Jump to content

Orlok Tsubodai

Moderators
 View Profile  See their activity

  • Posts

    1473

  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    3

 Content Type 

Everything posted by Orlok Tsubodai

  1. Orlok Tsubodai
    I'm going to be controversial. Again. No doubt I do myself no favours, but I think it bears discussion. I would advocate we cease discussion in the Senate doc entirely. It's publicly viewable, and so information can't be hidden there, but it functions in such a manner as to limit engagement from those of us who are not senators with things said in the doc. I can see no harm in holding the conversation that would occur in the doc on thread, and advantages present in both keeping track of when comments are made chronologically and with regards to facilitating responses. Clearly, Senate votes need to be posted there, but even the explanations for the votes can be made here without any harm.
  2. Orlok Tsubodai
    @The Young Bard, I'm currently at an airport waiting to board, so am unlikely to be active for up to 12 hours, depending on how easy it is to get Wi-Fi access at the other end. Whilst I have a minute, though, I'd like to point to my senatorial record in QF14 as evidence that I should be elected where a vacancy appears - clearly I'm well suited to govern without corruption or populism.
  3. Orlok Tsubodai
    If this does turn against me further, I'd like to request that you don't let Aman wriggle his way out of a lynch next cycle, after it becomes clear he's lying. Whilst self preservation for his faction could be a motive of his, equally, he may be the inquisitor himself, in which case delaying his death by a cycle, as this seems likely to do allows him another spiking as a distinct advantage and motivation for lynching me on false pretenses.
  4. Orlok Tsubodai
    I can only presume this to be desperate self preservation from Aman. He's quite right in that I didn't burn any metals last night, but wholly wrong as to my alignment. I suspect you are a seeker, and so hoping that your death, should it occur, ought to result in my own should you be unspiked, but would request that should I survive I be seeked by any other seekers, so as to demonstrate that Aman is lying through his teeth. On the basis that you're lying to everyone to save yourself, Aman, I guess I ought to vote to save myself - I don't think you are spiked - just zealously playing for your own survival, but Aman
  5. Orlok Tsubodai
    OK, so I apologise for the lack of posting, Aman. As you know, I've been a little distracted by events off the forum, but have also been unwell today, and hence haven't responded. With regards to my actions, I quite honestly feel that we are seriously underestimating the potential of the spiked, and sought to divert attention in the near term from the faction war. I felt that the wrong lesson had been learnt from MR7, and that there was too much pressure within a faction not to lynch valuable players on limited suspicion. With regards to my posting, I have both been busy and unwell, as mentioned above, but also have chosen to observe and discuss in my faction doc. The vote change into Kipper was discussed briefly within my faction, on the chance that a soother might aid us. I had certainly planned to make a new post, but realised at 1:59am that I needed to make the change, and it hit 2:00 whilst I was editing the post. I recognise that this was wrong, and plead solely tiredness based on the hour as an excuse.
  6. Orlok Tsubodai
    Action 3: Purchase atium
  7. Orlok Tsubodai
    Maill, Aman Kipper
  8. Orlok Tsubodai
    I think we are at significant risk of letting the spiked run away with this game. By not revealing lists, we leave it to each individual faction to identify spiked. This, though, carries the not insignificant disadvantage of having the group responsible for lynching having a significant vested interest against killing their own team members unless they are certain of guilt. We need the additional scrutiny. The faction game is great fun, yes. But it will be immaterial when, in not very long, each of our factions are outnumbered by the spiked, who also have far more information than we do. Consequently, I'm going to vote on Maill. Your views on this issue only benefit the spiked.
  9. Orlok Tsubodai
    Now Kipper has already declared himself against this, but I wonder if there is an argument to be made for the revealing of faction lists. Yes, it does compromise our own factions, and remove a potential advantage in the faction war, but it simultaneously gives us an advantage against the inquisitor - rather than leaving it to a single faction to identify inconsistencies in voting patterns, instead all of us can do so. I would argue that the parallels with MR7 are not accurate. The lesson some of us seem to have learnt from MR7 is not to focus on the 'hidden faction'. Were MR7 to be replayed, this would be the correct lesson to learn. However, this is not MR7. The eliminator faction grows in strength, potentially each cycle, has the advantage of ever increasing intelligence, and the potential to hit back. It's all very well protecting our individual factions, but I fear this will devolve into a tragedy of the commons scenario - where our individual interests differ from the common interest, and by ignoring the common good, we all lose. Consequently, I am staunchly in support of a consistent focus on the inquisitor, and the revealing of faction lists.
  10. Orlok Tsubodai
    Here, I'm afraid, you conflate EU law and EU treaties. You're quite right in understanding that the UK cannot be forced into signing an EU treaty, and that the treaty does not apply unless ratified. EU laws work very differently. Once a treaty has been signed, giving power to the EU on certain issues, the member states must abide by all future laws made by the European Commission in these areas without any further influence or right to refusal, and can be taken to court by the EU for failing to abide by them. In this way, huge swathes of leglisation is now created and implemented by the European Commision without parliament having any voice on the laws, and with the EU laws having supremacy over UK law. You misinterpret me. I did not argue that leaving the EU would benefit Britain's economy. To argue that would be ridiculous. What I said was that pressure on public services might be reduced. This has nothing to do with economic benefits of leaving the EU, but rather the fact that with reduced immigration, there will be less demand for the public services, with less additional capacity being required each year to meet the growing population. House prices, as with anything, are determined by demand and supply. Although the supply of housing increases year on year, as new houses are built, it does not do so at a fast enough rate to meet the growing demand. The growing demand is caused, in no small part, by population growth. Leaving the EU, and reducing immigration will in turn reduce demand for housing, and so alleviate to some degree the imbalance between demand and supply, reducing the price increases. On Scotland, you argue that we cannot trust economic forecasts, because of the variability of data. There are a number of issues with your argument, though. The first of these is your source. KPMG is one of the 'Big Four' professional services firms, with a revenue of nearly $25bn last year, and ~175,000 employees. It is not unusual for any of the Big Four to be contracted onto a project in differing capacities. The two reports would very likely have been created by different teams working entirely independently of each other. More significantly, though, cherry-picking a single example of where there may be an issue with statistics, and extrapolating from that that all economic predictions are useless is wholly wrong. As a matter of fact, the statistics I gave earlier were taken from the Scottish government's own plans for independence - they themselves published economic plans predicated on $100 a barrel oil and EU membership. With $50 a barrel oil, and no certain membership, declaring the plans published to be unworkable is entirely fair - and has been supported by bodies including the ONS. Yes. Numbers can be manipulated to show things. But when the overwhelming majority of economic bodies are in agreement, it's highly likely that their predictions have not all been manipulated, and we can attach a significant degree of credibility to their evaluations.
  11. Orlok Tsubodai
    @The Young Bard, whilst I absolutely do not want to end up in an argument with you, some of the statements you made aren't entirely accurate. On sovereignty, whilst Britain technically did retain sovereignty, it was only in the sense that it could withdraw from the EU if it chose to do so, and only after that regain control of laws. The EU, rather than merely encouraging Britain, did have the power and legal authority to make laws that parliament had no way of refusing. If parliament choose to try to intervene, it could be taken to court in Europe, and the trade sanctions you allude to had the potential to be hugely crippling - essentially, within the EU the UK has no ability to assert it's sovereignty on issues we'd given up our veto on. Whilst I do agree with you that it is very sad that immigration led to votes to leave, and think that much of UKIPs rhetoric on the subject has been dangerous, it isn't true that 'at least as many British citizens live in Europe as the reverse' - 3 million EU citizens live in Britain, whilst 1.3 million British citizens live in Europe. Whilst immigration has hugely positive impacts on the UK's cultural diversity, and clearly benefits the UK's economy, it does out significant pressure on the UK's public services, which are facing pressure as the government seeks to balance the budget, and on the housing stock - contributing to meteoric increases in house prices well above wage levels. On Scotland, I doubt that another independence refendum is likely. Whilst Sturgeon is certainly taking advantage of the situation for political gain, Scotland has never been more economically vulnerable. The EU has confirmed that Scotland would join the back of the queue for membership - and indeed Spain may well veto membership to deter Catalonian independence, whilst the economic plans for independence made in 2014 were predicated on oil prices at $100 a barrel - prices are now around $50 a barrel, and hugely unlikely to increase in the foreseeable future. Consequently, Scotland would be left without a currency, unable to borrow unless at crippling rates, and with no choice but to cut public services to terrifying levels in order to stay afloat.
  12. Orlok Tsubodai
    I'm so sorry for the belated response, Wyrm - I had my final A-level exams this week, and with the referendum have been otherwise occupied. Action 1: Try for an heir - edit: Male = Locke, Female = Julia
  13. Orlok Tsubodai
    @Mestiv, if it's any reassurance to you, there remains a substantial proportion of the British populace who do not opposite immigration - leave won through building a coalition of those who feel discontent at globalisation and immigration, and substantial elements of the 'traditional' wing of the Conservative Party - voters who would have been far more concerned with sovereignty and self-rule than immigration. Bearing this in mind, certainly less than half, probably significantly so, of the electorate did vote based on immigration from Eastern Europe being a concern. On the question of Scotland, it becomes very interesting. The coalition between the SNP and the Scottish Greens has a very narrow majority in the Scottish Parliament, complicating the process of calling for a second referendum. Even if the Scottish Parliament calls for a second referendum, a referendum can only be the parliament in Westminster. Given the turbulence leaving the EU will cause to the economy anyway, it is likely that the government would seek to avoid further uncertainty in the economy, and without the SNP becoming part of a coalition in the event of a snap election (a possibility to confirm the mandate of the new conservative leader elected in October), I don't foresee Westminster allowing another referendum. Also complicating is Scotland's status with the EU, if it did declare independence. Scotland would not necessarily be a member of the EU automatically - with many in the EU instead saying it would have to follow the formal process if accession. This is, in turn, made difficult by the position of Spain. Spain, seeking to set an example to Catalonia (a region of Spain calling for independence) has said in the past it would block Scottish accession - all EU member states have a veto on new members joining. Finally, there is there question of whether Scotland could succeed alone. When the last referendum was held, oil prices were at close to $100 per barrel - with oil revenues contributing a significant part of the proposed budget. Now, though, oil prices have plummeted - and are expected to stay roughly around $50 a barrel. This makes presenting any argument for economic security when independent far more difficult, although it may be offset by the promise of greater growth in the single market. @STINK, I mentioned Cameron's resignation and it's implications in an edit to my first post. Personally, I believe Cameron's position was untenable after the loss - he'd have been unable to pass legislation, held hostage by a eurosceptic bloc of his MPs, and wouldn't have had credibility in the Article 50 negotiations. In my mind, though, he's made the right call with regards to staying on until October - providing a little stability whilst the more volatile, short term effects of leaving OK the markets are weathered.
  14. Orlok Tsubodai
    There has been underlying discontent in Britain against the EU for decades, of varying strength. Britain has, historically, never been as engaged with Europe as continental countries - and indeed, didn't join the Euro when it was introduced in the EU. One of the main parties in British politics, the Conservative Party, is particularly prone to infighting over the EU. David Cameron, the British Prime Minister, has promised a referendum on British membership in the case of treaty change since 2009, but supported a 2013 Private Member's Bill to hold a referendum by 2017. He was blocked from introducing this into UK law by the Conservative's coaltion partners, the Liberal Democrats, and so made a referendum a manifesto pledge for the 2015 General Election. The Conservative Party won a majority in 2015, and so Cameron was forced to hold to his pledge. One should note that this is all with a backdrop of growing support for UKIP - an anti-EU party over the last few years putting pressure on Cameron to shore up his right flank, and serious pressure from Conservative eurosceptic backbenchers. Arguments put forward for 'Brexit' include a desire to restore sovereignty to the British Parliament - many laws are made in Brussels, by the European Commission and European Parliament, a desire to limit immigration from the EU, which is currently unchecked as part of the single market, perceived EU regulation of British business, and British payments to the EU that it does not receive back as a rebate or subsidies. Arguments against 'Brexit' included predominantly the advantages of membership of the single market, which greatly eases trade within the EU, Foreign Direct Investment into the UK dependent on EU membership, and arguments that immigration has been positive, and EU regulations have protected workers' rights. The referendum result has been extraordinarily close - with 52% voting to leave and 48% voting to remain. Geographically, results to leave have been overwhelmingly in England and Wales, with London, Northern Ireland and Scotland voting to remain - albeit being outweighed by those votes to leave. The consequences of leaving are not fully known. The process to leave the EU is the triggering of Article 50 of the Treaty on European Union, which leads to a 2 year negotiation process between the UK and EU as to the terms of leaving. Although the referendum was technically non-binding, and so doesn't automatically trigger Article 50, the Prime Minister is certain to trigger the withdrawal in the near term. It is not yet known whether the UK will remain in the Single Market, or the terms of trade with the EU - these will be decided on as part of the Article 50 negotiations. The implications of the vote on domestic politics in the UK is the likely increase in speed of the David Cameron's resignation - if not immediately, then likely in the next couple of years, rather than towards 2020. There have also been suggestions of a revolt against the Labour Party's leader, Jeremy Corbyn, who is widely seen as not having pulled his weight in persuading Labour supporters to vote in. It is not yet known what will become of UKIP - the party formed solely to ensure the UK leaves the EU. Internationally, there is now increased agitation in other EU countries for their own referendums on membership - the UK's leaving will likely have a significant impact on the French and Italian elections in 2017 and 2018 respectively. Edit: David Cameron has now announced his resignation, with his successor to be decided by the Conservative Party conference in October. He will not be triggering Article 50, leaving it to his successor to do so. The Conservative Party chooses it's leaders through a sounding process among the parliamentary party, which decides upon two candidates. Conservative Party members nationally then have an opportunity to vote and decide between the two candidates. There is much speculation that this will lead to a general election being triggered, in order for the new Conservative leader to claim a mandate. This would further delay the triggering of Article 50, and push final exit of the EU back to potentially late 2018 or early 2019.
  15. Orlok Tsubodai
    I'll sign up as Locke.
  16. Orlok Tsubodai
    This looks too be great fun - and my exams will be over by the time it begins, so I shall sign up as Locke.
  17. Orlok Tsubodai
    Action 1: Offer my son, Marcus, to the Inquisition Action 2: Arrange a marriage for my son, Gaius, using respect to ensure his wife comes from an allomantically rich bloodline Edit: Increasing detail given in action 2
  18. Orlok Tsubodai
    Because in doing so we learn a great deal about other players - if he's guilty it casts light on those who defended him (and, for paranoia's sake, to some extent those who may have thrown him under the bus), and if not it removes unnecessary suspicion from those who might get unduly scrutinised for defending a suspect player.
  19. Orlok Tsubodai
    Much though I dislike doing so - and with my deepest apologies, I feel that the most productive end to today is to lynch Sart. Given how much of the day has revolved around players' views of the Sart lynch, I think that we would be wasting a great deal of information about motivations should we lynch Sheep or Strawman - and in my mind, that information is worth it, despite my utter lack of suspicion of Sart. Edit: I think the vote count ignores Elbereth's double vote - so it would have been 5 for Sart, 5 for Strawman, and I think it's now 6 for Sart
  20. Orlok Tsubodai
    Mixed. I certainly don't trust him as much as players like Wilson seem to, but I'm not prepared to commit either way at this stage - I'll have another look over everything he's said tomorrow, and let you know - it's quite late now, and I'm not sure how much stock I'd put in my own reasoning at this hour!
  21. Orlok Tsubodai
    I'm with Seonid here - I highly doubt that Sarah is a Darkfriend, and even if he is, we've just got lucky - there simply isn't the evidence to support it at this stage, but it does give us the most information by a long shot. I'm going to put a vote behind Maill for the mayoralty - I think his arguments have largely been sound, I'm not inclined to trust Meta with any more influence right now, and I don't think giving it to Elb is going to pay dividends in terms of delivering additional scrutiny, or voting power for the village if she's not going to use it, as she has suggested. Not only this, but, in my mind, Elb is actually a little suspicious - she's been really helpful - in putting forward the village advice, but not in a way that necessarily implicates her with anyone - it's a lovely position whereby she gains trust without having to risk any links with potential teammates. To be very clear, I don't think it's worth voting for her to be lynched for this, by any means, but on top of the reduced use for the role, it's enough for me to suggest she not be made mayor.
  22. Orlok Tsubodai
    Whilst the discussion of the meta may not be, to you, normally helpful, I disagree strongly that it's not helpful this game - Sart's lynch is predicated on whether or not we believe his initial comments to have been productive or merely designed to divert attention from more useful conversation. Having this discussion allows us to determine whether or not it was productive. Hence, dismissing it out of hand is attempting to shut down lynch discussion.
  23. Orlok Tsubodai
    I completely agree, Wilson, that the advantages of a day one lynch significantly outweigh the disadvantages, but that's not the point I was making. What I was saying is that it was impossible to assume that everyone else agrees with this. And the evidence from a host of previous games runs in line with this statement - there has been a marked opposition in many games played to the day one lynch. Sart, therefore, can't be seen as seeking to avoid the day one lynch through creating superfluous conversation - instead, to my mind, he sought to have the issue addressed swiftly - a prerequisite for actually having the discussion. Wilson, again, you create a strawman - a misrepresentation of the argument I put. I didn't say that we should vote for people based on their intelligence or reputation, rather that we should avoid doing so - for we gain nothing in terms of additional scrutiny, and simultaneously lose the benefit of scrutiny for another player. In my mind, at least, this advantage is worth sacrificing your additional 8 points of trust in Meta. Finally, your final point is to me, nonsensical. Yes, Gamma went with an unconventional team last time. He may well have done so again this game. But there is absolutely no reason to distrust all newer players because of his actions last game - which is the implication of your refusal to vote for a newer player.
  24. Orlok Tsubodai
    Action 1: Hold military festival for the Great Houses - all of whom are invited to attend. Monetary prizes will be awarded to those Houses who distinguish themselves.
  25. Orlok Tsubodai
    You're doing GCSEs, right, Stink? You'll be fine - learn the spec - literally, get the spec from the examiner's website, and then do every available past paper. Now, I'm going to make myself unpopular, and speak up for a moment to defend Sart. Now, it's all very well following Kas' excellent tenets, but not everyone does - and I think it is as such necessary to establish that we're going to have a lynch. Beginning this conversation isn't, in my mind, a lynch-worthy offence. I can recall a great deal of conversations about this in previous games, many of them insitgated by villagers. If anything, having the conversation creates subject matter for discussion, which enables a more informed lynch. Now, let's be clear - I think that having a day one lynch as a matter of course is better - and does gain more information. But I don't think it was possible to assume at the start of the game that we were going to have one, so starting a conversation isn't a tactic for diverting conversation - rather, for creating conversation. Now, regarding the mayor. I'm not sure I support giving more power to a player like Meta or Wilson. Both are widely respected in this subforum, and have illustrious reputations. Hence, we give their views a great deal of thought and value anyway - and also scrutinise them perhaps further. I would advocate giving the mayoralty to a lesser heard player, on the basis of increasing the exposure they receive in the thread, and not giving yet more power over the lynch to already influential players.
×
×
  • Create New...