and therefore you're opinions on the law aren't always right. Nobody is always correct, but usually the most informed person, who's job it is to understand and know what is in question, is going to be more correct than a internet forum goer. Jesus, you're sounding like my friends dad... he doesn't accept the information of anyone who doesn't have a Masters degree as truth, and then if they do have a masters and don't agree, they're automatically either corrupt or have an agenda.

This is not a question of what is right and wrong. This is a question of what is actually happening. If you think about it I think you will agree with me. I'm not sure what you're saying. Judges shouldn't be deciding what's rigtht and wrong, they should be deciding what conforms to the law. The legislators consider right and wrong when they pass the law. Yes, that would be the ideal case. However, a law that accounts for every specific situation is not practically or maybe even theoretically possible. Yet again you go back to talking about what judges "should" do. That is not what I am talking about. My point is that it's impossible to apply any set of laws without interpreting them. What would be the need of law schools if there was no need to interpret the law? If anyone could just look up their case in a book of laws, none of that would have been needed. -snip- This is not about the judges deciding what they want the law to mean, this is about it being THEORETICALLY AND PRACTICALLY IMPOSSIBLE to not interpret the law. I wasn't saying judges shouldn't interpret the law. Clearly their job is to interpret the law. What I'm saying is they need to be completely honest in trying to determine what the original intent of the law was, instead of coming to a conclusion first and then using twisted reasoning to justify why the law says what they want it to say. And here's where you screw up, you're placing your personal values and desires on the laws interpretation, making it so that YOUR way is the only right way while the judges (who have considerable more knowledge of the law, it's application and inception than either of us) are able to interpret it separately but get cast as writing their own laws if it doesn't conform to your view.

It really wasn't a bad game. The problem was that it took so long to complete and ROmero was making such high promises about it that it became kind of a running joke, similar to DNF. When it was finally released, or as some might say, when Romero finally gave up on it, and it wasnt the greatest game ever after all, everyone piled on Romero. The idea for the time was actually pretty complex and it was one of the first shooters to have AI companions. SO it did have it plus points. If it had taken 2 years to develop instead of 5 (or whatever) it probably would have been considered in a much more positive light. Ok, now I'm thinking of a freaky collaboration between Peter Molyneux and Jon Romero.

Horses and iron is one thing. I had a total of four aluminum (one is used for every unit, building, or wonder you produce) rather than anything else, and probably... half or more of the units you can produce in the future/modern eras are based around that ONE resource. And by four I meant I had one node, there were only two or three others on the entire map. Overall it just felt limiting because you had to A) pick between unit or building, and B) pick which unit or building you wanted to play with... a hydro power plant? Gunship? Modern armor? Space factory? Pick one. For the power plant there are alternatives (Solar in late game, along with nuclear) but the other three (and a dozen things I'm forgetting) you have to have aluminum and they use 1 of your resources. Other resources create more significant bottlenecks. Coal is needed for Factories and workshops require iron to be produced. you don't have these and you have significantly less production than you should slowing your entire army's creation down. Also, there is one walker... the Death Walker (not kidding). Sucker is the strongest thing on the field but gets a disadvantage against cities. It's still twice as strong as a Mech Inf tho.

Scholarships for their actions per minute levels.

I don't think you could fit 8 million men into one tile either. That said, the game does make for interesting stuff... I think you're gonna want to go for Commerce(?) first in your pathways because it drops the necessary culture for future policy selections.

Honestly, it only really means that you don't need to build a skillion units to kill an empire because the cities don't have 15 troops within. Instead you encircle, and use bowmen/catapults to beat the city into submission. Question: Do they only have support for 8 people overall in multiplayer online? Not 16 or whatever? Me and my friends are trying to fit 5 players and 5 comps in a 10 player map, but the computer doesn't seem to like that at all.