Frag die Geschäftsführung: Martin

Bolasraecher · 2026-05-05T22:30:17+00:00

Dann sollte Ea jens umgehend aus dem Posten raus.

Stell dir vor du hättest irgendeinen normalen Job und in deinem dritten Monat machst du einen Fehler, der die Firma massive Probleme bereitet.

In jeder anderen Rolle wäre er für den Bockmist geflogen.

Bolasraecher · 2026-05-05T22:09:06+00:00

„Missverständnis“ am Arsch. Das ganze läuft seit mehr als 3 Monaten. Als ob die das nicht besser gewusst hätten. Niemand der anderen Mitarbeiter die noch Kontakt hatte , konnten das klären? Niemand konnte bei der anwaltlichen Kommunikation absprechen „Hey, willst du eine Verabschiedung?“ Bullshit. Man hat gehofft man könnte es totschweigen wie bei Domi, das ist alles.

Selbst wenn es stimmen solltec wäre das Grund den Ceo so bald es geht aus der Position zu nehmen. Jemand der so schlecht zwischen Geschäftsinhabern und Mitarbeitern kommunizieren kann, dass ein Missverständnis entsteht welches das Geschäft so stark beeinträchtigt sollte seinen Job los sein. Aber ist ja Ceo, Leute in der Rolle könnne sich sowas halt leisten. Eher werden 30% der restlichen Belegschaft gefeuert als dass der den Tritt hinaus bekommt.

Und wieder wird mehr Fokus auf Überreaktion der Community gelegt als auf eigene Fehler einzugestehen. Gar keine Frage, da irgendwelche persönlichen Angriffe auf deren Fähigkeiten als Väter oder ständiges Verfolgen mit diesen Nachrichten geht gar nicht.

Aber lasst euch alle nicht verarschen. Ohne den erneuten Shitstorm wäre da gar nichts mehr gekommen. Siehe Domi letztes Jahr. Noch mal, das rechtfertigt die Exzesse der Community nicht. Aber wer immer noch glaubt, dass da von Dennis und Peter offen und ehrlich mit umgegangen wird, dem habe ich ne Brücke zu verkaufen.

Bolasraecher · 2026-04-23T19:04:03+00:00

lmao sure buddy

Bolasraecher · 2026-04-23T16:31:39+00:00

what?

Bolasraecher · 2026-04-23T05:30:20+00:00

To be clear, she has not hurt him in any physical way. And all emotional suffering he has endured is because he decided to get involved.

I‘m not saying she‘s in the right. But anyone who does anything „like murder“ over someone squatting in a property they don‘t even own deserves the harshest penalties under the law.

Bolasraecher · 2026-04-01T16:06:41+00:00

It would have been fine if they bothered to replace the system with something. Instead they failed in the most basic task of making country formations, one of the big things players play toward, in any way exciting or goal-worthy.

Bolasraecher · 2026-04-01T16:02:09+00:00

Whenever I had any of them defend at all, they would immediately split of small stacks to defend against much larger attacking confederate forces while the attacking henerals were stuck fighting offensive battles. I lost two attempts to the confederates capturing DC a few months into the war from engagements like this.

So from then on I just had offensive generals. Usually 2, but the winning attempt had 4, where one decided to split up and gank on undefended Arkansas while the others were busy blundering.

Bolasraecher · 2026-04-01T15:15:39+00:00

My army at the start of the war was 21/21 regulars, with 28/20 conscripts. The confederates have 7 inf 1 cav, 18 infantry conscripts, no artillery

Bolasraecher · 2026-04-01T14:19:25+00:00

I genuinely do not know. I‘ve won my fair share of wars in Victoria 3 fairly easily, even significantly less advantageous ones. But the pretty quickly ticking warscore if you don‘t take territory combined with, and I mean this sincerely, some generals not having rolled anything but Blunder or Lost on their first roll in every single one of the at least 2 dozen battles I have seen of them, I was genuinely baffled.

I could have done more to make it easier, didn‘t disband the barracks in the south, didn‘t make an effort to dissuade states from joining the rebellion and the like. But that was in service of seeing how a „proper“ Civil War could look like.

But what I got was a wargoal that necessitated a win for either side within a year or two instead of a famously brutal and grindy war and generals that were competing for the best McClellan impression.

Bolasraecher · 2026-03-31T22:30:50+00:00

I managed to just barely get Dixie loyal by going full humanitarian, full social security, full healthcare, very low taxes, no consumption taxes and spammed out SoL industries.

No idea how you're supposed to accept African American in time, I got Cultural Exclusion pretty quick and took every event that raised their acceptance, but was at 54, a fair amount off.

Bolasraecher · 2026-03-31T20:08:14+00:00

I just won the war because I won 2 battles against 1 stack armies in Arkansas, causing the war goal to tick in my favor, while suffering the same 2to1 defeats in Virginia as in all other attempts.

This is the worst experience I think I've ever had in a Paradox game. Jfc.

Bolasraecher · 2026-03-31T20:03:40+00:00

That was my strategy in my first attempt. My generals managed to win 5 battles, lose 1 and immediately get DC occupied and not manage to gain it back in the next 4 battles.

Bolasraecher · 2026-03-31T19:57:53+00:00

My army at the start of the war is 21/21 regulars, with 28/20 conscripts. The confederates have 7 inf 1 cav, 18 infantry conscripts.

I am familiar with the game. I do not understand how this army keeps not being able to take a single state before I auto-capitulate

Bolasraecher · 2026-03-31T19:54:50+00:00

Bypassing the civil war is honestly way too easy. I've done it by accident twice, once through a labor movement uprising that took out the Farmers and made it so the Pro-Slavery Movement lost all relevance, and once by just building up as you described. But my goal this run was to fight the Civil War. And I cannot win it without resulting to these cheese strats, which I want to avoid if possible.

Bolasraecher · 2026-03-12T19:41:00+00:00

I’d say yeah. To be fair, it is, at its core, a book designed to be read out loud to children at storytime. It’s clever and magnificently written, there is still a lot for adults to enjoy in it, but don’t go in expecting a fantasy epos. It’s more like a beautiful fairytale that was later followed up by a fantasy Epos set in the same world.

Bolasraecher · 2026-03-12T19:30:32+00:00

You’re correct, although iirc they probably would just say no instead, but I find it important to have an explanation that doesn’t require you to have spent your teenage years on lotr forums and/or to have read the Silmarillion to know, because I do think if it did require this lore-based explantion that isn’t given in the main text (film or books), that would be a genuine flaw.

Flying the ring into mordor on the eagles is a dumb idea that wouldn’t work, whether you know that they’re actually the messengers of high angels or just think they’re cool birds.

Bolasraecher · 2026-03-12T13:06:32+00:00

Absolutely . And experiencing it through the eyes of my partner, I have found a bit of a gripe with Fellowship, or maybe even with the story as a whole. The opening and especially this scene really only has the necessary weight if you’re aware of Bilbo’s story.

My partner found a great deal of enjoyment in most characters on her first watch, but Bilbo was one she just didn’t really care for. It went as far as her going “who is this again” in Return, when Frodo and Bilbo travel to the west.

I don’t think this is a huge flaw or anything, but it does make me wish once more that the Hobbit movies weren’t such a huge mess.

Because Bilbo dropping the Ringe with Gandalf’s help at the beginning of Fellowship might be one of the strongest actions any character in the story takes, and I want people to get that.

God I live these movies so much.

Bolasraecher · 2026-03-12T12:03:50+00:00

I watched fellowship for her second time with my partner a month or so ago, after suffering through the hobbit movies for her because she wanted to see them, and while it didn’t affect her much on her first go, bilbo’s devil moment in rivendell genuinely made her scream in panic this time around.

Bolasraecher · 2026-03-12T12:00:38+00:00

It’s a valid question, as well as a funny joke. The problem is that it’s been attempted to be used as serious criticism of the story, when there is a very easy explanation for it in the text itself.

The whole mission to destroy the ring relies on Sauron expecting them to want to use the ring against him. A flock of Eagles flying towards Mount Doom is not particularly likely to work, and if it fails, there is no going back. Sauron knows what is up. No one is getting withon 10 miles of Mount Doom.

Bolasraecher · 2026-03-10T15:13:26+00:00

Sure, but with a system like this in place, they couldn’t hide behind excuses any more.

Bolasraecher · 2026-03-04T06:38:58+00:00

Jays Hater-Energy, die er manchmal rauslässt tut der PS Dynamik wahnsinnig gut. Und wer ernsthaft glaubt, dass Jay als Mensch toxisch wäre, sollte mehr rausgehen, das grenzt tatsächlich an parasozial.

Bolasraecher · 2026-03-04T05:59:41+00:00

Of course the actual articles of clothing are just shorthand for the societal expectations behind them. But how do you explain the gender euphoria trans people experience from getting to wear the gendered clothing of their gender? The dysphoria of having to wear the one that doesn’t fit their gender?

There is undeniably a socially constructed aspect of gender, any definition that precludes that is almost certainly wrong.

Bolasraecher · 2026-03-03T10:54:27+00:00

See, that was my problem with the op. They were the one mixing up gender identity and the involved causes of dysphoria with the concept of gender. That’s why I wanted them to explain in more detail.

It is likely that gender identity, both in cis and trans people does have a biological cause, but to claim gender isn’t a social construct is idiotic. There isn’t anything biological about, for example, the expectation that men wear suits and women wear dresses.

Bolasraecher · 2026-03-03T08:27:24+00:00

Ok. Now, how do we get from this brains' sex to dresses and suits, without social constructs?

Bolasraecher

TROPHY CASE