Messages

No Hell for Helm. No Heaven for Helm either. My spirit will be eaten away with my flesh by the worms of the earth.

[It is good she has yet to realize the true nature of bluecup...]

* Helm signs Andail up for some mailing lists...

But we seriously loved this, eh?

A clarification: what Diablo did was not about bringing RPGs back to life. It was about bringing ROGUElikes to a wide audience. The game that resurrected the classic party RPG would be Baldur's Gate.

What Scid0r said, big daddy.

eric: Have times changed so much that a good idea in 1997 isn't a good idea anymore? If it's not broken, don't fix it, is what I say.

I'd love to see a hi res painted backgrounds full throttle that is innovative where it should be: in the character development, the puzzles, and the feel of the game world. Hell, I wouldn't mind it terribly if it were in a competently designed 3d world, as long as the game is about exploring the concept of FT. Do you think several levels of road-rash street fights and shooty action (which seems to be what this game is going to be about, although I would be the first to take that back if it comes out and it does have a good storyline)will do that? I'm not really sure.


Also, your point about it being their game doesn't mean anything. Of course it's their game. It's not like we're discussing it so we can affect the way it'll be made. We're to enjoy (or suffer) the final game anyway, but that doesn't nagate the point of discussing how the current game industry works, through the spectrum of FT2.

Who says we lost yet? CJ and Panda are the only ones that have voted this far.

A) Hobbe's Social Contract Theory is true,

Jean Jacques Russeau. Written in 1762, 'The Social Contract'. Some respect to history, please.

Helm has not offered any argument as to why anyone should believe in the concept of a social contract.

It is not a matter of believing in it. You're experiencing it. Most western goverments abide by the 'concept' of the social contract, thus the loose, ambigious current meaning of a socialistic goverment. Go check your country's constitution, if you will, and then make an effort to at least hide your ignorance, please.

However these arguments are not unique to social contract theory. None of the four major current ethical movements would claim that the current state of the world is ideal.  

The uniqueness of my argument has to bearing to it's validity. Void.

Some good can come from anything.

No, it can't. You're undermining your effort with this statement in such an essential way, I find it somewhat humourous. Would you say something good came out of the Aryan ethic cleansing? Did killing 10 million jews and assorted, help towards decreasing overpopulation, maybe, to make a hyperbolized statement? Your naive usage of 'good' leads me to believe that you hold it at some juvenile level of percentages, or happiness v.s. harm or somesort. Well, the benefit of the people lies in their freedom to choose for themselves and in that only. Any effect that undermines this freedom, cannot be, in any way of advantage, even if it results to the wellbeing of some, because it harms in a more essential level. And, to make this relevant, I suggest that a social system that depends on TV charity, as in any form of charity, has essentially sold the fate of some people to the priviledged. Get it now? I hope I will not have to repeat my point a fourth time.

The rest of your post is of no consequence.

--

TV or elsewhere, is a minor obstacle

To admit to that it is an obstacle, no matter how minor, is to say I'm right. Which pretty much sums this debate up.

Oh, and of course my demands are fundamental. Have you ever seen any social problem be magically 'fixed' with no relation to all the other aspects of communal life? I haven't.

But that would not at all mean that TV (or any other) charities are in any way the cause of the problem;  they would be a symptom.

I did not imply this, nor do I believe it. I believe that (TV)charities are a flawed measure that is inherently counterproductive. Let's keep things in prespective.

The changes you demand from a society that largely depends on charity are so fundamental that these charities' effect of cementing the status quo does not make enough of a difference to outweigh the good they do by helping those who fall through the cracks;

Indeed, what I am proposing is a reevaluation on a number of cognitive social issues, one of them being charity, as it were. It fits to a grand sceme that would be current social politics, and to consider it outside it's context is naive.

Therefore, the point you make here is moot. The changes I desire, or rather, how fundamental they are does in no way undermine the validity of my position. You are essentially saying 'It's not worth the trouble, because to do what you propose would be too much work, for too little in terms of result'. That is not a proactive approach to this argument. The social reformation I propose stands to help society in a number of ways, not all of which are partaining to the discussion at hand, but that does not mean they are not there; In proposing this course of action, then, I say that great things can happen in terms of education,  culture and political awareness, and a trivial, minute byproduct would be the casting of charity redundant. Whereas I do not expect you to adress all those issues within the context of this debate, you must aknowledge their existance, and their importance.

Your argument fails similarly when applied to external matters such as starvation in various third-world countries.

To the best of my knowledge, no TV charity organizations exist that further the cause of helping third world countries. There are of course, a number of non-TV such organisations, but they are not directly relevant to the case at hand. Applying my argument to 'external matters' such as this, is going outside the strictly defined context of this debate, even if it's a logical furthering of my point.

But because I am not at all afraid to tackle this issue, and I do not want to come off as a rules lawyer, even if I could probably get away with it, this time, as irrelevant as it is, I will tell you that

Are you asking for a global system to help poorer countries develop?

Yes, I am. A sanctified UN approved system that does exactly that. And it exists.  The fate of no man should ever be left to the 'good will' of the wealthy benefactor,  for this would essentially be a round-about way to make that man a slave on a much more essential level than physical restrain would.

That sums it up pretty nicely. Now,

Helm has argued well, however he has not argued on topic. The topic of debate is that TV Charity has a contra-positive
effect. Essentially, this means it has a bad effect. Helm hasn't argued this at all though. He has argued that it is a symptom of a breakdown in the socio-economic structure of nations. He hasn't shown that it has any negative effects though. He argues that Charity TV is merely a symptom of private economic ambition(although I fail to see why the ambitious would participate in Charity tv). Even if Helm shows that charity tv is a direct result of the breakdown of the social contract(A flawed conception of the duties between man and state in anycase), he has not shown that Charity Tv has caused any negative effect whatsoever.

The byproducts of a negative procedure such as the breach of the social contract cannot stand to be anything but negative themselves. The ends do not justify the means. Moot.

Is it really better to receive money from such an institution[...] in such a manner that they might as well say "Here's your money, have it and be gone with you, you filthy, begging, useless old scumbeard! Next!" - is this better than receiving charitable gifts from people who, while they ultimately do it for one selfish reason or another, don't have this weariness that any daily job entails?

A good point. Even in the light you put to it, without actually discussing whether this would indeed be the case or not, I think yes, it is better. Because at least a tax-based welfare system is dependable, and socially fortified even if it stops there and doesn't actually try to prevent proverty(which isn't what I'm suggesting, as you'll see below, but even if we stopped there). Even if it's abused, at least it's bound to do more good than harm on a percentage scale, because for every disgruntled, corrupt citizen that's using such a system to 'get back' at the faceless goverment, there's twenty people geniunely disabled and in honest need that stand to benefit from it, so as to not have to be degraded beyond what should be humanitarianly acceptable.

However, the attitude of the wealthy is fickle, their ambition selfish, and their attention span short; Not something one would willingly depend on, unless it's the last resort. And that it is.

Also, assuming your point to be entirely valid: wouldn't then a society in which civic charity is a necessity need to be reformed? Would it not be a good thing if the populace grew less fond of the way such affairs are conducted by the state?

Assuming my point is entirely valid: Yes. Social welfare would be the first step, not the only. There's always going to be people with incurable diseases or lame, and for them, social protection should always exist. However, for the ones in poverty, there should be made an effort on all fronts, to move towards a more social economic model, where one should be protected from the greed of the employer, and where his work is in direct relation to his needs. Even if such a system would be abused, the actual good it would do towards a goal of an educated and active society by far outweighs the occasional leech it would produce.

In this light, TV charity, or any other kind of charity is a sign that things have gone very wrong somewhere. It is a sign that private economic ambition is not only allowed, which is well and good, but also an integral part of the govermental structure, and at times substitutes a number of obligations the latter has towards the citizen.

I felt the need to go the extra mile to underline the fact that probably nobody really cares whether you're here or not, no matter if their courteous manners dictate that they say otherwise.

It's not really a matter of whether the money actually goes to where it's supposed to. In fact, even though that could be a debatable point, I'm willing to be play along with the whole procedure being clean and cosher.

The matter is, that as with any kind of charity, TV charity is counterproductive on a much more essential level. I propose the viewpoint, that any society that introduces measures that depend on the goodwill of the able to help the challenged, is ultimately a society that has lost it's focus. People in need should not have to depend on the kindness of others. They should be fortified by state regulation.

This is a problem that goes much deeper than one might originally think. It's the much debated issue of the social contract. If a person who is in need, turns to a faceless goverment institution that considers him a liability to be rid of, the essentially, the social contract forged between the people and the state has been breached.

In that case, does it matter that the priviledged, -even if it was of the goodness of their own hearts, which it's not- rush in to act as a replacement solution?

Does that occuring only serve to further distance the people in need, from a goverment seemingly faceless and distant?

For all the short-term good TV charity, or any other charity might produce, it ultimately undermines the societal structure on a much more essential level.

Ah, stalking. Esseb would be proud of you.

Great pixel art, but how are you going to animate so many colours?

Definately 320x240 mode for walking around, or you'll never finish the game. Great art, too.

Fuck you and your jokes

See, I put a "" there, so you can't possibly take that remark seriously, now, can you.

It's obvious it's a joke.

Moron

*I will be the wisest man in all of greece, not that that** says much these days. Excepting of course, I won't be in greece, as it's a hole.

** Double words are great.

Excuse me, did you just make generic derogatory remarks towards a country you probably know very little about? 'cause I couldn't be sure with all the stuttering.

Severily off-topic:

Eric, I assume you're talking about The Church of Satan.


The Church of Satan, found by LaVey indeed takes it's cue from the amoralist/epicurian philosophers, but isn't really much alike either. They claim pretty much what eric said(amongst other things), but add a bit of O.T.O-like class system and a healthy (or unhealthy, heh) dose of all-around sweeping esoterica, that ranges from Dragon Rouge/Rose Cross inspired reversal of christian sacrament(read: excuse for sex orgies) to Judaistic Kaballa(sp?) numerology. If I am to offer my oppinion on their philosophy/morals as a person that has spent enough time meddling with all sorts of apocriphal knowledge: Do not be misled. That brand of Satanism, as applealing as it might first seem, is nothing more than a watered-down version of a Nietze(sp?)istic ethical system where, might makes right. Essentially, the apologietic system of applied Nazism. Make of this what you will.

However, eric, just because they call themselves The Satanists, that doesn't mean they really are just that. Copyright of a term doesn't make you the living embodyment of it, in any rate.

I'm not trying to stick up for poultry sacrifice, but for the truth. Popular conception of Satanism, but indeed historical practise of satanistic cults have more to do with goats blood and black hoods than they have to do with sending money to a sly Californian inthe comfort of your own home, so you can get your plastic ID tag and a brochure informing you that "Concratulations! You are not one of the herd! You are SPECIAL!".


also, I have to add that the Satanic Bible is one of the most silly books I've ever read.

Helm, age 80:

STR: 6... 5... somewhere around there.
INT: 18/99 of course
WIS: There's no such thing. (people that say there's no such thing usually have about 6 to 7)
CHA: 14 (16 for people my age )
DEX: I hope my hand/eye coordination doesn't leave me by then. That's about 8
CON: 4...3? I dunno. In danger of slipping  and falling to your death pretty much means 3.

Married Status: No, thank you.
Children: I kidnap one or two a month from the nearby kindergarden.

Class: Uncoordinated Ninja

I'd do Proficiencies, but I'm too bored and my second edition knowledge is a bit rusty.