Avatar of Nytem4re
  • Last Seen: 2 mos ago
  • Joined: 11 yrs ago
  • Posts: 1056 (0.27 / day)
  • VMs: 1
  • Username history
    1. Nytem4re 11 yrs ago
  • Latest 10 profile visitors:

Status

Recent Statuses

5 yrs ago
Current The irony of someone telling other people they have nothing better to do when they write on a roleplaying forum is not lost on me
8 likes
5 yrs ago
Goodbye alt man it was nice knowing you
4 likes
5 yrs ago
5 yrs ago
Oh don't worry they're just terrorist sleeper cells LUL
2 likes
5 yrs ago
I’ve worked min wage jobs and I’ve done the bare minimum and have still gotten the measly ten cent raises yearly and good references from them. There really is no point, bare minimum gets you by.

Bio

User has no bio, yet

Most Recent Posts

@Gullinkambi Hotline Miami is one of the most popular and highly rated indie games of the last 10 years, I'm not sure how its underrated. I get that you really like it, but I've absolutely never seen this game criticized anywhere.


Hotline miami still has it's drawbacks. There are plenty of levels that are hard for the sake of being hard, which makes the game frustrating at points rather than "fun".
@FlitterFaux

I'm alive! For now. Now Swansong has two members, the only two who don't like each other. Gren's probably just gunna run for himself.

@Nytem4re

Unless you want to try and crew up together? Was suppose to be the plan from the start.


I mean I'm down homies till the end bruh
@Crimmy

To be honest, I don't know.

I'll admit I haven't been in here a lot. I hardly remember the last time I communicated with either Guess Who, Lazo, and Awesomoman64. Mostly just a lack of inspiration really.

I'm willing to make another effort, but I understand if you just want to boot me, since I've been gone for a long time.
I wasn't sure whether to put this in RP discussion or Off-Topic, but it sort of relates towards gming/roleplaying. A mod can move it if they don't feel the same way.

Anyways, there's been a long standing "debate" if you could call it, about whether discord is harmful to guild/guild traffic.

I'm the sort who believes discord is a "companion" for rpg, but of course there have been others who claim it is harmful to the site in general.

I'm going to address two arguments that people who are anti-discord generally state.

Discord draws people away from the site, therefore it is bad!

This statement, imo, has a sliver of truth, but only just a sliver. It did draw people away from the on-site chat, because, lets be honest, it was garbage compared to discord. It had basic functionalities and it's draw was really only to communicate to other people on the site through IM. Not to mention moderation hardly happened in the chat, further distancing people away from the on-site chat.

Discord just became more popular because it was simply a better alternative. You could make individual channels, have more than just basic functionality, and a better mobile interface. RPG has always had a problem with it's mobile version, because it's simply just bad.

So yes, it did draw people "away" from the guild. But that statement is deceptive imo because people on the discord still go on here for their roleplaying needs.

Yes, they aren't using the OOC sections as much as they would have then. But IM is better for just idle conversation, without spamming the OOC with just "how are you guys doing" or "wassup". But people clearly still use the OOC for character sheets, etc. And of course they use the IC section because if we wanted to IM rp, rpers wouldn't be here to begin with.

Another reason why I believe this statement does not have merit is because many people use the discord to find people they like to rp with. And those who simply just use the discord never really had an incentive to go be active on the site. Some people just like the community, and discord makes it easier to just go in and have a friendly chat. Some people just got busy with rl, and it's easier to pop on discord than it is on the site (mostly because discord has a better mobile interface) It's more accessible compared to RPG.

It just makes RPG a portal!

Well... sorry to break it to you, but rpg has always been a "portal". Even before the days of discord people had skype groups. Am I "taking" away the appeal of rpg if I invite some friends to go play some video games instead? No. If I go pursue biking, or go to the gym, I am merely doing other things. Same with going on discord.

At it's purest form, RPG is just a site with "links" or "access" to different roleplays.

People have lives and other hobbies to pursue. If anything, life commitments and other hobbies are the biggest "draw" away from RPG. RPG is just a medium for RPing. It's not the "one stop" website I think people are expecting it to be.

Discord has only really replaced the on-site chat, which was just.. bad. It has not, however, replaced RPG's function as a post by play forum. If you actually went on discord, you can find plenty of GM's who have had channels dedicated to OOC talk for their rps.

Discord is merely an "accessory" towards RPG in general.

I just don't get why RPG and Discord cannot co-exist. They do not replace one or the other. The furthest extent of "replacing" anything was the on site chat. (which was pretty light on activity compared to discord, and devoid of many features/moderation) The purpose of RPG is to have a platform for roleplaying, and Discord is to foster community interaction.

I'd really like someone who is "Anti-Discord" to try and enlighten me on why they see discord as this big bad app that is doing harm to the site. if anything, I'd say it keeps the sense of community alive.

Still a WIP, but this is what I have so far.

WIP. I have most of the lore up, so PM me if you have any problems.

@Dinh AaronMk

Isn't the Australian statistic skewed because there is a penalty for NOT voting there? It's better to merely vote anything than have " a fine and potentially a day in court." I'm sure we could higher the voting population in the US if we said you have a fine/jail time if you don't vote.
You know, I'll be totally honest. I think communism could work in the future. With automation and AI I think it's possible. But I certainly wouldn't support it now. Communist regimes have killed too many people and the communists around the Guild talk about violence against their political enemies so much that it makes me feel violence is a feature of communism, not a bug. Plus there's the fact that communist economies often do so poorly people end up starving to death and I have to eat.

Even if communism is theoretically possible with some major advancements in technology I don't see any reason to risk being killed by an oppressive regime or starved by a failed economy. Nobody in this thread has even proposed answers to the failures of communism.


I don't completely agree with communism, but I agree that certain aspects are good and we should at least give those aspects a try, like universal healthcare, universal income.

And to answer your question, most communists believe that removing political opponents is necessary for the gov to exist because people generally rebel. They don't see it as much as a flaw than the system working as intended.

There is also the kind of communist who says a communist utopia would leave all other forms of gov. seen as basically insane and cavemen backwards, and no one rebels.

At least, those are the two most common types of communists I've come across.

Communism inherently views other gov. structures as evil, since they keep the common man down. Correct me if I'm wrong, but a lot of communists feel that they would need to free the common man, even if the gov. is fine and really not doing anything to provoke a war except for the fact they're not communist. Communists see violence to be used liberally to destroy the "elite" class. Or those who simply appose an authoritarian gov.

Then again I may be biased since I abhor communism in it's purest form, so keep that in mind.
@Dinh AaronMk

I'm not going to answer all of these counter arguments since I really should be studying for a midterm instead of being here, but I'll attempt to refute the important points in my eyes/ones worth debating.

"Basically, like with America's second amendment the theory here would be the workers should be allowed to be armed and assemble into militias to defend themselves should a government attempt to reorganize labor and to centralize it. It's a threat of physical terror to keep the Vanguard in check."

And would there not be leaders in these militias? Again, there is still a clear power structure here, just under a different rebranding. If there is no leadership your militia is going to be ineffective because everyone would be off doing their own thing. It becomes indistinguishable from the military, except different leadership.

It does spread out the "keys" of power, but it's still completely corruptible.

"It gets very into the ego of small differences from here. But if violence was totally out of the question we wouldn't have had the liberal revolutions we had, either out of the notable use of violence to achieve it or the threat of violence."

And we've had very shitty revolutions. Not every revolution that permits violence is bad per se, but not every revolution that has permitted violence has been good.

I don't think your revolution is very good if you start killing off everyone who simply may not agree with you.

While you may scream french revolution at me, may I point you towards Pol Pot. Nazis. I can probably go look up other countless pointless "revolutions" where they scream we're promoting greater good when really they're just taking a chance to eliminate political opponents.
I think your system is gov. is flawed when you literally have to start killing EVERYONE who doesn't agree with you. I mean sure, there will always be people you will probably need to crush, but you cannot say everyone who disagrees with you should be killed.

Violence is a tool, not a means to an end. When you start killing anyone who disagrees with you, yes, I am going to seriously question the validity of the change you're proposing to bring about.

In your example, the labor workers used violence to show they wanted to be heard after peaceful protest failed. However, this does not mean they went around lynching everyone who said no I don't agree with you.

There's a difference between using violence to further your goals and support meaningful change, and using violence to suppress anyone you deem a threat to your form of gov., even if they are simply putting their opinions/views out there and not doing anything wrong other than not thinking like you.
<Snipped quote by mdk>

no you're not supposed to take it seriously, because you don't discuss anything seriously or actually want to change your viewpoint. you post b8 then mock actual productive responses.

whether you disagree or not with him, Villageidiotx made a thoughtful reply, and you just mock it because you have no real rebuttal.


I mean he brings up valid points still, even if he is shitposting.

Anyways I'll bring up some points I found contradictory/improbable.

"This method, applied to all industries providing goods or services, would eliminate any semblance of Bourgeois elements in society, with all methods of production being owned collectively by the workers who operate them."

Right, and who is going to enforce this? Someone with... more power? I don't see how giving everyone percieved power will fix power structures because eventually somewhere down the line the guy in charge of the military would be able to do whatever, since, well, he has the power.

"Only people absolutely necessary to the operation of the factory would make money from the factory, and all would make the same money, but all would also have the same say in how the factory conducts business, how and what it produces, and so on. The person who puts tires on the cars would have as much say as the person who maintains the machines, as the person who cleans the toilets, and so on."

The problem with this is that the person making the tires is going to be more knowledgable about making tires than the person who cleans the toliet. It would be more productive to let the person making the tires decide how tires should be made/process since he has more technical knowledge. If the guy cleaning the shitter says tires dont need rubber who's going to stop him? Of course, you might say everyone else, but humans can choose the wrong thing to do at times. Who's to say that the toilet guy didn't convince everyone tires should be made of toliet seat covers? Everyone has a "say" in this situation. Your factories would be terribly inefficient. I would assume everything would need to come down to a group decision. Which means little would get done.

And group decisions sound more democratic imo, not communist.

"The process of building this society, in my eyes, would be as democratic as possible, while still making sure to advance towards the end goal. "

Sounds more like democratic socialism than actual communism.

"It would also try to avoid violence as much as possible, and if violence were to be necessary, would only target those deemed unneeded in the processes of production in industries, and would not be racially or nationally motivated, nor would it have any basis in bigotry or unwarranted destruction."

Uh, would the disabled count? because if they can't produce anything due to a disability, then are they not unneeded in processes of production? Maybe this is bad wording more than actual malice, but still.

" Those of all races, religions, colors, creeds, nationalities, sexualities, genders, and anything else would be welcome, so long as their mission was the eventual establishment of this society."

I feel like you're torn between being democratic and being communist. You say that you want to make it as democratic as possible, but does this not imply you will crack down on anyone who does not support your society? The entire point of democracy is the free expression of ideas. Hardly seems democratic when you're going to make them disappear or exile them or whatever you plan to do.

"while it would adapt the teachings of the more open Communists of the past to a more democratic and free movement."

It isn't exactly "free" when the only choice they have is support the government or die/get beaten up/forcibly removed.

You seem more like a democratic socalist than an actual communist, but maybe that's just me.

© 2007-2024
BBCode Cheatsheet