Heroscapers

Heroscapers (https://www.heroscapers.com/community/index.php)
-   General (https://www.heroscapers.com/community/forumdisplay.php?f=26)
-   -   Decision 2016 (https://www.heroscapers.com/community/showthread.php?t=53250)

Tornado September 9th, 2016 12:38 PM

Re: Decision 2016
 
I appreciate the sentiment, especially from someone outside the US.
I do believe people are good for the most part.

I also believe that Americans choose to act like they do and it is not a culture that we had to become. We made this bed we are lying in.

DS, what I am getting from you is that us commoners have no business discussing politics and should stick to discussing board games.

Dad_Scaper September 9th, 2016 01:22 PM

Re: Decision 2016
 
Not at all. I've said repeatedly and I'll say it again: we should not abandon critical thinking. We should challenge what we're told and we should think carefully about our votes and the people seeking them. We should be mindful, however, that complex problems tend to have complex solutions, where solutions are possible at all.

We should be *very* suspicious of people who tell us there are simple solutions to complex problems, and we should be even *more* suspicious of people who tell us that there are simple solutions to virtually all of our problems.

I am referring to Johnson, guilty of the first, and Trump, guilty of the second. Side note: Trump's ability to blend his simple solutions with blame on the Other, be it other races, religions, or nationalities, is how you get to fascism and/or dictatorships.

Anyway. When I talk about the danger of simple solutions, I'm not saying that only experts can answer things. Look again at what I wrote about going to the doctor:

Quote:

Originally Posted by Dad_Scaper (Post 2109104)
I go to the doctor. I listen carefully and think critically and I may consider getting a different doctor instead, but I don't go to the grocer, and I don't treat myself.

Value expertise. Just as you do in all the other areas of your life. Trump has repeatedly said things like he knows better than advisors he might get. That's very, very dangerous. You don't surround yourself with experts (not that he has, as far as I can tell), and reject their advice without careful consideration. Consider how Melania Trump ended up plagiarizing Michelle Obama's speech: the Trumps arranged for experienced, professional speechwriters to draft something for Melania. They did. The Trumps didn't like it and let some friend of theirs rewrite it. And the friend plagiarized Obama. It was stupid, and it wouldn't have happened, except that Trump undervalued the input of his own experts.

Challenge your experts! If your doctor tells you something that sounds dumb, tell your doctor it sounds dumb! But start by listening, and then listen again when you get your answer. If you still think it's wrong, it very well may be.

Anyway. I am 100% sure I am accidentally blending my points here, and the significance I see in each. Let me try to break it down a bit:

1. Expert advice has value. That's why you go to a doctor for medical problems and a lawyer for legal ones. My point here is directed at two things, both related to the ridiculousness of Trump: he has no relevant expertise or experience in governance, and he doesn't have the temperament to listen to any experts who he can get to be near him. That is one among many of his disqualifying features.

2. Complex problems cannot, in the real world, normally be reduced to simple solutions. This point was addressed more at the Libertarian part of our discussion, though it certainly also applies to Trump, who appears to think that every problem has a simple solution. And he knows what it is and can get it done. And he's the only one who can.

The discussion of campaign finance reform was just, from my perspective, an exploration of the second point. I don't know all the answers. Mostly I have questions, but (like I said about going to the doctor), you're supposed to have questions and think critically. Don't stop just because the problem is complex, keep poking at it.

I apologize for crossing the points so quickly, Tornado. I was certainly *not* saying we shouldn't ask questions. Both of each other, and of others. :up:

Tornado September 9th, 2016 03:02 PM

Re: Decision 2016
 
I follow you know.
Thanks for the explanation.

I agree that you should value expert's opinions but I also believe experts can get too close to their subject and sometimes it takes an outsider to see something that in hindsight becomes obvious.

I know this is true in the game system I have been working on forever. I always need fresh eyes because I need that perspective. When people do not understand something I have to keep in mind that they have not been working on it for years and I need to make sure it is clear to someone reading/playing the first time.
Plus they may have an out of the box idea I would have never considered.

Good chat.

wriggz September 9th, 2016 05:31 PM

Re: Decision 2016
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by Tornado (Post 2109130)
I follow you know.
I agree that you should value expert's opinions but I also believe experts can get too close to their subject and sometimes it takes an outsider to see something that in hindsight becomes obvious.


That worry is worrying. Yes you may get too close, and an outsider might catch something you didn't, but your eyes are Infinitely more useful than anyone else's.


This starts to ring of people who start to question Established science, thinking there is an agenda at play. If a doctor tells you, you have cancer they may be wrong, and maybe you should get a second opinion. That second opinion should come from another (hopefully better/more experienced) Doctor not a dentist.


For your Game system a fresh eye may be good, but I bet you would much rather have Craig Van Ness look at your game.

Tornado September 10th, 2016 10:07 AM

Re: Decision 2016
 
Touche.

Fresh expert eyes are nice.

For final analysis I prefer novices. If they can figure it out on their own then I accomplished my goal. People with a strong gaming background pick it up quickly. I need to ensure that those with less experience can also enjoy the product.

I suppose board games and politics is not a great comparison. :)

Nukatha September 10th, 2016 11:52 AM

Re: Decision 2016
 
In general, perhaps not, but specifically for sure.

Monopoly: On runaway winner defined by an early lead later on, at the expense of all others.
Power Grid: Government regulations keep the 'Big' power companies from getting cheap resources and increase the cost of building infrastructure to them.
Puerto Rico: Your decisions often benefit everyone, but do benefit you more.
Flash Fire/Forbidden Island/Desert: EVERYTHING IS GOING TO FUAIJIOJWALKSD! ABANDON SHIP!!
Pandemic: This Really sucks, but if we really coordinate our efforts we might just save most people.
12th dimensional Hyper Candy Land: Well, we all know how the Trump Campaign is going, right?

Dad_Scaper September 10th, 2016 12:31 PM

Re: Decision 2016
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by Tornado (Post 2109204)
Touche.

Fresh expert eyes are nice.

For final analysis I prefer novices. If they can figure it out on their own then I accomplished my goal. People with a strong gaming background pick it up quickly. I need to ensure that those with less experience can also enjoy the product.

I suppose board games and politics is not a great comparison. :)

I think, if Martin Wallace had it to do over again, he would have liked more expert input on A Few Acres of Snow. Experts can bring stress tests that novices would never know to apply.

I'm not trying to make a larger point, but I read this post & immediately thought of that game.

Tornado September 10th, 2016 01:08 PM

Re: Decision 2016
 
I hear you. If they would have ran AotP past some Heroscaper's I believe it would be a much better product(less uncertainty in how spells/powers work).

I am just saying after all the critical issues are resolved you still need to ensure a novice can play your game.

We have had some solid success at Gen Con with a variety of players and I appreciate the diversity and input we get.

When I saw the game running itself while drinks were flowing, I knew we had something.

Sorry to derail here.

Anyone concerned with North Korea and their development of nukes?

dok September 15th, 2016 12:49 PM

Re: Decision 2016
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by Rich10 (Post 2108915)
Hillary doesn't get a free pass either. Her actions, at best, show an unwillingness to consider the appearance (if not the actual reality) of impropriety.

That's very very true. Frankly I find it difficult to blame her for this sort of bunker mentality, when there have been so many purported scandals raised referencing the Clintons over the years, and most of them have turned out to be completely hollow.

There's a conservative media industry that treats Clinton scandals like catnip. At some point, the fact that people keep calling things involving Clinton scandals can't, by itself, be used to justify the idea that they are corrupt. That argument invites the continued ginning up of fake scandals, right?

She's certainly not perfect, and some decisions seem particularly hamhanded. But she's basically a normal politician, and none of her many, many scandals are particularly concerning to me. I have no real concern that she'll be bought and paid for as president.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Rich10 (Post 2108915)
All of her decisions seem to err on the side of secrecy and collecting money.

All? That's a stretch. I agree she has a well-worn distrust of the media, but she's revealed a lot of her private life. She's also far from the most avaricious candidate we've seen in recent cycles.

And then there's the comparison... by any reasonable standard, Hillary Clinton has been drastically more transparent, and drastically less greedy, than Donald Trump.
  • Hillary has released, literally, over three consecutive decades of tax records. Trump, none.
  • Despite all the current chatter that could suggest otherwise, Hillary has released more detailed medical records than Trump.
  • The Clinton Foundation has extensive public records of who it has given money to, and literally nothing it has contributed to has been considered anything but a solid charitable cause. The Trump foundation releases roughly the minimum public records, and has been implicated in a very plausible bribery scandal (not to mention the silly low-grade violations like purchasing a painting of Trump with charitable donations).
  • Clinton has explicitly laid out plans for how the charitable foundation will be separated from her when she is in office. Trump has refused to disclose his business ties and has stated that he will let his kids run his businesses if he is President.
  • Hillary accepted some expensive speaking fees, and pays a very high tax rate. Trump has a long established track record of stiffing contractors and of using bankruptcy to avoid paying creditors, and in all likelihood uses depreciation to pay little or no income tax.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Rich10 (Post 2108915)
As I said earlier, how is it that Obama has avoided all of these scandals? The Republicans don't like him anymore than Hillary.

Uh, Obama hasn't? Seriously, he has not avoided them, in the eyes or many. If you like you can google "Obama scandals" and enjoy spending literally hours treading through an alternative reality where Obama has committed high crimes and somehow avoided justice on multiple occasions.

What someone who dislikes you accuses you of is not meaningful. What a salacious news media deems worthy of reporting is not meaningful. It's unwise to judge Hillary by the volume of accusations that people lob at her. What matters is how meaningful the evidence is.

(Tangential - of all the leaked e-mails from Colin Powell, the most interesting thing to me was his exchange with Condoleeza Rice about Benghazi. They agreed that the person most responsible was actually the ambassador who died - it was his mistake to put himself and his staff in such an insecure location. They also agreed there was plenty of blame to go around, up to and including Hillary, but that there was clearly nothing criminal.)

Quote:

Originally Posted by wriggz (Post 2109091)
I hate to admit it but maybe the problem is cultural.

Having recently gone through our longest prime minster race (I believe it was 164 days or about 5.4 months) it was very cordial...

There's a cultural element but it's easy to overstate. The key factors in why USA politics have become both zero-sum, and very nasty, are:
  • The election method itself. Elections in parliamentary democracies, especially those that use proportional representation, reward those who seek to drum up enthusiasm for their causes, and create much less incentive to spend time, money, and effort bringing down one particular foe. The first-past-the-post voting system in the USA, combined with the distinct presidential election, means that a vote taken away from your main rival is as valuable as a vote added to your own total. So negativity is rewarded.
  • The simultaneous nationalization of and balkanization of the media. 40 years ago, local news and local papers were much more powerful, making local interests really important in congressional elections. Because of that, a Democrat in one part of the country could be more similar to their Republican opponent than a fellow Democrat from another part of the country. This made cross-party coalitions much more common than they are now. Now, local news is weakened, but media has been divided along ideological lines. This has basically the opposite effect, pushing the parties further apart.
  • Gerrymandering has drastically increased polarization in the house, basically exacerbating the above issues. Gerrymandering has always been a problem but it's gotten much more precise in the last 20 years.

Tornado September 15th, 2016 02:17 PM

Re: Decision 2016
 
Great insight dok.

I always enjoy your use of vocabulary.

My favorites are 'ginning up' (never heard that before), 'hamhanded' (this needs to be used more' and 'balkanization'.

Lots of other good ones in there. :)

Rich10 September 15th, 2016 02:50 PM

Re: Decision 2016
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by dok (Post 2109843)
Quote:

Originally Posted by Rich10 (Post 2108915)
Hillary doesn't get a free pass either. Her actions, at best, show an unwillingness to consider the appearance (if not the actual reality) of impropriety.

That's very very true. Frankly I find it difficult to blame her for this sort of bunker mentality, when there have been so many purported scandals raised referencing the Clintons over the years, and most of them have turned out to be completely hollow.

There's a conservative media industry that treats Clinton scandals like catnip. At some point, the fact that people keep calling things involving Clinton scandals can't, by itself, be used to justify the idea that they are corrupt. That argument invites the continued ginning up of fake scandals, right?

She's certainly not perfect, and some decisions seem particularly hamhanded. But she's basically a normal politician, and none of her many, many scandals are particularly concerning to me. I have no real concern that she'll be bought and paid for as president.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Rich10 (Post 2108915)
All of her decisions seem to err on the side of secrecy and collecting money.

All? That's a stretch. I agree she has a well-worn distrust of the media, but she's revealed a lot of her private life. She's also far from the most avaricious candidate we've seen in recent cycles.

And then there's the comparison... by any reasonable standard, Hillary Clinton has been drastically more transparent, and drastically less greedy, than Donald Trump.
  • Hillary has released, literally, over three consecutive decades of tax records. Trump, none.
  • Despite all the current chatter that could suggest otherwise, Hillary has released more detailed medical records than Trump.
  • The Clinton Foundation has extensive public records of who it has given money to, and literally nothing it has contributed to has been considered anything but a solid charitable cause. The Trump foundation releases roughly the minimum public records, and has been implicated in a very plausible bribery scandal (not to mention the silly low-grade violations like purchasing a painting of Trump with charitable donations).
  • Clinton has explicitly laid out plans for how the charitable foundation will be separated from her when she is in office. Trump has refused to disclose his business ties and has stated that he will let his kids run his businesses if he is President.
  • Hillary accepted some expensive speaking fees, and pays a very high tax rate. Trump has a long established track record of stiffing contractors and of using bankruptcy to avoid paying creditors, and in all likelihood uses depreciation to pay little or no income tax.
Quote:

Originally Posted by Rich10 (Post 2108915)
As I said earlier, how is it that Obama has avoided all of these scandals? The Republicans don't like him anymore than Hillary.

Uh, Obama hasn't? Seriously, he has not avoided them, in the eyes or many. If you like you can google "Obama scandals" and enjoy spending literally hours treading through an alternative reality where Obama has committed high crimes and somehow avoided justice on multiple occasions.

What someone who dislikes you accuses you of is not meaningful. What a salacious news media deems worthy of reporting is not meaningful. It's unwise to judge Hillary by the volume of accusations that people lob at her. What matters is how meaningful the evidence is.

(Tangential - of all the leaked e-mails from Colin Powell, the most interesting thing to me was his exchange with Condoleeza Rice about Benghazi. They agreed that the person most responsible was actually the ambassador who died - it was his mistake to put himself and his staff in such an insecure location. They also agreed there was plenty of blame to go around, up to and including Hillary, but that there was clearly nothing criminal.)

You are comparing my comments on HRC to Trump. If you look at my posts, I have been far more brutal in my comments on Trump, than on HRC.

There are 2 primary ways to respond to criticism. One is to have a bunker mentality. Another is to have nothing to hide and open the doors.

I have no idea if HRC has done anything illegal. I actually hope for more from a presidential candidate than something along the lines of, "it hasn't been possible to prove that they broke the law." I cringe at the thought of Bill Clinton accepting large speaking fees and donations from Saudi Arabia, Russia, China, Egypt, UAE, Panama, Turkey, Taiwan,...., while HRC was the Secretary of State. I'm sure that Michelle Obama could have received even higher fees if the Obama's didn't care about the perception of such an action. Even if there is nothing that is explicitly shown to be illegal, doesn't this bother you even a little? In a world where perception is reality, who would do that if they weren't collecting over $150 million?

As for the media, excluding Fox News, it is hard to suggest that the "salacious news media" (most of the salacious reporting was about Bill, not Hillary;)) is biased against her. Do you really think that there is a conservative bias in the news media?

I looked up "Obama Scandals" and most don't seem to be directly connected to Obama. They seem more like the standard partisan attacks that lots of presidents have had. YMMV.

Before someone thinks that I am a fan of Trump, consider my recent post.
Quote:

Originally Posted by Rich10 (Post 2108915)
Some of Trump's comments are so ill advised, foolish, racist, misogynistic, ... that it is incomprehensible that he is the Republican candidate for presidency of the US. He takes great insult at the slightest perceived offense. He speaks with a ridiculous, false, macho, bravado, that makes him temperamentally unfit to be president. Then shortly after explaining how he would destroy all of our enemies, he jokes about his "foot injury" that kept him out of Vietnam. Donald Trump is a joke.


dok September 15th, 2016 03:29 PM

Re: Decision 2016
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by Rich10 (Post 2109878)
You are comparing my comments on HRC to Trump.

Only in the one section where I directly compare them. The rest is more of a comparison of HRC to public figures in general.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Rich10 (Post 2109878)
There are 2 primary ways to respond to criticism. One is to have a bunker mentality. Another is to have nothing to hide and open the doors.

Reality is not binary. The e-mail scandal (which certainly contains wrongdoing, but nothing major or malicious) is a good example of this. Hillary has disclosed an enormous amount of personal information, some of it voluntarily, some of it after having it dragged out of her. She resisted revealing some stuff she insisted is entirely personal in nature. Is that opening the doors, is that reasonable? Is that a bunker mentality? It's not really one or the other. It's a person living under a microscope and trying to navigate it in her way, neither perfect nor deplorable.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Rich10 (Post 2109878)
I have no idea if HRC has done anything illegal. I actually hope for more from a presidential candidate than something along the lines of, "it hasn't been possible to prove that they broke the law."

You realize it's impossible to prove a negative, right? The above statement is literally the best you could hope of any presidential candidate, because literally the only alternative is that they have been proven to break the law. (You know, like Donald Trump has.)

Quote:

Originally Posted by Rich10 (Post 2109878)
I cringe at the thought of Bill Clinton accepting large speaking fees and donations from Saudi Arabia, Russia, China, Egypt, UAE, Panama, Turkey, Taiwan,...., while HRC was the Secretary of State. I'm sure that Michelle Obama could have received even higher fees if the Obama's didn't care about the perception of such an action. Even if there is nothing that is explicitly shown to be illegal, doesn't this bother you even a little? In a world where perception is reality, who would do that if they weren't collecting over $150 million?

The possible conflict of interest is there, sure. But it's a stretch when the money of the Clinton foundation is so well accounted for, and goes to projects that are very obviously philanthropic.

Buying influence happens all the time in politics - usually by contributing to a politician's campaign, other times by purchasing the services of high-priced lobbyists with access. By contrast, contributing money to a charity associated with someone seems like both an extremely ineffective and almost comically benign way to attempt to purchase influence.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Rich10 (Post 2109878)
As for the media, excluding Fox News, it is hard to suggest that the "salacious news media" (most of the salacious reporting was about Bill, not Hillary;)) is biased against her. Do you really think that there is a conservative bias in the news media?

There is a bias towards creating the appearance of parity. There is a bias towards not appearing to take sides. When one candidate is easily the least qualified and most scandal-ridden candidate of my lifetime, attempting to portray the problems each candidate has in the same light amounts to a massive bias. And yes, that's what we're seeing. "He said, she said" reporting only works when there's roughly an equal amount of rightness and wrongness on both sides. And there isn't; not even close.

Donald Trump's "charitable foundation" gave a $25k contribution to the PAC of the Florida attorney general while she was considering whether to press charges against Trump over Trump university. The foundation later claimed this was a clerical error and they had intended to give the money to a charity in Utah with a similar name (one they have never given money to before or since). Riiiiiight.

Go ahead, try to find one story in HRC's history that suggests anything even close to the same level of quid pro quo as that story. And yet, that story has gotten extremely little coverage, because it's lost in the whirlwind of insanity that is the Trump campaign. Meanwhile, the e-mail scandal just keeps coming around and around, largely because there's just not a ton of other questionable stuff to talk about.

A combination of journalistic laziness and journalistic cowardice has led to a false balance that is actually, yes, quite biased.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Rich10 (Post 2109878)
I looked up "Obama Scandals" and most don't seem to be directly connected to Obama. They seem more like the standard partisan attacks that lots of presidents have had. YMMV.

Of course they're the standard partisan attacks. That's really the same as Hillary's though.

It's hard to remember now, but in 2011 and 2012 every damn story was seen on the right as the scandal that's finally going to bring down the Obama administration. Christ, remember how often we heard the word "Solyndra"? And we now think of Benghazi as a Hillary scandal, but for the two months from when it happened until the 2012 election, it was a 100% Obama scandal.


All times are GMT -4. The time now is 08:03 AM.

Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.8
Copyright ©2000 - 2022, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.
User Alert System provided by Advanced User Tagging (Lite) - vBulletin Mods & Addons Copyright © 2022 DragonByte Technologies Ltd.