Actually, the greatest strength of democracy is greed, which is also its greatest weakness.

Ugh! Don't get me started on how gay native title act is! It still makes me shudder every time i think about the last Australia Day celebrations, where none other then Gretchin was forced to acknowledge the Native Title claim on PARLIAMENT HOUSE! So unexpected and unnerving...

A persons race should never be somthing affecting law not under any circumstances. You would think the human race would have learnt that by now! Native title should be looked at in terms of an individual persons inheritance, handed down from their parents, race not being a factor in any way.

Sorry, that was supposed to be:

[ Ahem! ? ]

drrider (of Altaria)

Not to be a gadfly but:
What about those cultures in which individual ownership is not the general cultural standard for holding / managing / maintaining property?

We had huge problems with this in the early/middle years of the USA - the misunderstanding of the respective cultural attitudes was never fairly solved, merely overwhelmed by the increasing dominance of the English/German/European-derived American culture.

drrider

Democracy works up until the point where it is not feasible for the clear majority of citizens to consider and vote upon the actions to be taken relative to all major issues. Up until that point, folk tend to be relatively satisfied with government courses of action even if it is not the one they would have chosen because they know that they had their say and they could clearly SEE that most of the citizens did not see it their way. Then they have powerful reason to reconsider if all their (reasonably well-known and respected) neighbors could all be wrong, or at least to thouroughly understand that they weren't going change the general attitude.

Democracy has evolved into something, to cope with the fact that we can't all be involved in every issue, because our culture has grown too big and complex...Representative democracy, or the democratic republic. The system where you elect your best take on a well-informed and wise representative, and have him/her do the actual representation of your interests in the final consideration of issues and voting on course of action.

One of the strengths of Representaive Democracy is that purpose-dedicated solons can take a somewhat longer, more considered view of issues and actions, and avoid (somewhat) passions-of-the-the-moment decisons...bread and circuses.

However, the great weakness of representative democracy is that it is easy for factions and individuals in opposition to convince themselves that the essential truth of their viewpoint has been overlooked in the layering of the repersentative process. They haven't SEEN the 'true polling' of the populace and there is a tendency to believe their view is either REALLY held by the majority that just haven't realized it yet, or that it would be so held if it was just explained / demonstrated better, or better yet, attempted. Its hard to believe that all those people that you HAVEN'T SEEN or argued with at the 'town meeting' REALLY DO disagree with you. So in representative democracy there tends to always be an group of minority factions nurturing righteous dissatisfaction, even if the nation / culture in general is quite satisfied with how things are going.

drrider

I do not accept that a person can be given an inherritance or any other benefit on the basis of their race. If no other fair method can be found of determining inherritance then it is unfair to the rest of the citizens of a nation to go ahead with it.

Many people for whatever reasons fair or unfair, inherrit nothing from their parents, what they have, the have to earn themselves. If a person of a non indiginous background happens to inherrit nothing from their parents, no one sets up a comitte, no one protests outside government building, no one does anything for them, why? because they were not borne of a certain race! descraceful, what is for one citizen should be for all citizens.

oh no, it's turning into a political thread!

Don't worry. Political discussion bores me pretty quickly compared to gaming. Also I hate long-distance exchanges of opinion where its a given that no one is going to be convinced of anything soon. If I'm stirred, I'll sometimes get off one summation of thought on the subject (done), then stop and just read and mull any further info that emerges.

So, I actually kinda like the tounge in cheek parts of Gal Civ, and any SF game. this is supposed to be our entertainment, after all. (Yes, even for Brad et al.)

drrider

What does the thread's subject line say?

na, more like a civil rights thread! lol

result . . . true communism or tyanny.

The modern term for 'tyranny' is 'beurocracy'.

Hey! I tried to get it back to dealing with silly. Now you're on your own. Oh, well, maybe that IS politics.

drrider

The bread and circus concept arose in Rome I believe, although Athens had a more democratic political system.

if anyone cares the usa is the oldest republic

Agreed completely, I'm tired of the white person being disadvantaged because the black fella threw up a complaint that 'It's because I'm black isnt it!' and ever since getting their way on every single topic or debate, ever. It's not on. We aren't responsible for our ancestors actions unless we ourselves repeat them, they have no right to blame us for what happened to their Great Great Grandpa nearly 250 years ago. Basically what I am trying to say is that I'm tired of all the bullshit of Black (and others) people getting their way and being able to racially discriminate against the White (and others) population. The government really has to change the laws because right now it's completely one sided and 'Political Correctness' bullshit at its peak. We aren't aloud to say or do anything against them, while they are openly aloud to slander and discriminate against us. Why? Because its their tradition to do so!!! Why can't I just revert back to my ancestors tradition of going out and hunting Aborigines and discriminating against them then?

I'm confused, are you for or against humor in sci-fi? I actually like it when the maple syrup from my pancakes get on my bacon or sausage, although I don't go out of my way to dip it.

Someone also asked if we just ran out of stuff for some of the tech descriptions, and I don't believe that's the case.  I've never seen Brad run out of humor, and he wrote most if not all of the descriptions for the techs. 

The OP is not the first person to complain about the humor.  However, we want to make a game that we like to play, and I'm afraid that we all like the style of the humor.  We actually ask people at interviews if they like the Simpsons and Monty Python.

I think the humor is right on.....i don't think it makes the game less immersive....immersive is when the ai is climbing up your backside and laying waste to what you thought was an empire...not reading about what tech you just accomplished...

HOWEVER, the humor is fine as long as you actually know what you just researched and understand its significance and repercussions. What annoys me is when i get a humorous explanation but have to really dig around to find out what actually got changed....

It is funny to hear that I really have researched the very best gun/shield/armor... and trust me and all....however, could we in the upper left window put what it actually does do...ie +1 damage/-1 size/+50 cost. Otherwise, you have to go out of that screen and into ship building to see what it actually did.....

Not a big handicap, but it is germane to the thread as oppossed to some of what's been said here...  

The problem I have with the humor is, if you're going to have it, then it needs to be funny.

it is

I find myself partially agreeing with the OP. It's not a big deal, but the tech descriptions definitely leave a dent on my impression from the game. Lately I just ignore them.

The idea of having humorous tech description is fine, but some of them are a bit overdone... The problem isn't just with the kind of humor that is used there. The problem is that there is too much of it, and it's too obvious. They also lack in consistency.

I would definitely appreciate something more subtle and well-integrated into the game universe. Possibly, you should try to make them more... systematic? Like, for example, define who is the narrator and follow the convention. Having some descriptions with "flavor information" that is not humorous would help as well.

I do. Mmmm, maple syrup on breakfast sausage

Maple Glazed Bacon! Alright, now I'm hungry!