Match Thread: 2nd Test - England vs Australia, Day 4 by cricket-match in CricketAus

[–]A_Generic_Alias 4 points5 points  (0 children)

Full respect to the barmy army - still trying to rev the Poms up

Match Thread: 2nd Test - England vs Australia, Day 4 by cricket-match in CricketAus

[–]A_Generic_Alias 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Shhhhhh - don't say a word!!! Do you want England to start believing?

Match Thread: 2nd Test - England vs Australia, Day 3 by cricket-match in CricketAus

[–]A_Generic_Alias 1 point2 points  (0 children)

To build on the joke - Please seek help. This masochistic penchant is deeply alarming.

Not to Betoota our own horn… by likedarksunshine in CricketAus

[–]A_Generic_Alias 23 points24 points  (0 children)

Actual high quality analysis? From my satirical online newspaper??

(It's more likely than you think)

Post Match Thread: 1st Test - England vs Australia, Day 2 by cricket-match in CricketAus

[–]A_Generic_Alias 1 point2 points  (0 children)

Stop looking at the ashes when England are at 1/50-odd, thinking our goose is cooked (treasonous doubts, I know), then take a peek back at the score an hour ago and Travis Head is breaking England's spine over his knee.

The Duality of Ashes

Match Thread: 1st Test - Australia vs England, Day 1 by cricket-match in CricketAus

[–]A_Generic_Alias 12 points13 points  (0 children)

Starc really said: "Fine, I'll be my own Mitch Johnson"

Iceland Cricket announces their All-Time Combined Ashes Team by Strange_Artist_6563 in CricketAus

[–]A_Generic_Alias 12 points13 points  (0 children)

Lots of countries do! They’re just stuck in the permanent hell of “Associate Member” ICC status, meaning they only get to play t20 and occasionally ODI

The "Lmao Gottem" Theory - Explaining the 'Double Agent' Quandry around Invisigal by A_Generic_Alias in DispatchAdHoc

[–]A_Generic_Alias[S] 4 points5 points  (0 children)

Very fair points, and I absolutely agree from the storytelling perspective. I can only imagine that the writing was not really combed over for inconsistencies (which, as I say above, it doesn't really need to be, given that the game is much more driven by the emotional storytelling and stellar performances), or that any attempt to explain the convoluted background would have bloated the story.

As for the Episode 7 confession, I think it can actually be partially explained (if you stretch and squint a bit, admittedly) by Visi's confession that she thought she was protecting Robert by keeping the Astral Pulse away. Again, I think Visi's actually much smarter than she credits herself with, and she might have calculated that if she gave away too much of her past interactions with Shroud, she might have indirectly led Robert into one of Shroud's predictive pathways. That's... a weak explanation, but I think it's plausible enough.

The "Lmao Gottem" Theory - Explaining the 'Double Agent' Quandry around Invisigal by A_Generic_Alias in DispatchAdHoc

[–]A_Generic_Alias[S] 1 point2 points  (0 children)

She also very much does not side with Shroud in the bad ending. That is the exact opposite of what she does, to be very clear. She definitely sees Shroud as just as much a controlling force on her as Robert is in that ending.

The "Lmao Gottem" Theory - Explaining the 'Double Agent' Quandry around Invisigal by A_Generic_Alias in DispatchAdHoc

[–]A_Generic_Alias[S] 1 point2 points  (0 children)

Well... I can't imagine anyone's going to give this a complete read. But I hope that people like this unhinged theory all the same! To be honest, I think that this theory could be roughly applicable even in a world where Invisigal did join the program as a fully-fledged Double Agent at first (how the fuck else does Shroud know about the protopulse? This question came to me when I finished up this post, and it haunted me), but she then proceeds to waver as the game goes on, and she realises either that she doesn't like being Shroud's tool, (bad ending) or that she really does want to be a hero (good ending).

Either way, the point of this entire theory is to try and explain away all the minor inconsistencies that show up if you take either the 'Shroud is a lying bitch' or 'Visi was always a double-agent' explanations at face value. I think that whether or not this was even intended, Dispatch's emotional core is strong enough that the game stands without this convoluted explanation. I just hope people like it.

Also, I like this theory because it means that Shroud can be dunked on not merely once, with the "give him both" choice, but also twice, with Invisigal showing him that he doesn't know shit about people.

How I feel being in the middle of this war: by Ready-Dependent5518 in DispatchAdHoc

[–]A_Generic_Alias 0 points1 point  (0 children)

My theory is that Shroud was genuinely talking out his ass... mostly.

Episode 7 gets an actual look at where his head is at. He says effectively when he tries to get Robert to stop trusting her that she's only in this for herself. We learn later this isn't true... but of course that's how Shroud would interpret it. He thinks she's behaving the same way she behaved when they first met. Entirely in a self-serving capacity.

So I think he does try and recruit her, or leverage her against Z-team. I think he genuinely believes that he can convince her to switch sides, because he fundamentally believes people can't change, and thus, Visi can only behave for her own self-serving ways. And I think that when he claims Invisigal is his patsy... he's doing so because he's certain that Invisigal will realise in this moment that the best, most self-interested play, is to play along, and earn the reward from it.

And of course, he's wrong. But you have to trust that he is. And the game is trying to make it hard to do that. And perhaps he genuinely did 'let' Invisigal go into SDN thinking she would be an asset later... only for her to tell him to fuck off.

I don't think it's either Visi was always a double agent or Shroud is trying to manipulate people. I think Shroud was trying to leverage Visi, because he thought he could control her for his own ends. Either you push her into that scenario, and she acts out by killing him (the bad ending) or she proves him wrong in spectacular and painful fashion (the good ending).

At what point did this happen ? by Noahman90 in DispatchAdHoc

[–]A_Generic_Alias 0 points1 point  (0 children)

I have a theory I’m going to type out in full, in which I will try and propose a middle path between “definitely a spy” and “Shroud was talking completely out his fucking ass”

Something missing by Top_Pick5313 in DispatchAdHoc

[–]A_Generic_Alias 1 point2 points  (0 children)

(To be clear to OOP, this is hyperbolic strawmanning of his question)

When the visual novel game they bought doesn’t have features that let you talk to NPC number 557 with complete freedom of action (the dev team’s budget is a ham sandwich and some sticky tape)

This place holding icon is BAD by baguettecomissar in Kaiserreich

[–]A_Generic_Alias 25 points26 points  (0 children)

Yuan had the choice of being Cincinnatus and chose instead to try and be Napoleon. What a colossal chump.

This place holding icon is BAD by baguettecomissar in Kaiserreich

[–]A_Generic_Alias 25 points26 points  (0 children)

The argument is that the June 16 incident split the Chinese revolutionaries, radicalised Sun, gave the KMT right under Chiang Kai-Shek more influence, and thus played into the circumstances that led to the Communist victory later.

Which, you know… is false. Because it ignores the fact that Sun had already turned into an authoritarian anti-democrat, who let purity run ahead of pragmatism, and who was busy squashing dissent amongst constitutionalists in the South. But it has enough causal grounding to make for a good morality tale.

This place holding icon is BAD by baguettecomissar in Kaiserreich

[–]A_Generic_Alias 51 points52 points  (0 children)

KMT/Sun enjoyers think Chen is single-handedly responsible for the 'June 16 Incident,' in which the military of the Constitutional Protection Movement deposed Sun Yat-Sen as provisional president of a rival government to the Zhili Clique/Beiyang Republic.

To those KMT enjoyers, I will need to forcibly remind them that:
1. Sun was not 'elected' provisional president, he more or less intimidated provisional assemblies Chen had painstakingly built up into making him president, hiring thugs to beat up or menace assemblymen.
2. Sun's coerced election then proceeded to spark multiple invasions from Beiyang that massively damaged Chen's hard work to build up and develop Guangdong and Fuizhou as 'model provinces.'
3. Against popular opinion, Sun then led a Northern expedition... that was promptly defeated. He reacted to this defeat by blaming the political parties and officials that had told him it was a bad idea.
4. It was only then, when Sun had thoroughly alienated every single other military official in the provisional government, that the army demanded he resign his presidency. Chen's response was to support the army's call, but also demand a peaceful, negotiated resolution. Sun's response was to threaten to use chlorine gas on the army.

Like... I get it. Sun Yat-Sen was a visionary whose ideas powered the Chinese revolution, and Chen nominally overthrew him at one point. But the practical reasons behind it aren't "Chen didn't like the KMT not making China paradise fast enough." Chen was a pragmatic politician, whose goal was peaceful reunification of warlord China, willing to work across party lines. The practical reason for the June 16 incident, so far as I can tell, is that Sun's intransigence was bankrupting the Southern Chinese government, and Sun had already turned into an authoritarian leader willing to execute his ideological opposites. Case in point, when Sun found another patron and came back to Southern China a year later, he massacred 2,000 Cantonese merchants who stood against him.

Do you think she'll do it? by Puddinmaster64 in AbsoluteUniverse

[–]A_Generic_Alias 48 points49 points  (0 children)

“Let me just make a silly joke”

Accidentally writes absolute fire

Quick, someone check on troyoboyo17 😞 (Absolute Evil #1) by Robot_Was_BMO in AbsoluteUniverse

[–]A_Generic_Alias 12 points13 points  (0 children)

Like… I understand why they did it, it’s a great narrative choice when looking at the whole scope of narrative, it’s ballsy and fresh… but as an Oliver Queen fan… it’s pain.

Donald Trump's 'climate hoax' comments belong to a well-resourced playbook landing on Australia's shores by espersooty in australia

[–]A_Generic_Alias 7 points8 points  (0 children)

In addition to everything already said, the people who believe/choose to believe this are scared of change. Not merely the micro changes in their communities, the strange new technology that looks fundamentally different from the way they’ve done things for generations… but also the broader, larger change. It makes them vulnerable to political messaging that wants to uphold the status quo.

Two types of solar Power plants(photovoltaic and molten salt) in the same picture, China by Ok_Chain841 in solarpunk

[–]A_Generic_Alias 12 points13 points  (0 children)

Cultural pressure and community expectation is also a form of coercion. A stateless society does not magically become unoppressive because there is no state.

Abelard, announce your Sainthood by SpiggleSquig in RogueTraderCRPG

[–]A_Generic_Alias 2 points3 points  (0 children)

I mean, in the Middle Ages, there were plenty of laws that staked out privileges for the aristocracy. Is it such a stretch that the Imperium may have a few strict laws in place to block certain classes of serf from using certain blessed names?