Remove ads

Paths of Civilization

Reader mode
Hangwind said:
Corruption is any unethical or dishonest behavior by a person with authority. Personally, I think that the definition should include a line about it being in relation to said authority since the reason we use the word "corruption" is that is literally turns something that is supposed to be a net good into an evil, thus corrupting it, but the dictionary writers don't agree with me.

Regardless, while governmental corruption is easy to point out, that does not mean that a private person is incapable of it. The CEO that raids his company's pension account is a form of corruption. The security guard that deals drugs on his night shift is guilty of corruption. The (in this case private school) teacher that fudges her student's grades is practicing corruption. The employee that uses the company car to go on vacation is corrupt. The priest that advocates things they do not believe is corrupt. Corruption is pervasive and all encompassing. All it requires is some form of authority and unethical/dishonest behavior.

Frankly, if there weren't private forms of corruption, I would need a new job.
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...


Perhaps tis language/culture at play. For my understanding is that corruption is applied only when state resources are involved. Non state abuses mismanagements and general criminality have different legal terms differnciating them from their seemingly public counterparts.




And yay fellow law grad!
 
Well, I can understand being wary on giving stability in crisis, so I am okay with the vote. Let's just take some non-minimal option next turn (assuming everything is not on fire), since taking three minimal options in a row after sacking the city is, while perhaps not paving the road to losing CA, is at least [Secondary] New trails there.

Also, surprised assistance didn't go through, I thought it got more than a half of the votes.
 
tryrar said:
you can be as unhappy about is as you like, but get over it.

Seriously, this is why I started ignoring you, you go after everyone to defend their vote and declare said vote to be suboptimal, and when you the vote you don't want wins you get pissy about it. News flash, people can vote for what they want, and are under no obligation to defend their vote. Please knock it off.
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...

The fuck are you on about?!
Example 1:
Candesce said:
What makes the 2-3 extra econ worth a stability when we're this near breaking?

Especially when we're still likely to be getting refugees in upcoming turns?
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...

ctulhuslp said:
Our people repenting for the fucking genocide. *Especially* during the war, double especially with the vassal trying to popularize assholishness.

And if we get more refugees, we will always have some totally important reason to take as little as possible, because the situation is unlikely to improve soon.
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...
Candesce said:
You're voting to break our civilization over that, huh?

Well, whatever. I'll just note that, if the Ymaryn fragment over trying to take in too many refugees, none of the successor states are likely to keep Cosmopolitan Acceptance.
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...

As you can see if you actually bother to fucking look before accusing me of shit, the first time was me answering question about -1.5 position (addressed, admittedly, to not me, but still) and getting accused of wanting to break our civ, which is ridiculous fearmongering bullshit which has nothing to do with anything - but me explaining it and daring to defend my position by poining out its strength and weaknesses of opposing one is apparently unacceptable and offensive now?!


Now, later on, to the latest discussion:
You have example 2:
ctulhuslp said:
Can I trade votes with anyone for 1 flip or 2 more -1.5 refugees vote?
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...
pbluekan said:
@ctulhuslp why do you want the second level refugee influx? We don't need the Econ, and we certainly don't need the extra voices or stability loss.
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...

I calmly ask people, without any fucking judgement, about willingness to trade votes, and receive criticism of my position. Am I now obliged to not even defend my fucking position?

Both times I made my vote. Both times it was my position attacked, once directly me, once other person with at-time same vote. In what fucking world can this possibly be called "going after everyone"?!
The utter fuck are your accusations when it was your fucking side doing it?!

EDIT: Surprise of surprises, being accused of engaging unwilling people when both times the debate was started by challenge (in one case utterly overblown and baseless) to my position is infuriating.
If you actually bothered to fucking look, you'd notice that I disengaged with both pbeukan and PrimalShadow after they made decent arguments and acknowledged that my position has merit too; I am very much not going after everyone, only after those who fearmonger against my positon...and apparently this is called "engaging everyone" nowadays. Wonderful, just wonderful.
 
Last edited:
agumentic said:
Well, I can understand being wary on giving stability in crisis, so I am okay with the vote. Let's just take some non-minimal option next turn (assuming everything is not on fire), since taking three minimal options in a row after sacking the city is, while perhaps not paving the road to losing CA, is at least [Secondary] New trails there.
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...
If you want to take the advanced CA options, take some restoration options as well.
If we aren't taking restoration options, we shouldn't be using the stability to kick CA.

Are you planning to take restoration options next turn?
 
Susano said:
There kinda is? It is not just "dependency on the king". The issue is rather that currently, people work for the state, and the state in turn feeds them. We have guaranteed food for everyone in the population, to be distrubuted by the state. That is the base for our massive (and now straining) administration apparatus. So it isn't just "the King". It's our entire economy, our entire administration apparatus, our entire social order - our entire everything.
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...

Ideally, the state is in charge of performing state functions such as law and justice, in addition to infrastructure and making sure that everyone is fed.

So everyone would have a baseline income and a place to live but it is up to them to earn everything else.

Basically: Basic Income + Free Market Capitalism + State Support and Regulations.

ctulhuslp said:
The fuck are you on about?!
Example 1:

As you can see if you actually bother to fucking look before accusing me of shit, the first time was me answering question about -1.5 position (addressed, admittedly, to not me, but still) and getting accused of wanting to break our civ, which is ridiculous fearmongering bullshit which has nothing to do with anything - but me explaining it and daring to defend my position by poining out its strength and weaknesses of opposing one is apparently unacceptable and offensive now?!

Now, later on, to the latest discussion:
You have example 2:

I calmly ask people, without any fucking judgement, about willingness to trade votes, and receive criticism of my position. Am I now obliged to not even defend my fucking position?

Both times I made my vote. Both times it was my position attacked, once directly me, once other person with at-time same vote. In what fucking world can this possibly be called "going after everyone"?!
The utter fuck are your accusations when it was your fucking side doing it?!
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...

Calm down.
 
Kiba said:
Calm down.
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...

I would be way calmer if I was not accused of thing I did not do; especially since at least part of it, in retrospect and rereading the latest discussion is shit done by other side which somehow I was accused of.
And me being asked to calm down and not, you know, @tryrar for making such accusations without doing any research and not even bothering to take back his words is..merely icing on the cake. Why in hell would I expect anything else at this point?
 
ctulhuslp said:
I would be way calmer if I was not accused of thing I did not do; especially since at least part of it, in retrospect and rereading the latest discussion is shit done by other side which somehow I was accused of.
And me being asked to calm down and not, you know, @tryrar for making such accusations without doing any research and not even bothering to take back his words is..merely icing on the cake. Why in hell would I expect anything else at this point?
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...

The reason people are loathed to reduce stability is the recognition of our state as narratively fragile. It's not just the number.

With three expensive megaprojects, constant warfare, and actions that risk stability loss, we cannot afford to lose what margins we do have.

We have to prevent the northerners and the Hathatyn from breaking away.

We have to defend our vassals.

We got the nomads to worry about.

We got a taxation crisis.

We got a serious administrative problem.

We don't have an admin hero on the throne.
 
agumentic said:
Not during main turn, obviously, but during midturn, yeah.
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...
What is so obvious about it? Nothing stops us from main-ing Restore Order next turn if we wanted to.

Anyway, if at midturn next turn we are at positive stability, take a stability-improving action, and DON'T take any stability degrading actions (like we did this turn with the lowlanders), I suppose kicking CA could be reasonable.
 
PrimalShadow said:
What is so obvious about it? Nothing stops us from main-ing Restore Order next turn if we wanted to.

Anyway, if at midturn next turn we are at positive stability, take a stability-improving action, and DON'T take any stability degrading actions (like we did this turn with the lowlanders), I suppose kicking CA could be reasonable.
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...
I want to both integrate Stallions and start on Palace, like a lot of others.
 
PrimalShadow said:
What is so obvious about it? Nothing stops us from main-ing Restore Order next turn if we wanted to.

Anyway, if at midturn next turn we are at positive stability, take a stability-improving action, and DON'T take any stability degrading actions (like we did this turn with the lowlanders), I suppose kicking CA could be reasonable.
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...
Lacking the Art to reboost Legitimacy with Proclaim Glory, due to needing ALL our Art for Megaprojects. x.x

And to build the library before the Census if we want to afford the Census without running out of Mysticism to churn into The Law after that.
 
Kiba said:
The reason people are loathed to reduce stability is the recognition of our state as narratively fragile. It's not just the number.

With three expensive megaprojects, constant warfare, and actions that risk stability loss, we cannot afford to lose what margins we do have.

We have to prevent the Ymaryn from breaking away.

We have to defend our vassals.

We got the nomads to worry about.

We got a taxation crisis.

We got a serious administrative problem.

We don't have an admin hero on the throne.
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...

I can even tell you more: that right now every 1 Stability can be crucial (Courtesy to @PrimalShadow for putting it this way) and that refugee influx might just be the straw that breaks the camels back wrt administration (courtesy to @pbluekan for forming this one).
I am fine with well-reasoned arguments to defend such a position; I disagree some with priorities, but I respect those.

I am not fine with people engaging my position using weird hyperbolized versions of impact of my position, claimining it will "break our civilization", which is bullshit or similar sort of things. Such things I engage in debate because hey, I am defending my position. But I am not really angry, at best annoyed about more egregious hyperboles and misrepresentations.

I am currently angry about realization that both times in the last argument it was my position that was engaged against, I defended and yet, somehow, it is me being at fault, being asshole and engaging people for merely expressing their opinions. What gives?
Like, seriously, I said about vote outcome "I am not happy, but let us see what happens", got accussed of engaging people unfairly over it, while answering discovered that both times discussion started with either my position or me personally engaged about it so this accusation is pile of fractal bullshit and got angry about it.

You seem to misunderstand: I am not anrgy about vote I dislike winning, even though I do not, naturally, like it. I am angry about being accused of a pile of things I did not do over expressing it and then me being made into some sort of horrific monster which hides under beds of those who voted for things I disagree with.

And only thing I really want out of it is either @tryrar explaining what exactly did he mean, preferably with pointing out where exactly did I engage people "just voting how they want", or apologizing. That's it.
 
ctulhuslp said:
I can even tell you more: that right now every 1 Stability can be crucial (Courtesy to @PrimalShadow for putting it this way) and that refugee influx might just be the straw that breaks the camels back wrt administration (courtesy to @pbluekan for forming this one).
I am fine with well-reasoned arguments to defend such a position; I disagree some with priorities, but I respect those.

I am not fine with people engaging my position using weird hyperbolized versions of impact of my position, claimining it will "break our civilization", which is bullshit or similar sort of things. Such things I engage in debate because hey, I am defending my position. But I am not really angry, at best annoyed about more egregious hyperboles and misrepresentations.

I am currently angry about realization that both times in the last argument it was my position that was engaged against, I defended and yet, somehow, it is me being at fault, being asshole and engaging people for merely expressing their opinions. What gives?
Like, seriously, I said about vote outcome "I am not happy, but let us see what happens", got accussed of engaging people unfairly over it, while answering discovered that both times discussion started with either my position or me personally engaged about it so this accusation is pile of fractal bullshit and got angry about it.

You seem to misunderstand: I am not anrgy about vote I dislike winning, even though I do not, naturally, like it. I am angry about being accused of a pile of things I did not do over expressing it and then me being made into some sort of horrific monster which hides under beds of those who voted for things I disagree with.

And only thing I really want out of it is either @tryrar explaining what exactly did he mean, preferably with pointing out where exactly did I engage people "just voting how they want", or apologizing. That's it.
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...
This sounds like something that should be taken to PMs. Might resolve smoother without everybody watching.
 
pblur said:
This sounds like something that should be taken to PMs. Might resolve smoother without everybody watching.
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...

I am not sure I want this left publicly unanswered for obvious reasons of being publicly accused of shit I did not do. It would be way better if @tryrar did not accuse me of essentialy bad faith debating and generally being an asshole in public. Such public accusations can lead to, eh, 'funny' results when left unanswered right away.

I guess answering him in private and asking to apologize in thread and, if no such thing happens, then bringing it to the thread would have been a better solution. My apologies for making a scene.
 
Well, I've been too busy and managed to miss the last update. And wow, everything is on fire socially and theologically. And then taxes too! I wasn't around for the first time, but it seemed crazy.

Damn vassals taking up resources and getting free tech. All they had to do was get conquered and be dissatisfied. They must love us for how easy we are to scam out of tech.

Don't really like all of the specifics of the vote, but it's not like I was here for it. Definitely don't like "debating" with lowlanders that have no concept of proving something before claiming it.

Academia Nut said:
End the turn at the limit. It actually assesses at the mid-turn.
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...

Uhh, aren't we going to pop our Sacred Forest True City seeing as we're at 11 Econ Expansion and this is the mid turn and we're definitely going over with the refund from [Main] Improve Annual Festival? Unless there was some weirdness with the Transfer Province screwing with ordering?
 
Therealtahu said:
Damn vassals taking up resources and getting free tech. All they had to do was get conquered and be dissatisfied. They must love us for how easy we are to scam out of tech.
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...

We will smother them with our kindness :mad:

But seriously, they've been ridiculosly traumatized by other guys just taking and taking and taking; they are used to folks just not being worth being loyal to. Making sure they understand that we actually care and that staying with us is just plain more profitable is a great first step.
We can tighten the leash later, after they've grown complacent. It's like when taming horse - gotta calm it before mounting
 
Reader mode
You must login or register to reply here.
Remove ads
Back
Top