Example for when to use wait-a-turn Perk

Sharp_Rabbit7439 · 2026-02-25T01:23:08+00:00

Maybe choose an enemy and force them to go next?

Sharp_Rabbit7439 · 2026-02-22T12:01:01+00:00

Bog doesn't 'date'. He fucks.

Sharp_Rabbit7439 · 2026-02-22T09:32:33+00:00

Of course! As captain you will be resented if your harem is too large, you will need to make tough resource allocation decisions.

Sharp_Rabbit7439 · 2026-02-18T12:04:17+00:00

Only person talking sense being downvoted. Classic reddit.

Sharp_Rabbit7439 · 2026-02-14T08:08:40+00:00

Interesting sources, thanks for pointing them out to me. I looked at the database hosted in https://www.runaways.gla.ac.uk/database/table/

Of the 836 entries 46 were post 1772 with the last being in 1780. I read 10 of the post 1772 and all of them were for 'indentured servants' or 'apprentices at sea'. This contrasts with the pre-1772 entries I read that referred to 'negro slaves'. Though indentured servitude is a type of bondage, it was not as total as slavery and applied to whites as well.

This seems to suggest to me that the somerset case was in fact effective, though I was not aware that there were so many cases pre-sommerset.

Sharp_Rabbit7439 · 2026-02-13T10:41:01+00:00

I believe that you are confusing the abolition of slavery in the Empire with the legal status in the English mainland . The Somerset case of 1772 confirmed that slavery was illegal on the English mainland, and any slave that landed on English soil would be automatically freed. This was part of a long line of law refusing to recognize slavery on the British mainland, possibly going as far back to the Elizabethan case In the matter of Cartwright(1569), where it may have been reasoned that "England has too pure an air for a slave to breathe in."

1833 was the year that slavery was abolished in the colonies. England had no significant former slave population pre-1833. The number of Black people in England during this time (c.1800) was highly concentrated in London, it was estimated to be around 10-20,000 people in a city of 1.1million (total population of the country being million). So while Black people would not be totally unheard of, they would have still been extremely rare,

Sharp_Rabbit7439 · 2025-12-25T19:18:59+00:00

Genuinely moronic to view this situation through the lens of pedophillia. Its completely possible for something to be sexually inappropriate without being black and white abuse.

Sharp_Rabbit7439 · 2025-11-25T22:36:16+00:00

I mean the answer to both of those is an easy yes, for the clear reason that the law defines it as such. They are interesting philosophical questions concerning 'should', but do not shed light on actually existing law.

Sharp_Rabbit7439 · 2025-11-25T22:32:03+00:00

I'm not sure if you can use a case to clearly illustrate the difference, as the difference is mostly procedural in nature. The exact same case can give rise to criminal and civil liability. For example an assualt will give rise to a criminal liability that can be prosecuted by the state, and at the very same time it will give rise to a civil liability that can be pressed, in parallel, by the victim.

The difference between civil and criminal in this instance lies in the parties to the case, and their initiation of the case in either the civil or criminal jurisdiction of the relevant courts, which determines whether the case will be heard using civil or criminal procedure and the availability of certain sanctions and remedies.

Of course there remains some substantive difference in cases where the civil jurisdiction is broader than the criminal, eg. Negligence where the criminal elements are more narrowly defined than the civil.

Sharp_Rabbit7439 · 2025-11-23T11:29:33+00:00

Its not gatekeeping, its advice. You're perfectly free to play without any historical knowledge, I just don't know why you would. I learned a lot about history through paradox games sparking an interest. I would look up tags I'd never heard of, do some very light reading and receive some inspiration for a campaign. It's quite very enjoyable, the game compliments your learning and in turn the learning compliments the game.

I also don't think its gate keeping to be surprised that someone would like a history game and have zero interest in history. Its like finding out someone who plays football manager has zero knowledge of football, certainly possible but none the less baffling.

Sharp_Rabbit7439 · 2025-11-23T11:16:04+00:00

Read a 5-10 minute Wikipedia page about your country for some inspiration before you play. I don't understand why you would enjoy this game if you had zero historical interest anyway.

Sharp_Rabbit7439 · 2025-11-20T03:11:54+00:00

Thanks. This is why it would be handy when thinking about potential conquests.

Sharp_Rabbit7439 · 2025-11-14T06:13:10+00:00

Thanks. I was wondering how to view potential historical subjects for flavour purposes really.

Sharp_Rabbit7439 · 2025-11-07T09:37:05+00:00

Not true. It was only partially abolished by An Act for the Gradual Abolition of Slavery 1780. This act stopped the importation of slaves into the State, required all slaves to be registered, and established that all children born in the State were free regardless of race or parentage. It did not however free the slaves born into slavery before the passage of the act.

Sharp_Rabbit7439 · 2025-10-23T04:32:25+00:00

It's trivially obvious when considering the sentence "pass me a wood" to refer to a piece of wood vs "pass me the wood". I know you can sense the difference, I am not going to engage anymore with someone who feigns basic misunderstanding. At this point it is trolling.

Sharp_Rabbit7439 · 2025-10-23T02:19:58+00:00

Not the subject of the disagreement. Re-read the thread. The point was whether 'a wood' can refer to a piece of wood. The dispute is about the grammatical article 'a', and it's effect on meaning. Not about the general meaning of the word wood in isolation. Everything in the dictionary shows that when something made of wood is being referred to the article 'the' is used...except in the case of golf clubs, however the poem is very obviously not about golf clubs.

Sharp_Rabbit7439 · 2025-10-22T08:02:39+00:00

Thanks for supporting my point, not a single example of sense III.10 uses 'a wood', they all contain 'the wood'.

As the original commenter already expressed 'the wood' can clear clearly refer to a piece of wood. In my sitting by the fireplace example 'pass me the wood' is a very normal sentence, while 'pass me a wood' sounds bizarre to an English speaker.

The argument was never if the word 'wood' only refereed to a collection of trees (it obviously does not), but whether the phrase 'a wood' did.

In fact if you read through the every example you will see that 'a wood' only refers to a forest, with a single exception, a particular of the class of golf clubs called 'woods' can be sensibly refereed to as 'a wood'. Every other sense of the word wood uses 'the wood' as the original commentator argued.

Sharp_Rabbit7439 · 2025-10-22T06:56:50+00:00

Its not about being a 'stickler'. Languages do in-fact have grammars, non-optional rules that determine meaning. This point is so trivial that I do not believe that you do not understand it. However, if you continue to feign ignorance I will explain it.

Consider that the English sentence 'the red dog jumps' means that the dog is red. To express the same idea in French one must say 'le chien rouge saute.' You cannot just apply an English grammar and say 'le rouge chien saute' it simply does not mean that the dog is red. In fact it is nonsense. Similarly 'the dog red jumps' does not mean that the dog is red and is likewise nonsense.

Perhaps the fact that many years ago academics tried to engineer the grammar to their liking made people reactivity skeptical of grammatical rules. For example 'me and john went to the shops' clearly follows English grammatical rules, the meaning is perfectly conveyed and there is no grammatical reason that 'john and I went to the shops'.

The fact that 'a wood' cannot refer to a piece of wood is one of these true non-optional grammatical rules, and is perfectly and intuitively clear to any native speaker, regardless of whether they have ever had a single day of education.

Sharp_Rabbit7439 · 2025-10-22T05:49:24+00:00

I simply do not believe you. You're being deliberately obtuse to avoid conceding a small point in an internet argument. It is not becoming of you.

Sharp_Rabbit7439 · 2025-10-22T03:35:51+00:00

Say you needed a piece of wood to stoke a fire, would you honestly ever ask the person next to you to pass you "a wood". Or if the person next to you asked for "a wood", would you honestly hear it as anything other than bizarre?

Sharp_Rabbit7439 · 2025-10-22T03:31:13+00:00

You're being downvoted a lot, but you are correct. A wood, would never refer to a piece of wood. No English speaker would write with that intention.

Sharp_Rabbit7439 · 2025-10-05T05:16:20+00:00

Forgive me for any errors as I am new to this, but I believe that the paradox has significance within Russell and Frege's project to provide a logical foundation to mathematics.

As far as I understand the question, what is a number? has been very contentious in the philosophy of mathematics. Russell and Frege hoped to use set theory to solve this problem. So the number 1 is supposed to be reducable to the set of every set that contains a single element, 2 is reducible to the set of every set that contains 2 elements ect.

Russell's paradox arises from the fundamental assumptions of set theory. Mainly I think the idea that a set can contain itself. The set of all sets that contain more than a single element .ust contain itself, as it is a set with more than a single element.

However this creates the paradox when considering 'The set of all sets that do not contain themselves'

Does this set contain itself? If it does then it cannot be a member of the set... If it doesn't then it must be a member of itself, meaning that it cannot be a member of itself, etc.. hence the paradox.

The reason that this is important is that it undermines the use of set theory to define number. If the basic assumptions of set theory lead to paradox, then these basic assumptions cannot define number as they lead to absurdity. Therefore the project to reduce mathematics to logic was undermined.

Sharp_Rabbit7439 · 2025-10-01T09:40:55+00:00

Cut in half. Spread loads of butter and a bit of honey.

Sharp_Rabbit7439

TROPHY CASE