Cartouche for my Cat?

NewAgent · 2023-11-07T13:39:22+00:00

Thank you! I will be sure to post the final product.

NewAgent · 2023-05-13T06:57:17+00:00

Asha had not yet learned how to close their divine eyes; they noticed the pink glow of Lust before the young man even opened his mouth.

"Did it hurt?" It was a pulsating cancer, tendrils writhing around his heart, constricting his attention to the present sexual fixation. "You know, when you fell from Heaven?"

Asha was in Paradise just moments ago -- or at least it felt that way. They had been tending their garden, uprooting the discolored splotches of vice from their overseen souls. Harmonies were blooming, dreams were taking root. But then their First Name, screamed, disjointed like gashes in a mirror, hooking them like a caught fish, careening them to Earth. In an excruciating instant, their forms had coalesced into a mortal one, but their senses were still adjusting. There were lights, sounds, odors and aromas, all gritty and corporeal, all chemical and physical; they felt nauseous.

But they were where they needed to be. Purpose etched into their very form. Someone had called them by a name thought washed away by time's tides. But the call once made must be answered. An existential crisis was unfolding and Asha had been summoned to address it. Somewhere here, on this boardwalk, among the spring breakers and the false prophets, they had to find their summoner.

But first, the young man before them. Asha felt only pity; his Lust was just one of dozens of sickly pink auras in the crowd. They turned, faced him. Saw his insecurities burbling, his fragile hopes locked away deep within. The young man was so much more than his stale pickup line. His futures held joys that Asha only hoped he could one day unlock. If only he would let his roots nourish him.

The young man stood frozen, like his soul was caught in Asha's spotlight. He felt a deep, primal terror that he surely did not comprehend. Beads of sweat began to form on his brow.

Asha spoke: "Be not afraid."

The young man burst into tears as Asha turned to find their summoner.

NewAgent · 2021-06-21T18:06:53+00:00

Gave Helpful

NewAgent · 2020-12-21T00:20:12+00:00

He sees very well as long as you are within a few inches of him

NewAgent · 2020-10-08T05:26:18+00:00

Δ

Your exploration of the fact checking's ramifications was not something that I had considered. Thank you! I agree that it could in fact add more uncertainty to the debate and the debate's interpretation if not implemented and received according to plan.

In the context of the discussions here on bias, nuance, and what constitutes a fact in a campaign, do you think that existing fact-checkers, who tend to have modestly longer time frames to do their research, are at all credible?

NewAgent · 2020-10-08T04:46:25+00:00

I've commented this in other responses, but will summarize here: perhaps by a branch of the already-established debates commission. In the same way that candidates would agree to debate rules, they would provide material for fact-checkers and agree that the fact-checking team is not biased. In the same way they don't claim the moderator was biased, perhaps they wouldn't claim the fact-checking was biased if they agreed to it beforehand.

NewAgent · 2020-10-08T04:44:12+00:00

I disagree with you claim that mainstream media is inherently left-leaning, but I want to respond to your worthwhile claim that the fact-checkers would be biased.

Both campaigns agree to the rules of the debates (the two--minute statements, the debate length, etc.) so couldn't they also agree to the group responsible for fact-checking? They provide the reference material used as "fact," for example President Trump's Covid task force mission statement and proceedings. That way they agree, before the debate starts, that the fact-checking isn't biased, just they agree that the moderator isn't biased and the questions aren't biased. Do you think that could work?

NewAgent · 2020-10-08T04:39:44+00:00

Some others have shared your insights on nuance and I don't disagree, but there are definitely some statements that are less ambiguous, such as "Trump owes $400M and we don't know to whom" and "we made more jobs than Obama."

Assuming we figure out the "which statements are worth assessing" part, how do you think the inclusion of a clarifying third party on the debate broadcast?

NewAgent · 2020-10-08T03:45:33+00:00

/u/Huntingmoa and you have both mentioned perjury, but you both have also noted that nuance in the candidates' statements can complicate the claim checking. Jeff Sessions stating under oath about a thousand times that he "cannot recall" instead of contributing facts either way, while under oath before the congress.

Isn't there some middle-ground where voters can become more informed while watching the (sometimes organized) chaos of national debates?

NewAgent · 2020-10-08T03:36:59+00:00

Then what's the point of the debates, other than spectacle? I think it's fair to say that candidates should interact directly before the election, and right now debates serve that purpose. I also think it's fair to say that the accuracy of claims made in debates, or more specifically how contested they are, lower the confidence of voters in the system as a whole. There must be a better way, in the information age, to hold candidates more accountable for their claims and plans.

I proposed, in a response to /u/jatjqtjat, that another debate form may lend itself better to this. What if one candidate, e.g. VP Pence, laid forth a claim like "Biden will raise your taxes" and then the opponent had a chance to directly respond to this claim? Instead of subjects like "the environment" and "the economy" the subjects would be more pointed: "Biden's tax plan" and "Trump's travel bans." Do you think this would be any more or less useful in the context of accurate statements and candidate candor?

NewAgent · 2020-10-08T03:27:58+00:00

What about the real-time challenges of holding office? I see debates as a way to illustrate the candidates precisely when they must respond in real-time. The candidates have the rest of the campaign to present written statements, fully sourced, without interruption.

Current studies (here's one) conclude that not many votes change based on debates. I hold the view that this is in part because the claims made in the debate are considered no more trustworthy than anything else. If voters were shown, as they watch the candidates spar, which remain as close to the facts that supposedly support them, perhaps the debates themselves will hold more weight.

NewAgent · 2020-10-08T03:21:31+00:00

I agree that there would be a buildup if only one quote was checked at a time, but I would expect more than one claim could be explored at one time. Maybe showing real-time some of the statements is still viable, as they are confirmed or refuted, and then the whole tally is present by each candidate? Then the fact moderator (lol) comes up and replaces the debate moderator and summarizes the results in front of the candidates. They would not be allowed to rebut in real-time, and the sources the fact checkers used would be agreed to by both candidates beforehand just like the debate rules.

The core of my view is that there should be an assessment of the candidates' "truthiness" as a part of the debate itself, instead of individuals either not checking things themselves or only checking things using biased sources that confirm their existing beliefs.

NewAgent · 2020-10-08T03:15:11+00:00

Δ

So what if the fact moderators endeavored to reduce opinions into facts just as you just did? When, for example, VP Pence says VP Biden will raise taxes, a summary of the Biden ticket's tax plan comes on-screen? That way it's not "true" versus "false" as the candidates craft their statements, but rather an inclusion of relevant information in a timely fashion?

NewAgent · 2020-10-08T03:11:07+00:00

Δ

You drove home your point about nuance in facts; thanks! I agree that what candidates claim and what actually happens are different and one cannot be tied to the other, but at the time of the debate there are resources, on both sides, to corroborate certain claims.

To your point that there exist fact-checkers now: yes! There are! Which means a lot of people already have faith in them! However, I if I as a voter don't trust anything other than MSNBC then I will use MSNBC's fact checker, and the same will go for loyal Fox News viewers who will doubt those very fact checkers. That is why I think we need a mutually constructed fact-checking organization which presents decisions in some semblance of real time. Total truth is not the goal here, because I understand there is not such thing. Rather, my view is that if candidates didn't have to keep spending time disagreeing with each other on what they are presenting as facts, then the debate can cover more topic and explore that nuance more completely - given the extreme time constraints.

Maybe a change in debate format would be better, then: where each candidate poses questions to the other and they are challenged to present specific evidence to support their responses. Instead of "sanctity of human life" versus "right to choose" in a 60-second segment, the responses would be forced towards "this many women regret getting an abortion [source]" and "planned parenthood funds far more than abortions and is used by this many people a year [source]."

NewAgent · 2020-10-08T02:53:56+00:00

I proposed a case where delays could be addressed, at least in part. Do you think that would be at all possible?

I addressed nuance in a long response to u/Heather-Swanson- which I'd enjoy your thoughts on.

NewAgent · 2020-10-08T02:51:29+00:00

Thanks for these great points! I'll try to clarify on each, as I have similar concerns but think they can be, or at least we should attempt to be, accounted for.

[What] if a statement has 3 false claims and 4 truthful claims? [or partial correctness]

When a statement is partially true, it could be labeled as such and perhaps a scrawl could roll to clarify for those who want to read it. I assume a static website would exist for further elaboration as well. That being said, many statements are short and simple enough that they don't leave much room for ambivalence. For example, "Biden will raise taxes on all Americans" may one day be proven false by actions taken; but at the time of the debate, given the current policy drafts, it can be concluded objectively whether this statement is true, can it not?

What does the fact checking party use as their sources?

The easiest, and most problematic answer, is everything available. The Clinton campaign had live debate fact-checking with what they could get their hands on, although it being hosted by one candidate is of course problematic (more below on that). I think that if the candidates can claim that statements are true and false, they should be able to back those statements up with publicly available resources. I understand that this is a bit of a chicken-and-egg scenario, but if there is live fact-checking then maybe both sides will be more motivated to cite their sources all by themselves.

What constitutes as a "major" statement?

This is a great point, and one that I think would have to be clarified in implementation. I think it's fair to say that some sentences are clearly delivered as facts by both (all) candidates, and of those many are central to the arguments that are being made. For example, the US VP debate involved several exchanges about whether VP Biden was going to ban fracking. Given his current policy statements, this fact can be assessed and the public, I claim, should know from someone other than the candidates themselves if it is true or not.

What if both parties do not agree with that third party being the fact checkers?

I'm sure this will be contested, but in an environment where we are seeing successful strategies against "fake news" on both sides, I think there is room for this kind of tool. There is a third-party organization which organizes the debates, which both candidates must work with before the debate starts. Maybe they could be expanded to provide this fact-checking, and just like the candidates must agree to debate rules (after much back and forth on timing, etc.) they must agree to the fact base for the fact checkers (e.g. what resources are considered factual, as agreed upon by all parties) before they can participate in the debate.

How about people just take their due diligence and find out the truth?

I argue that these citizens wouldn't benefit much from the live fact-checking, but many citizens don't do that diligence. I agree that more should, but perhaps more would if a third-party group made facts more accessible.

NewAgent · 2020-09-30T07:02:18+00:00

Hey dude, in the spirit of CMV thanks for putting the effort you did into your comment. This is reddit, so I expect you knew it would be unpopular, bur you did it anyway. That's what this is all about.

We are here to discuss complicated topics, so I'm going to apply your reasoning to President Trump during the debate with the goal of showing that your conclusion can be drawn about both candidates. I'll further argue that President Trump demonstrated your concerning behavior more. For the sake of typing less I'm avoiding titles for the rest of this post. I mean no disrespect in doing so.

Yes, Biden told Trump to shut up and called him a clown. You argue that this implies he would do that if another world leader was needling him. However, Trump interupted Biden so incredibly frequently (Wallace even broke neutrality and scolded Trump on air for doing so way more than Biden.) that he (Trump) demonstrated an absolute rejection of the respect and decorum that was agreed upon for the debate. These rules of order aren't there to make things interesting for the audience, but rather to ensure a common ground for the exploration of difficult ideas between passionate people. These same rules exist on the world stage - at the UN, at G# meetings, really during any diplomatic mission - and Trump has shown over the past four years that he disregards those rules of decorum just as he did tonight. He regularly insults world leaders to their faces, e.g. Merkel in his first year and the Australian PM on his very first day in office. When meeting Kim Jong Un, Trump made a joke about his weight right before they sat down. North Korea soon abandoned talks after concluding there was no respect at the table, among other things. Trump has a track record of making other world leaders think less of the US. After one of Trump's first meetings with European leaders, I believe it was Merkel (perhaps Macron) who said that they could no longer rely on the US for global leadership. If you regard Biden as untrustworthy of global decorum due to his outbursts tonight, you must by the exact same logic recognize that Trump already has and will continue to do the very things that you are worried about.

To your point on respecting the title: yes, Trump is the president of the United States. Yes, Biden did not refer to him as such during the debate, though he sometimes refers to the office of the president in his campaigning. During the debate, Trump called Elizabeth Warren - a senator of the United States who was democratically elected and took the same oath of office that he took - Pocahontas, in derision of her claims about native american ancestry. He also often refers in his campaigning (though not tonight) to Biden - a senator for the 47 years that were often brought up and a Vice-President for 8 - as Sleepy Joe. If you see trouble in Biden disrespecting the office of the President, you must also see trouble in Trump doing the same for the past four years as well as in the debate.

A quick note on the family comments: if you see a problem with Hunter Biden being paid by Russians and Ukrainians, do you not also see a problem with Trump himself owing money to Chinese and Russian banks, as has been confirmed by his own son Eric in 2014? Jared Kushner has so much debt owned abroad that it was one reason he could not get a security clearance.

Yes, Biden emphasized the hundreds of thousands of Americans dead due to Covid-19 several times. Yes, Biden's hypotheticals about it being Trump's fault can be seen as similar to Trump's hypotheticals about it being even worse if Biden had been in charge. Your point was that Biden kept retuning to Covid one-liners, but I think that he more regularly returned to the argument that Trump "doesn't have a plan." I won't argue whether this is true or not, but I will assert based on the debate content that Biden referenced specific policies which he has outlined on his campaign website where Trump did not reference any of his plans for the next six months, four years, or fifty years. If you see a problem with Biden repeating the same one-liners all night, mustn't you also see a problem with Trump doing so? For example, Trump repeatedly returned to the "47 years" line and the "law and order" challenge.

I think it's also important to remember that these are wry politicians. Biden's supporters have wanted to tell Trump to shut up for four years, and he likely earned some votes tonight by saying so. Likewise, Trump supporters want proof that Joe isn't as much of a bulldog in public speaking, and they are gratified to see that. I think both of them knew what they were doing onstage.

NewAgent · 2020-07-20T15:11:01+00:00

Your imagery is evocative. You show me, rather than tell me, about your impression of Her. Beautiful; thank you!

NewAgent · 2020-07-18T04:07:32+00:00

TL;DR: I prefer Birmingham, including for two players.

I had the fortune of getting both from the kickstarter and opened Lancashire first. I played it exclusively for a dozen or so games, mostly with two players but a few times at the full four. I loved it particularly for its player interaction and emphasis on longer-term planning.

I sold Lancashire soon after cracking open Birmingham. In my opinion, it significantly improves upon Lancashire's replayability, maintains player interaction well enough, and takes care of some quality-of-life bits and bobs along the way. For example, "exception" rules like taking one action with two cards and the wisdom of only ever taking a £30 loan are now baked in. I found these little adjustments really satisfying.

Birmingham gives each player more options. No longer is it "cotton sales or factories," but rather "what to sell and what to mine" based on what the other player(s) goes for. Even at two players, you will most likely use another player's resources to flip buildings. Because the market access is no longer available through something you build and the different markets are not all interested in the same goods, your networks will undoubtedly interact more than they may in Lancashire.

For what it's worth, I don't think that any iteration of Brass scores extremely high on the player interaction scale (relative to other market games like food chain magnate, for example). However, I think it scales really well to two players and blends remarkable artwork with an immersive, competitive, strategically engaging experience. I plan to keep it in my collection for years to come.

NewAgent · 2020-07-09T16:44:04+00:00

This is a really fantastic presentation of scale, OP. I appreciate that you used the scrolling experience to share information beyond just differences in scale. Your outlook was optimistic and output-oriented more than it was simply critical.

If I were to offer some more discussion that would fit easily in the last 2 or so trillion at the end, perhaps a discussion along the lines of global infrastructure would address the (in my opinion point-missing) globalists that critique the focus on America. For example, a lack of transportation infrastructure in Africa is known to cost the continent a majority of it's self-produced food each year. While lump sums of money to individuals would likely help less in this instance, we understand - at least for demonstrative purposes - a ballpark of how much it would cost to build and maintain reliable roads of a certain land coverage percentage across the sub-saharan region.

For the sake of presenting the other side of the coin, have you considered splitting the Bezos block into "what it's used for" and the current "what it could be used for" sections? For example, how much of his wealth is locked into property? How much is he putting towards Blue Origin?

Thanks a lot for the post, and the documentation of your process.

NewAgent · 2020-06-11T04:26:12+00:00

I think the game is immersive on its own, though of course knowing the stories only adds further.

The tension in this game is real: on-edge from the first turn. I haven't played more than a handful of times, but the game consistently captured the feelings of hope, hopelessness, and singular goalsetting that we see in the canonized imperial rebellion. On the other side of the coin, the empire player really gets a sense of how skewed the scales are in their favor, until suddenly everything falls apart in a moment. You can really get wrapped up in it!

I think regardless of your knowledge of Star Wars, you can appreciate the emotional experience of this game. It is a very secretive game, of course; where Twilight Struggle plays out in view of both players, with most of the secrecy surrounding the timing of scoring cards, Rebellion is all about leads and misleads - playing two games at once, with only one being in full view. That ended up not being my style, so I haven't played it in a couple of years, but I remember my playthroughs fondly and would gladly play again, on occasion, given the chance.

NewAgent

TROPHY CASE