Messages

[A TRAVELER!]

I'd like to welcome everyone to this thread. Gentlemen...and the la-dy. Oh, you too, I didn't forget you. My, your eyeshadow sure makes that dress look pretty! In case no one reads the titles, this is a weekly character drawing competition, where the winner takes all. And by all, I mean the winner takes my job as host for next week.

Don't all pee your pants at once.

Since my creative well is frozen over, I decided to go with the first topic that stopped by my head for a cup of tea and some hardtack. And since this idea coincides with the holiday spirit, may I introduce:

A TRAVELER!

Should you enter, you must pixel a character who is a traveler. Any time period is welcome, so shovel some coal in your imagination! Here are some ideas to spark that fire:

Things a traveler might have
Snowshoes
Mukluks
Hiking boots
Boots with fur trim
Uggs
Pancho
Safari hat
Extra cell phone battery
Backpack
Icepick
Climbing gear
Water purifying tablets
Dutch oven
Sunglasses
Sunblock lotion
Condom
Baked beans (canned)
Mosquito spray
Mutant repellent
Foreign phrasebook (pocket-sized)
Traveler's cheques (duh!)
Garlic and a wooden stake
Swiss Army knife
A sidekick

Things a traveler wouldn't have
A tutu
Chinese porcelain tea set (with blue flowers)
Self-respect

Restrictions
Max size: 128x128
Max colors: 32
Max bribe: $1,000 (cash, please. I want to keep this below the IRS's radar)

Get to work, people!

Helm, you're right about this thread in general. There are some good comments, bad comments, and everything inbetween. In my posts I tried to write more than just an opinion sentence like (oh no, another analogy) "I dislike cake". Instead I tried to base my statements on some slivers of fact and logic ("I dislike cake because its high sugar content is bad for me").

I don't think anyone is going to read this thread and totally change their view (on the scale from attitude to opinion to belief, this death penalty topic involves belief for those who overcame the volunteer response bias to actually write something).

Nik, if you're against the death penalty, don't make exceptions, it makes your opinion look weak and irrational. Hitler, Mao Zedong, Tim Allen, whoever...we're all humans.

Yes, so should we kill them back them? and be as bad as they are?

If it gets personal I cant promise i wont, but in the objective way answer must be no!

And then there's the case of sick people, you can't kill sick people just because they are sick;
In the getto's kids see drugdealerd kill eachother over some money every day, all raised up only by mum, even saw there own dad killed, can't expect those people to live their life normally on..

Those people are just becoming sick, not knowing whats right and whats wrong, killing other people cause that's what they are grew up with, you can't kill those people because they are sick can you?!

No wonder you didn't want to state your argument right away! So you're saying that some people DON'T have the will to choose their own actions (grew up in the ghetto, etc), but some us us need to DECIDE not to execute the wrongdoers?
(BTW killing them back and execution are very different terms, in the latter an objectivity exists). So according to you, all humans aren't created equal then, since some of us have this ability to choose our actions. Wow, if we suppose that the "ghetto = ethnic", this takes us back to the 3/5 Compromise (black people being worth 3/5 of a white person).

I can hear MLK, Malcolm X, Paul Robeson, etc. rolling in their graves.

[Interviewer:]

I can imagine that would be a big hit at the job interviews.

Interviewer: We noticed on your resume that there's this period of time between when you quit your last job and today. Could you explain a little?
Former Death Row Inmate: Funny story, actually...

I never put a value on human life, Nik. You're the one with the fucking pros/cons list. I DID say that there are microeconomic consequences for not killing him. If a man can get away with murdering in cold blood not once but FOUR times, then how will other thugsters be incentivized to clean up their respective acts? Society gets what it subsidizes. As Keynes said, "Supply creates its own demand."

On a side note, if they let Williams go, the children's book market would be flooded with thinly veiled "learning" books from other condemned murderers.

"See Dick. See Dick not kill an innocent person." No shit, Sherlock. If any kid had to read a book to learn that, the parents need counseling. Pronto.

Gregor: The innocent people on death row indicates a problem with the courts, not with the penalty itself. Say the penalty was reduced to life. Those innocent people would still be in there for life. But Williams was, by his own confession, not innocent. So rather than sucks for him, I say fuck him.

Yes, I know you've been posting (where did I say you weren't???), but it doesn't seem like you're following any of my arguments.

I mentioned a microecomonic risk/benefit associated with criminal acts TWICE and you're still harping about how executing Williams doesn't better society.

(If there's shit in the toilet, you COULD pour scented liquid soap in there, but I'd just flush it. The residents in turn will benefit, since the toilet is more clean.)

Nik, you misunderstand. Re-read my post about the measurements and try to think about it in terms of the concepts, not the words. Concepts like morality... Actually you should read the post before mine, too. Or maybe more of this thread.

I did not answer the question about the terrorist because I WROTE IT to someone else. I use analogies to illustrate a concept and make it easier to understand. The analogy itself doesn't have to be flawless, so stop attacking it. I am talking about some of the most basic concepts to human nature. Living in a different society doesn't mean we aren't all humans.

To answer your question, America has a representative government (or republic). Officials elected by the mjority of people decide who deserves to be killed for their crimes.

In your comparison of William's death versus life the "*No chance to do more wrong" is a major player. You are forgetting about the deterrent concept, too. When you lighten the punishment, you lighten the risk in the rational post-behavior equation (thus biasing it towards benefit). Your list doesn't take into account the likelihood of anything. For example, if left alive Williams *could* be the first man to start a colony on the moon, but it's more likely that he will return to his conditioned environment and kill more people. Perhaps his execution will serve as an example to gangbangers everywhere.

I like how you focus on my example and ignore the actual fucking argument, bub.

If you can't post something relative (or even something logical), don't.

"You're out of your element, Donny."

So you propose anarchy, since one person's judgment is as good as a group's?

The founders of the American government included checks and balances and even amendments in case the populace needs to overthrow it.

If there is no absolute morality, why are humans the only animals that live for ideals (denying themselves things lower on a Maslowian hierarchy)?
If there is nothing universally perfect, why do we have ideas about improving ourselves and our society? Without an absolute measurement, the concept of measuring things becomes meaningless. (Think about this from a practical persective: without a metric system or any system of distance, everyone having her own incompatible unit of measurement defeats the purpose of measurement.)

What if I am an Islamic extremist (purely hypothetical) who sees killing infidels as a highest good? When I blow up schoolbuses full of children will you stand by and say, "It's not my right to judge his system of morality? It would be wrong to execute him even if the social majority agrees since social majorities have the potential to be wrong"?

Bullshit.

What's the point of trying to emulate his style? His style is basically a way to disguise programmer art. If you're going to emulate a style, you should spend time imitating better graphics instead.

Let me put it like this -
Golden rule - guide for personal behavior
Eye for an eye - rule for when personal behavior violates the law

Clear now? Eye for an eye is the society's safety net enacted by the law, not by individuals acting on their own incentive.

As for Mosiac law (the 613 mitzvot of the Torah), Jesus overturned the need to sacrifice animals. He sought to convert people to see the spirit behind the law, rather than to follow it by the letter. At this time, the Rabbis were adding laws (and elaborating on existing ones), like the exact distance one can walk on Sabbat (day of rest) before it's considered "work". When the religious leaders caught Jesus and his disciples picking and eating grain on the Sabbat, they confronted them. Jesus countered with something like "Sabbat was made for man, not man for the Sabbat." Jesus was not trying to overthrow the idea of a day of rest, only define the spirit of what it means.

Just to clear up a few things... The Bible does talk about an "eye for an eye" in the Old Testament and Jesus talks about "turning the other cheek". However, you need to keep these things in context. "Eye for an eye" was said in response to the  vengeance activities of the peoples in Canaan, where they would respond to an injustice by murdering an entire family (things would escalate from there). In perspective, "eye for an eye" makes more sense. There was also a system of "safe cities" for the wrongly accused or accidental crimes. The "eye for an eye" mandate was given to the Jews for their justice system. Like I said earlier, the law must be based on absolutes.

Jesus said "turn the other cheek" in response to the injustices inflicted on the Jewish people by the Romans (who occupied the entire Lebanon region). The Jews at the time expected their Messiah to be a revolutionary who would overthrow the Roman government. Jesus' guide is more of a personal one. If everyone treats each other as they want to be treated themselves, it's not necessary for a court of law to enact an "eye for an eye" punishment. Have I made this clear? These two different philosophies can coexist without being contradictory.

I wonder if the direction of this thread would be different had Williams killed Lennon.

A few random thoughts on the matter (since everyone's joining in).

If there is no death penalty, then the American taxpayers bear the burden of keeping every menace alive in prison for the rest of his life. You get what you subsidize.

On a colder angle, tit-for-tat (eye for an eye, as mentioned earlier) is the MOST sucessful long term game theory model. In this case, it both discourages murder (by increasing the risks to outweigh the benefits, acting on the assumption of rationality, like all microeconomics) and prevents the recurrence of the crime from the same person. Like I said, it's cold, but the law has to be based on absolutes, not emotions.

If they ever outlaw the death penalty, I hope they force every murderer to spend the rest of his life working for the families of the people he killed. At least then the families get something firsthand.

Maybe try to use darker cool colors in the foreground. As it is right now, the shapes are a bit confusing sharing similar hues and values. As an adventure game room, what's closest to the camera isn't really the focal point.

* BB enjoys Andail's sloppy seconds

Well, mostly since I've never even heard of the Berenstain Bears before. o.o And partly because I already have a story, I already have characters, and I don't want to make a game about those damnded bears.

Hey, hey. Don't knock them until you've read the stuff, buddy. I recommend "The Berenstain Bears and the Spooky Old Tree." Classic. Definitely start reading that one before you continue making your fan game.

I don't even think he LOOKS all that much like them. His nose is too big, his face too chipmunk like, and he has proper coloured hair. o.o

I couldn't have said it better myself. I think that's a fair critique of your own work, don't you? (Except for the "proper coloured hair" bit, which makes no sense in art terms. Or grammar, actually.)

Do you have a vendetta against me or something? o.o

I help everyone indiscriminantly.

I wasn't aware that a set RIGHT or WRONG way to draw anything existed. I mean, anything you draw is a two-dimensional interpretation...

If you think you see an "error", you have no way of knowing whether it was a failure on the artist's part to depict her mind's eye perception, or it was part of the artist's perception, which would not make it an error at all.

Instead, when critiquing art, the words RIGHT and WRONG are generally omitted in favor of more descriptive terms like "squat", "distorted", "gestural", etc.

What don't you like about an amateur paying homage to an awesome series of children's books by creating a fangame?

You could always change your game into a Berenstain Bears fangame. That would be a quick fix.

Matthew 18:6 reads:
(quote from Jesus)
"But whoso shall cause one of these little ones that believe on me to stumble, it is profitable for him that a great millstone should be hanged about his neck, and that he should be sunk in the depth of the sea." (ASV)

That being said, I don't see what's so pornographic about the album cover. I wouldn't say they're naked as much as nude. America is over-sensitive to nudity (as opposed to other more harmful things, like violence). I'd rather my child see a nipple (I mean, if he was breastfed, he's seen them anyways) then someone breaking another person's neck in a movie.

What a way to hijack this thread, right?

IMO, The Beatle's music was good from the time they made Rubber Soul (1965) to about 1969. But The Grateful Dead pretty much make the Beatles sound like they have the musical prowess of the Backstreet Boys. But who cares, that's my opinion, right?

[Lady Justice]

Lady Justice

She's certainly a woman of authority!

2x zoom, 12 colors (not including background shade, which was not used on the sprite)


Reference picture (not traced) http://www.representinginjuredpeople.com/images/lady_justice02.jpg

I picked the bronze shade for the skin to make her appear more like a statue. She is, after all, a personification of an abstract concept.