The Altera Centauri collection has been brought up to date by Darsnan. It comprises every decent scenario he's been able to find anywhere on the web, going back over 20 years.
25 themes/skins/styles are now available to members. Check the select drop-down at the bottom-left of each page.
Call To Power 2 Cradle 3+ mod in progress: https://apolyton.net/forum/other-games/call-to-power-2/ctp2-creation/9437883-making-cradle-3-fully-compatible-with-the-apolyton-edition
Yep, that one fell foul of my normally efficient on the fly proofreading skills - however the first time around you either didn't notice, or replied in the way intended anyway so no harm done.
And I can easily stand the nitpicking that brought your attention to it as a sign of desperation...
Originally posted by Lorizael
Because attacking groups does not disrupt the board. The individuals that make up Apolyton are what matter here.
Yes, but when the individuals in question belong to the group insulted, it amounts to the same thing. You're just sort of mass-mailing or spamming the insolence. I realize there are a lot of atheists on this board who might sympathize with Moby calling all religious folk nuts (albeit they're far more polite), but is it substantially different from calling all gays freaks of nature and expecting Molly and MrFun to stand for it? Wait, EoN got away with that, didn't he? Well, it's still messed up.
Originally posted by Elok
Ideally, yes. Hence the apology. With the insults I was aiming to inspire what some of us nutters call a "Prodigal Son moment" in you by puncturing your thick shell of unwarranted self-love and making you realize how thoroughly vile you can be. You have to realize you have a problem before attempting to cure it. Making you feel shame: it's ambitious, audacious even, but felt that I had to try.
I don't want to get into a personal argument with you, but don't you feel embarrassed yet?
Can we move on and discuss the religious nutters who think it's a good thing to break the laws of a country that is gracious in tolerating their backward existence...?
Originally posted by Elok
Yes, but when the individuals in question belong to the group insulted, it amounts to the same thing. You're just sort of mass-mailing or spamming the insolence. I realize there are a lot of atheists on this board who might sympathize with Moby calling all religious folk nuts (albeit they're far more polite), but is it substantially different from calling all gays freaks of nature and expecting Molly and MrFun to stand for it? Wait, EoN got away with that, didn't he? Well, it's still messed up.
If a negative description of a group can contribute to constructive debate, then I have no problem with it. Too often such insults are just trolls, though, and we have ways of dealing with those.
Indeed. I find it astonishing that people can argue that the rule of law and principle of public safety should be suspended for the sake of not offending religious sensibilities.
If they obeyed the law, and asked for an exception by legal means, the are NOT suspending the rule of law. I disagree with kuci that asking for exceptions, even arbitrary exceptions, means that one is placing oneself above the law. Maybe cause Ive spent more time studying the US tax code than Kuci, by that definition theres hardly an industry in America that hasnt at some point placed itself above the law. Or a trade union, or other lobby. Kuci is setting the bar too high, methinks.
And as the good doctor says, they didn not intend to endanger public safety. Now, was their proposed solution administratively difficult, and perhaps unfeasible and bad public policy? Quite possibly. They may well, therefore, be wrong. That doesnt make them nutters, though. If they opposed a quarantine for reasons of personal liberty, or economic grounds, would we call them nutters, despite their being wrong on public policy grounds, or asking for an arbitrary exception? IOW if their objection was based on something other than values explicitly derived from their faith tradition?
"A person cannot approach the divine by reaching beyond the human. To become human, is what this individual person, has been created for.” Martin Buber
Originally posted by Elok
Sorry, Moby, but the no-personal-attacks rule applies only to persons--that is to say, complete human beings. You are a giant sphincter, and so do not qualify for its protection.
Yes he does, sphincter or no sphincter. Directly insulting any poster isn't on, whoever that is or whatever they've done.
Originally posted by Elok
Mind you, I probably will be banned for this (probably not permabanned--I've never been banned before--but who knows?), but it's worth it. There's something seriously wrong with being able to categorically insult whole groups of people but not attack one specific person. That's just bias in favor of people like Moby who happen to be defective human beings in uniquely horrible ways. Let's be fair here; allow both or neither.
No, there isn't. Attacking one person is bullying. Making outlandish statements about whole swathes of people just tends to make people ignore you. Even so, vicious attacks against sects of people aren't allowed. Saying religious people are stupid isn't a vicious attack though. The key issue is the severity of the comments and how they're meant, not who they're directed to. So saying "Moby is stupid" is generally fine, as long as it doesn't get close to bullying. Saying anything nastier isn't. If someone made an obscene or offensive comment about religious people it also wouldn't be ok, but saying religious people are stupid is just a blase comment that tends to make people take less notice of him, but doesn't really harm people too badly.
Smile For though he was master of the world, he was not quite sure what to do next
But he would think of something "Hm. I suppose I should get my waffle a santa hat." - Kuciwalker
Originally posted by Elok
I had time to cool off overnight, and had come to the conclusion that I owed Moby an apology, painful as it was to think of it.
Originally posted by lord of the mark
Maybe cause Ive spent more time studying the US tax code than Kuci, by that definition theres hardly an industry in America that hasnt at some point placed itself above the law. Or a trade union, or other lobby. Kuci is setting the bar too high, methinks.
I'm well aware of those, thank you, and also think they're tantamount to "putting oneself above the law."
Originally posted by Drogue
Yes he does, sphincter or no sphincter. Directly insulting any poster isn't on, whoever that is or whatever they've done.
No, there isn't. Attacking one person is bullying. Making outlandish statements about whole swathes of people just tends to make people ignore you. Even so, vicious attacks against sects of people aren't allowed. Saying religious people are stupid isn't a vicious attack though. The key issue is the severity of the comments and how they're meant, not who they're directed to. So saying "Moby is stupid" is generally fine, as long as it doesn't get close to bullying. Saying anything nastier isn't. If someone made an obscene or offensive comment about religious people it also wouldn't be ok, but saying religious people are stupid is just a blase comment that tends to make people take less notice of him, but doesn't really harm people too badly.
So I guess what all this boils down to is that Elok is stupid.
Tweet
Comment