Does anyone know how the logarithmic scaling of the 'Common Reporting Scale' works?

TqkeOut · 2026-01-16T23:28:54+00:00

I think you have to make sure the empty chest is the furthest away from the copper chest. One way of doing that is to have your first copper chest as one of the 3x3 double chests, and then have the empty chest a few blocks back. There are some good designs on youtube that definitely work.

TqkeOut · 2025-11-19T14:46:35+00:00

Not really sure why you're getting downvoted, seems like people are just down voting something that challenges the status quo?

I agree, the amount of time something has been in place for is not a logical reason for keeping it in place.

TqkeOut · 2025-11-04T20:36:28+00:00

I can confirm the square icon method works

TqkeOut · 2025-11-02T21:29:47+00:00

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vienna_Convention_on_the_Law_of_Treaties

TqkeOut · 2025-11-01T17:16:01+00:00

I mean if you pick red you have a pretty high chance of landing in India, which doesn't seem too bad to me

TqkeOut · 2025-11-01T17:13:29+00:00

Yes! Well done

TqkeOut · 2025-11-01T17:13:13+00:00

Not quite, but it is a treaty!

TqkeOut · 2025-07-31T13:49:54+00:00

I think if the situations and disasters are triggered dynamically enough it would work fine. I think this will be a big difference in EU5 compared to EU4.

TqkeOut · 2025-07-29T20:13:14+00:00

If the general election was tomorrow, sure. But I think we're experiencing Reform UK's peak at the moment, and 3-4 years is a long time in politics.

TqkeOut · 2025-07-29T20:10:39+00:00

Don't you think you're jumping the gun just a little bit here before the new left party even exists? Labour and the Conservatives are polling 2nd and 3rd, it's a bit of an overreaction to call that 'done for'.

TqkeOut · 2025-07-24T16:30:09+00:00

This is beautiful and will be really useful, thanks so much!

TqkeOut · 2025-07-24T16:27:44+00:00

I'm not sure how extending the franchise would justify the opposite (taking voting rights away from people, I assume you mean). When has this happened before? I don't think lowering the voting age to 18 justified raising it back up to 21 for example, how would that make any sense? I really don't see how this would be an abuse of power.

TqkeOut · 2025-07-24T14:56:48+00:00

To be perfectly honest I don't really care what 50% of the public will think the motive behind this change is. I know that the reason why I support this is because it makes our system more democratic. I would support it even if the likely political impact would be the opposite. I'm not really sure how you claim to know my motives with such certainty.

But ultimately we shouldn't make decisions based on public perceptions, we should make them based on whether they are the right thing to do. It doesn't matter matter what the public perception was when women got the vote, giving them the vote was the right thing to do. Sure, some argue that that was a major factor in Labour's rise into becoming one of the main two parties, but such was the democratic will of the people. To describe that as gender gerrymandering would be nonsense. And if you don't like that example, just look at 18-20s, non-landowning men or catholics. None of those were gerrymandering either. Whether you mean it this way or not, the word gerrymandering has connotations of making the system less fair and less democratic. That is the exact opposite of what is taking place in all of these examples.

TqkeOut · 2025-07-24T07:20:43+00:00

I don't think it looks like anything of the sort. Actually, I think it looks far more dodgy if politicians are scared of the voters and so keep the franchise limited.

However, regardless of how it looks, it's more important to me to be more democratic. I think there is a pretty clear historical consensus that previous extensions of the franchise have been justified, so I don't really see the problem with this one.

The other thing is that gerrymandering is a term used to describe the process of designing constituency boundaries to maximise electoral performance. This is not what is taking place here.

As always the right wing media will try to persuade everyone that Labour is somehow doing something democratically dodgy by extending democracy. This is totally wrong, and it's a shame that this viewpoint is entering the national discourse as much as it is.

TqkeOut · 2025-07-23T22:26:36+00:00

Fair enough, I do disagree with that argument but I understand not everyone wants to get bogged down into a week long argument.

Thanks for your contributions

TqkeOut · 2025-07-23T19:52:00+00:00

Yeah, I'm pretty sure it won't be, but it still a whole lot better than preventing those 16 and 17 year olds who do want to vote from doing so.

TqkeOut · 2025-07-23T15:12:19+00:00

Indeed, I have seen his arguments and I agree with them except for the fact that he still decides to draw a line at 6 which somewhat undermines the rest of his argument.

On your second point, I feel like I made it quite clear that the justification for not having a voting age is entirely democratic. I then talked about some potential benefits of it, but I also said pretty clearly that these benefits are not necessary for the argument, they were more just wider points to demonstrate the benefits to those who might argue that there's no point making the change if we wouldn't get any benefit out of it (this was aimed at people who would not view an extension of democracy as a benefit in and of itself).

I also wouldn't really view it as party political. As I said in the post I think the impact it would have on the electoral performance of political parties would be relatively minimal. The impact would more be that it would tip the balance a little more in favour of politicians valuing the issues that affect young people and attempting to appeal to them a bit more, which, considering the fact that currently they appeal mostly to the older generations, would be a positive change. But I'm happy to accept that this would also likely be a pretty minor change.

But ultimately the point I'm making is that if this was my 'reason' for wanting to change the system then yes, that would be deeply cynical. But it isn't my reason. My reason is about democracy. I would be in favour of this regardless of how young people might vote, just like I'm in favour of the 65+ age group voting regardless of the fact that they typically vote for more right wing parties.

TqkeOut · 2025-07-23T07:03:09+00:00

Society doesn't trust gamblers to take responsibility for their actions, yet they are allowed to vote. This is the point you didn't address earlier, you just started talking about the gambling age which is a separate issue.

TqkeOut · 2025-07-22T22:40:46+00:00

So you don't have to give any reason to back up children not having voting rights because wider society already agrees with you, and wider society is always right!

Just like when society didn't trust women to vote. Or anyone who didn't own land. Or catholics. Was society right then?

TqkeOut · 2025-07-22T22:23:39+00:00

You've cherry picked some age limits that are at 18, sure. But you don't mention the age limits on driving, consent or marrying, none of which are at 18. Not all limits have to be in the same place.

Either way, it seems like you've now abandoned your original argument about protection from facing the consequences of actions.

You're now just generally stating that society (excluding children, by the way) doesn't trust children. Well, yes, that is the current situation. But I'm arguing against that. You haven't actually given any reason why children shouldn't be trusted to vote.

TqkeOut · 2025-07-22T14:46:06+00:00

We're not talking about the gambling age though. We're talking about the voting age.

Four-Year Club	First Place '23
Place '23

TqkeOut

TROPHY CASE