Search the Community

What prevents Aumaua from military dominating the globe? Each time I see them, and now being triggered by the size of their kids (see Josh's tweeter) I always wonder - what is their flaw that prevents them from evolutionary dominating all other races and finally absorbing them? If seen through the modern-day common evolution theory it can be: - slow breeding cycle, difficulties with child birth rates - vulnerability to some disease, framing the total population (child diseases included) - genetic flaws (syndromes) like rapid aging, long brain development or short reproductive age (child genetic flaws incl.) - social ideology that prevents expansion, pacifistic religion etc. - low level of tech until the very last era (see Asian tigers or Latin countries rapid advancements) - low level of biological organisation, biological individualism (imagine sentient, but territorial tigers or bears), inability to conduct collective tasks like wars - high social fragmentation, clan/cast/tribal systems where all conflicts go between Aumaua and there are no resources for foreign activity I guess for Huana it is the last one. Huana are too social fragmented to avoid the colonisation. But what about Rauatai monarchy? They could easily wipe the world but they don't. And please don't start with "gunpowder equals all". a) gunpowder battles were often solved in melee until WW2 (or later) b) even with heavy armor obsolete, body mass still matters a lot с) there are non-combat military tasks where str/con influences the result greatly (rapid marches, carrying heavy equipment, transporting goods and ammunition, rowing the ships) And anyway - what prevented them from total domination in pre-powder times?

Trump, Mummy May vs Corbyn, petty arguments. You guys know the drill. America First brought to you by Saudi Arabia and Blackstone

So this is an idea that I find extremely interesting, and I really want to see what you guys think. Please do give reasons in the comment section. Thanks for any shared opinions

UK elections soon. Quick brief to get everyone up to speed. THE BRITISH PUBLIC Incapable of understanding the concept of balancing income against expenditure. Unwilling to understand everything else. CONSERVATIVES Well educated forehead, apologetically leading Britain with no specific plan. Certain doom to follow, with reassuring accent. LABOUR Goggled-eyed student union activist, ready to give Britain whatever it wants, like a pathetic step-parent. certain doom to follow, with reassuring blame attached to fat men in top hats. LIB-DEMS World's tiredest trouser knees, torn between contempt and hope for the public it is desperately trying to spoon-feed. Like in that film. Will impart prosecco, elderflower, nuances to certain doom if part of coalition. GREENS Corduroy prophetess(?) of greater doom befalling nation. Billions will die, lakes of blood, drought, plagues of locusts. Manifesto emphasis: saving wetland animals and defying simple mathematics. True emphasis: passive-aggressive shoes. SNP Socialist nationalist party seeks ethnic re-awakening while blaming foreigners for all problems, during economic trouble. Seeks to unite Europe. Nothing worrying here at all. EDIT: UKIP Sandworm president of local golf club seeks subsidised drinking privileges, shouting at foreigners. Certain feelings of inferiority, shame, and lust around foreigners; particularly shirtless Russians. Certain use of world map found on cornflakes packet ca. 1935.

So, apparently Israel's president Netanyahu recently spoke in Congress about how he wants Obama's nuclear talks with Iran to stop. Here's the video: http://www.c-span.org/video/?c4501507/netanyahu-warns-congress-iran The speech has been boycotted by about 60 Democrats, for various reasons, the most common reason being that Netanyahu was invited by congressional Republicans in order to torpedo the President's foreign policy. The second reason is that people suspect that Netanyahu merely wanted to do this to strengthen his image at home, in advance of the Israeli legislative elections due in two weeks. My opinion is that since the effort to prevent Iran from gaining nuclear technology has already failed, he's doing this in advance in order to save face later and be able to say that he did what he could when this fact sinks in. It's interesting that Netanyahu states no alternative to the talks. Iran has already achieved civilian nuclear power, and constructed enrichment facilities. They have had a research reactor (since 1967, supplied by the US), one (small) operational heavy water reactor, one light water reactor on the commercial grid, with two more light water and one heavy water reactor planned. They have been fully assisted by Russia in starting up their light water reactor. So the Republicans who say "Their nuclear program must be stopped" (Jeb Bush) and "Obama Admin's negotiations w/ Iran have been a failure. We must stand united with Israel to prevent a nuclear Iran!" (Ted Cruz) are being extremely insincere, since it's not about "stopping" some future leap of technology but dismantling existing, operational reactors and enrichment facilities which have been operational since 2010. There is fundamentally speaking no alternative to talks, there is nothing short of war at this point which could possibly stop the Iranian nuclear programme. The alternative the Republicans speak of might be to just wait, doing nothing, but that clearly won't prevent Iran from anything, as we've seen - there's no point in keeping sanctions on for nothing (or is that exactly what the Republicans think?). Meanwhile, both the Israeli Mossad and CIA are clear on the point that there is nothing which points towards there being a military Iranian nuclear programme. Now, let's not confuse that with the possibility of Iran starting a military nuclear weapons programme in the future. With what we know they have now, Iran might have a rudimentary nuclear bomb (without delivery system) within one year. Clearly the answer is a deal which lets the IAEA inspect what they are doing. So let's keep track of, and discuss, what will come out of this. And how would things have looked with a Republican president? Since Iran has been getting nuclear weapons next year every year since the 1990s, we can expect this to be a relevant question also after 2016.

Old thread.

So I came across this neat little test on the Internet. It's only 30 questions and it places you on 5 different political axes. Having argued so much about politics with a lot of members on this forum, it would be interesting to see how our results on this little test compare to each other. Here is the link: http://www.abtirsi.com/quiz2.php And my results: Collectivism score: 0% Authoritarianism score: 0% Internationalism score: 100% Tribalism score: -100% Liberalism score: 67% "Authoritarianism" in this test means how much power you think the state should have over the individual, while "Liberalism" is how culturally liberal/progressive you are. "Tribalism" is essentially nationalism, while "Internationalism" is interventionism. I was surprised I got so high a score on that one. What does your say? Post your results! (Yeah, 30 questions is a bit on the small side for this type of test. The margin of error is pretty big. Especially the "collectivism" questions I think are very vague and dependent on context. I get a score between -17% and 50% when I vary my answers within what I think is reasonable)

Disappointed that the King - who is very old - decided to endorse yet another coup. As an aside, when anyone else saw this photo of the Junta leader, did you think 'his wife made him do it'?

Old thread here.

Anyone else watching? I just started.

Old thread: http://forums.obsidian.net/topic/63322-russia-tread/ ~~ It takes a brave AND ingenious man to be uninterested in the Sochi winter Olympics. The official poll asks "Are you looking forward to the Olympic games?" There is no option to say 'no'. Every option bar one suggests pant-knotting enthusiasm. However, "other" is polling an impressive 69%+ of nearly 18000 votes, as of the time of this post.

I'm surprised there isn't a thread for this yet. So, what do you think could happen? Is a debt default even possible constitutionally? Are there senators who believe a default might be a good thing? After all, if nobody is willing to borrow money to the US, it would be impossible to maintain a big government and military, so that's another way of cutting the budget. Who will suffer from the eventual effects (it would seem the Republicans already do)? A bit down on this page, there's an interesting S&P 500 scenario analysis. While I think most people agree that a delay in interest payments would be catastrophic, is the entire debate making a hen out of a feather since the US will pay it's debts regardless of the impending debt ceiling (instead delaying other payments)? Anyway, with every day this continues, the likelyhood of increased interest rates gets higher. The US will likely get to pay more to borrow in the future, as will almost everybody else, even if the effect will be concentrated on the US. Personally, I think it's unlikely that anything dramatic will happen, and a last-minute agreement will take place in the next few days. The most likely effect will be just another drain on the economy among many others.

This is something I've been seeing more nad more in the world recently. In the efforts to enforce "proper" behavior and morals, the politcal correctness crusader become worse than the monsters they are fighting for. In todays news, Obama was branded as sexist becaue he complemented one female judge, and besides mentioning her being hard-working and all, also mentioned he was good-looking. And s*** hit the fan immediately. Apparenlty we live in a word where you can't even compliment someone without a bunch of MORONS overreacting. I weep for humanity.

iKnow that all of us are excited to see the various factions and regions being cooked up for us by Obsidian, but as we know they're still forming. I've seen lots of ideas thrown around vaguely and as part of other, larger posts about types of governments (specifically matriarchies or "Amazonian" societies). I thought I might run down a short list and then we could jump off talking about them or other, even more interesting ideas of what system of government various cities\states could use. Theocracy Rule by religious authority; would essentially adhere to a quasi-Pope or council of theocrats. Would be interesting for a number of reasons: perhaps as a Watcher or due to soem other circumstances you can challenge the potentate's authority so they try to knock you off/butter you up\send you on an impossible quest and try to make sure it's your last. There could also be religious laws about Plane Touched and magick that require all sorts of careful manuvering to avoid a kerfuffle. One might also have some right whereby anyone can challenge someone to a duel if they challenge dogma or somesuch. Matriarchy Ye olde Drow obviously have this, and if the Lake of Drow Tombs is anything to go by I'd say we may be seeing some of them-- but what about a surface-side, or even human matriarchy? Would give options for gender-specific quest related possibilities, and reverse the normal casual sexism a'gainst "girl-'ventureres." Maybe only women are citizens and you get into some legal kerfuffle that requires your party's women (possibly including yourself) to try and clear the names of the men who've all been arrested because they've been framed or due to prejudice. Would be an interesting altParty moment, like in KotOR II when you return to Drexl for the Ondoron Civil War shtick but with perhaps more dialogue and a good bit longer. Oligarchy Oligarchies are not rare, just rarely done representatively as I'd like them-- that is to say, many disparate plots and manuverings towards various goals. You'd have to pull favor for each of them to get them to OK some sort of agreement you had to strong arm them into, like in DA:O at the Kingsmoot-whateverthefluck-- saving the guy's kid and finding the documents and such won them over t'you. Should also be mutually exclusive people who want you on one side or t'other, and the two different players have different benefits that come with cooperation. Any other ideas for systems of government? Also, in the "Free Palitinate" do you hope to see City States or a singular at least slightly cohesive government? Would the idea of an occupied Dyrwood by imperialists in some places like port cities be interesting to you, or would that fall too much into the lines of "and there are rebels and an evil empire now which do you choose" tropes?