Humodour

Well, from memory KOTOR and NWN2 had both options, so you're probably in luck.

Chuck Norris is a creationist. Ew.

Isn't that what democracy has been all about the last 10-20 years?!? It was particularly noticeable during the last election here in Australia. Just for fun, I watched a bit of the campaigning. Not a single politician, not a single one, actually told what he wanted to do, only what he wanted to prevent others from doing. I can understand why people are forced to vote by law, because nobody in their right mind would vote for any of the current politicians if they could just ignore them all together. Um, you didn't pay much attention, then. Whatever you think of them, the Greens are pretty plain about what they stand for and their vision for Australia. And that remained the case during the campaign. And you can't just pretend they don't exist because they're not one of the two biggest parties - after all they control the balance of power in both the Senate and the House of Representatives now.

As will I. It needs LAN and equally it needs some sort of lobby system. Don't think for a second that Diablo 1 and 2 would have been close to the successes they were without the Battle.net lobby.

I hope to god it is point and click and not WASD.

This is a ****ing amazing piece of materials science engineering (god I want to marry this field... I guess that's what a degree is): http://www.physorg.com/news/2011-04-method.html

I'm too busy admiring the fact that you quote Dijkstra to care about what you're saying.

This. And in ~2 yrs when XP is DOA and no more patches, updates or support. Clearly someone who does not think long term and likes to live in the past. Technology moves ahead you either move with it or get left behind. Simple as that. As for UAC you people whining how horrible it is know in win7 you CAN ADJUST the sensitivity or simply TURN IT OFF right? Talk about making a mount from a mole hill... Well then that is 2 years away isn't it? What a stupid post.

Just for the record, Putin is a retard. I felt that needed clarifying since there's a disgustingly large amount of Putin-love festering in this thread.

Largely as a conseuqence of listening to counter-arguments on this forum, I've been re-examining socialism. Being nice to others is not actually what happens when it's enacted. Knackering things is what happens. I don't think that's awesome. Don't be a retard. Socialism is a huge spectrum. Every Western country has a 'socialist' opposition party. In some countries it is really ****, in others really awesome. Canada's NDP party is quite awesome. 'Socialism' is just a tag word that people like to throw around so they can put things in neat tiny boxes and start judging them based on labels instead of substance.

Watch this space for the new reality TV show... Survivor: The Government. The audience vote who leaves the parliament every week until there is a winner and he/she becomes the Tyrant until next election period Oh god, can you imagine how much of a popularity contest that would become?

Awesome.

He had better bow to the Danish emperor (or whatever you guys have) or the Vikings will invade America.

That is often the case in a first-past-the-post system, it is not the case in a preferential or prop rep system. And if you think about it for a moment, you quickly understand why. Because in a FPTP system it's almost always a 2 party state where a vote for a third party is wasted, so they can't really do anything BUT vote against the party they like least. So if you want to a system where people are forced to vote for the lesser of two evils rather than vote for what they actually want, sure, stick with your system.

Bad examples. Notice that his back is still straight and he is 'bowing' to respected ALLIES. Hahaha, that is such a pathetic attempt at justification.

This.

Name one country in the world which uses direct democracy. Switzerland? Probably the only country that would come close to qualifying as a direct democracy.

Name one country in the world which uses direct democracy.

****.

What's wrong with two guys kissing, mate? You should be happy for them. Love is wonderful. So is sex. And kissing. 'Cause I'm not saying they're necessarily in love or having sex just 'cause they're kissing, hey.

Not really, since our economic system is based on impossible idea of infinite growth. One result of this idea is that nation states and national banks fight inflation and deflation all the time. Fiscal policies try to target around 2-3% yearly inflation and anything you own should be inflation + x% in order for it to keep value or increase value. At first look it doesn't seem that hard to do, year in year out 4-6% increase of value can be tricky. Of course if you always make the right moves

Uh, no. First-past-the-post is more likely to lead to mob rule and the weakening of the rights of minorities than a system which is preferential and/or proportional. You'd be in a much better position to argue that your system supports the rights of minorities by referring to, say, your bill of rights.

This is a common argument that is accepted as generally true out of the general cynicism of the electorate, but why is this necessarily the case? And, if it is the case, I'd think that a voter should prefer a system of single-member districts (whether elected via simple one-shot plurality or by some kind of run-off system) where a single candidate can make a case that they are best for the job, with or without support of a major party. Multi-member districts and similar proportional systems have the primary effect of elevating the party above the candidate-- the likelihood that the voter has any kind of informed opinion on the worthiness of the candidates declines dramatically when the candidates are simply names in a party's list. Instead, voters apply the heuristics that are provided to them-- the vote for the party with whose views they most agree, without much attention paid to whether the candidates actually on the ballot are worthy of their vote. If that's not "strengthening the hold of the parties over the electoral system," I don't know what is. (This also ties in with the British conflating of the legislative and executive power-- that one's vote for a legislator is also the only way that one influences what ministers will be running the various executive agencies. Both make the voter think more about a candidate's party affiliation than his/her personal worthiness for the post.) Uuuum, preferential voting is a different thing to multi-member seats. In fact, preferential voting in multi-member seats produces proportional representation. Australia's lower house (House of Reps) for example has preferential voting in single-member seats.

I don't believe that the current system is represetative, infact, if you look at the numbers it most certainly IS NOT representative. Functional, well that's another debate. Well, of course you don't think the system is representative-- the candidates you would prefer to support don't have a chance of winning. Every system is going to have winners and losers. If you want to be on the other side of that line, convince more of your neighbors to vote in the manner you would prefer. Hence it is not ****ing representative. Christ, not a hard concept to grasp, Enoch. You of all people.

Yeah, I agree, get off my lawn you damn kids! Back in my day...