Post by: The13thRonin on September 29, 2009, 09:42:54 am
Is someone willing to reverse Liberal Crime Squad to make the conservatives the 'good' guys...
It sorta seems relevant considering we are living in an increasingly liberal society. Conservatism for the win :)!
PS - If such a mod has already been created please provide a link ;D.
Post by: Servant Corps on September 29, 2009, 09:46:10 am
Post by: The13thRonin on September 29, 2009, 09:49:36 am
It's possible, but many people will hate it. According to Toady, a L+ society is funny...a C+ society is just disturbing.
I think they're probably just as bad as each other. I probably lean more to sympathize with the conservatives but only because I have a low faith in humanity.
But enough about that... This is about game mechanics! The conservatives are becoming the underdogs and we MUST have the chance to rage against the virtual liberal hate machine :)!
Post by: Oksbad on September 29, 2009, 11:44:06 am
It's possible, but many people will hate it. According to Toady, a L+ society is funny...a C+ society is just disturbing.
I think they're probably just as bad as each other. I probably lean more to sympathize with the conservatives but only because I have a low faith in humanity.
But enough about that... This is about game mechanics! The conservatives are becoming the underdogs and we MUST have the chance to rage against the virtual liberal hate machine :)!
I think what they tried to say is that L+ laws such as animals as people are goofy, while C+ laws like deathsquads, making women and minorities second class citizens are disturbing.
Post by: The13thRonin on September 29, 2009, 11:54:11 am
It's possible, but many people will hate it. According to Toady, a L+ society is funny...a C+ society is just disturbing.
I think they're probably just as bad as each other. I probably lean more to sympathize with the conservatives but only because I have a low faith in humanity.
But enough about that... This is about game mechanics! The conservatives are becoming the underdogs and we MUST have the chance to rage against the virtual liberal hate machine :)!
I think what they tried to say is that L+ laws such as animals as people are goofy, while C+ laws like deathsquads, making women and minorities second class citizens are disturbing.
Since when was LCS trying to be politically correct :(? The game simulates a lot of disturbing stuff, AKA - kidnap, torture, murder, indoctrination... etc...
Surely it wouldn't be hard to reverse the game so that the player could lead the CSS?
I'd consider doing it myself if I had the book-smarts necessary.
Post by: Leafsnail on September 29, 2009, 11:55:35 am
Post by: The13thRonin on September 29, 2009, 12:04:33 pm
Wouldn't work. This entire game is satire, basically - a fantasy world which is how some activists describe it, a world where conservatives are like a huge, fascist group of conspirators and Liberals and free, open minded underground society. For Conservative Crime Squad to work, the world would have to be created from their point of view.
It isn't possible to imagine the fantasy world as a conservative nightmare where liberalism has sent everything into an anarchic spiral? Where thugs roam the streets burning flags and beating up CEO's?
I might be the only person (which is quite a disturbing thought) to have no sympathy for the liberals while I'm playing. They kill people to achieve their ends and Toady has made sure that it is portrayed as pretty brutal and senseless. I don't see the grand evil in playing the game from a conservative perspective?
LCS is a satire on violence for political ends... Not on any kind of agenda... I don't think Toady made the game to show everyone how great liberalism is... Nor how evil Conservatism is...
Post by: Servant Corps on September 29, 2009, 12:11:13 pm
No, the CCS shouldn't be politically correct. In fact, the main appeal in a CCS game is that the CCS is fighting for a world that is anti-CCS. A world where all liberals are armed with guns and will shoot CCS at a moment's notice. A world where the police are unrestrained by morals and will break each CCS agent down into whimpering cowards. A world where Conservative juries would convict CCS terrorists and send them straight to the gallows.
Such self-sacrifice.
Post by: The13thRonin on September 29, 2009, 12:18:41 pm
The problem is: What sort of issues would the CCS really take? What would be the CCS' position on, say, the death penalty? I can't really think it would be anything other than "death penalties for all"? How about abortion? Would the CCS still call abortion "Fetus Murder"? Should the CCS really back torture for criminals?
No, the CCS shouldn't be politically correct. In fact, the main appeal in a CCS game is that the CCS is fighting for a world that is anti-CCS. A world where all liberals are armed with guns and will shoot CCS at a moment's notice. A world where the police are unrestrained by morals and will break each CCS agent down into whimpering cowards. A world where Conservative juries would convict CCS terrorists and send them straight to the gallows.
Such self-sacrifice.
The LCS and CCS are both immoral and both factions are attacked by the media/police for violent actions. The LCS are hardly moral citizens... They're urban guerrillas fighting for anarcho-communism, hypocritically shouting slogans of freedom and being against capital-punishment while they blow conservatives away.
Hence why LCS stands for Liberal Crime Squad and not Liberal Freedom Squad. It seems redundant to argue that that there should be no CCS game because the conservatives are evil.
The conservative agenda would not be changed from what it is now... Just the roles of the LCS and CSS reversed... Perhaps instead of immigrants, CEO's were forced to toil in the factories for example? They wouldn't be fighting for capital punishment for all, just capital punishment... We already have a CSS in game fighting for this it just isn't player controlled at the moment!
There is no good reason why we can't extend the original game to include the ability to play from a conservative perspective. If anything it enforces the original message about violence being wrong while dispelling the myth that liberalism is 'good' and conservatism is 'bad'.
Post by: Goron on September 29, 2009, 12:40:14 pm
I probably lean more to sympathize with the conservatives but only because I have a low faith in humanity.why is that related?
Conservative donate more time and money than liberals even accounting for balance of wealth.
(edit: In the US, that is... I don't know about elsewhere)
But on the topic, I think Servant Corps is on the right track when he says "The problem is: What sort of issues would the CCS really take?"
It's hard to imagine an underdog conservative force fighting freedom- (even being a real life conservative myself I really must admit that in the end you'd just be playing as a horrible terrorist...)
Post by: Granite26 on September 29, 2009, 01:08:06 pm
Freedom to hire who you want? Freedom to smoke wherever you want? Freedom to eat meat? Push the bad eco-science a little bit, and you've got freedom to drive a car or even third world make a living stuff... Freedom to trade with other countries?
If I were going to do it (mind you, I haven't played LCS), I'd make you a third world native, tired of having your no-washing machine/microwave culture 'protected', wanting to make a living in a factory but being unable to because the liberals were protecting you (from exploitation, despite you making more at the factory than you did farming dirt), the environment (by green-taxes that make it too expensive to by fuel to heat your house or pump water), the unions (through strict protectionist tariffs), animals (through poaching and conservation laws that prevent you from harvesting the natural resources in your own backyard), status quo (food aid? That just puts farmers out of business and makes people rely on the warlords who distribute it.)
The 'good guy' organisation could be the factory owners (tongue in cheek comments about how pure shit the conditions are should be enough irony there), Christian Missionaries (teaching kung fu along with the bible?) and... US military interventionists (maybe? setting up a US friendly regime that'll boost trade and lower tariffs with a little tongue in cheek 'more than pays for the costs of corruption')
That should be conservative viewpoint enough without being too aweful.
Post by: Zangi on September 29, 2009, 04:03:00 pm
*snip*
It's hard to imagine an underdog conservative force fighting freedom- (even being a real life conservative myself I really must admit that in the end you'd just be playing as a horrible terrorist...)
*Looks at LCS*
??? I don't get what you are implying. ::)
Also, considering conservatives, they can fight for sexual decency. Like now-a-days, society is very open about sex and what-not.
Post by: The13thRonin on September 29, 2009, 06:09:57 pm
I really must admit that in the end you'd just be playing as a horrible terrorist...)
I don't mean this in an offensive way but I really do think that the point of LCS is lost on many people. There is no 'good' sides in LCS, just factions peddling their political views via AK-47 democracy. The Liberal Crime Squad isn't interested in bettering society so much as it just wants to assert its dominance over others. As I keep saying:
How can you call the liberals good guys? Because they stand up against capital punishment while they practice execution of hostages and murder? Because they'd like to curtail police power to the point where crime squads such as the LCS are able to walk around publicly and commit heinous acts unmolested?
This is a scary lesson in how willing people can be to justify a criminal organization which has the sole purpose of destroying the conservative machine by beating one ordinary conservative office worker to death with their bare fists at a time... It's kind of funny that a game that was originally meant to satirize the political violence of groups similar to the LCS and in the end it has reached into the real world and indoctrinated certain persons to believe that these liberals are they 'freedom loving, flower touting, good guys'. Kind of reminds you of all the people who wear Che Guevara T-shirts because he's *sarcasm* some amazing 'freedom fighter' */sarcasm* who managed to torture and kill thousands of individuals
Anyway I have messaged Fox to see if he is willing to help in this great conservative undertaking.
The conservatives must rise up and end these liberal notions of liberties. They are usurping the moral foundation of society...
Post by: Capntastic on September 29, 2009, 06:26:37 pm
Which is why playing as conservatives wouldn't be fun.
Post by: The13thRonin on September 29, 2009, 06:34:46 pm
While the diehard 'liberals' who think torture and murder are an acceptable ways to be politically active are a tiny tiny minority, and considered insane, there are vast throngs of real life conservatives today who think endless torture and civilian murder are entirely fine.
Which is why playing as conservatives wouldn't be fun.
I really don't think the average conservative believes in murdering civilians, have you got any examples :-\?
Quote
This is a scary lesson in how willing people can be to justify a criminal organization...
If anything liberals are definitely more violent that conservatives, for example see PETA which I would say is a fairly mainstream liberal group.
Without big corporations people would starve or be driven to poverty. Without the police people would be attacked and disadvantaged by certain members of society...
So it isn't murder if you take away someones food and water and then lock them in a room with thirty rapists ??? ?
If you truly hated the conservatives and believed them to be pure evil then why rejoice in making them the victims of your admittedly radical liberal minority? Because whatever anyone might say that's all the Conservatives are at the moment. Innocent victims soon to be slaughtered by the hypocritical liberal cause. I guess it's OK to kill people as long as you can confuse them first with double-talk, totalitarian rhetoric and revolutionary blood-lust disguised as fervor. If anything if all the nay-sayers are right then the only thing the CSS is that the LCS isn't is honest...
ANYWAY.
This thread is not about arguing about whether a CCS is a good idea or not (it most certainly is a good idea). It's about discussing what changes such a modification would entail.
Post by: Servant Corps on September 29, 2009, 07:01:02 pm
Basically: The LCS takes extreme Liberal stances, thats the comedy. The CCS takes extreme Conservative stances...but how do you make them funny without playing to the hands of the LCS (and its sympathizers)?
EDIT: Something I wonder...the LCS seems to want things done via fiat, that merely by passing laws, an L+ utopia is complete! What if the CCS...does the same thing? What if they want a law stating in bold, "TORTURE IS MORALLY ACCEPTABLE" but nobody actually tortures (due to the fact that the standard 'starve & feed' tactic is much more effective). Even if nobody takes up the right to torture, then the CCS declares victory and cheers. Same thing with abortion. "ABORTION IS WRONG GUYS!" The CCS doesn't want this law to be enforced, oh gawd no, it just want the law on the books, so people know that abortion is wrong, and might somehow be magically persuaded to not engage in abortion.
Post by: cowofdoom78963 on September 29, 2009, 07:22:19 pm
Post by: The13thRonin on September 29, 2009, 07:24:12 pm
Look. The LCS is L+. The CCS is C+. Maybe conservatives don't support murdering civilians and supporting torture...but we aren't deaing with the Purple Conservative Whims. We're dealing with Arch-Conservativism..
Basically: The LCS takes extreme Liberal stances, thats the comedy. The CCS takes extreme Conservative stances...but how do you make them funny without playing to the hands of the LCS (and its sympathizers)?
EDIT: Something I wonder...the LCS seems to want things done via fiat, that merely by passing laws, an L+ utopia is complete! What if the CCS...does the same thing? What if they want a law stating in bold, "TORTURE IS MORALLY ACCEPTABLE" but nobody actually tortures (due to the fact that the standard 'starve & feed' tactic is much more effective). Even if nobody takes up the right to torture, then the CCS declares victory and cheers. Same thing with abortion. "ABORTION IS WRONG GUYS!" The CCS doesn't want this law to be enforced, oh gawd no, it just want the law on the books, so people know that abortion is wrong, and might somehow be magically persuaded to not engage in abortion.
I already find most extreme conservative stances funny. There is no need to change them at all from their current text in-game.
And your comments on abortion are misplaced. I might not be an arch-conservative but I am most definitely pro-life and vehemently oppose abortion. I would like to live in a society where it was illegal.
I like how it's OK for the game to simulate people crawling along the ground with no arms and having their bodies sawn in half by shotgun fire while screaming for mercy but the minute someone considers altering the game to be from the conservative point of view LAWDY SAVE THE CHILDREN!!! ::)
LCS is not politically correct, nor is it always funny, it's entertainment which can have meaning derived from the interpretation of the player. And I think that the entertainment value would be advanced by allowing players to change it up and play the other side.
Quote
liberalism is idealistic, conservatism is not. Thats why I think the game wouldent work.
So basically we should remove the CSS which already exists there from the game then?
The conservatism of the LCS forum is both amusing and ironic...
Post by: a1s on September 29, 2009, 07:26:58 pm
If I were going to do it, I'd make you a third world native, tired of having your no-washing machine/microwave culture 'protected', wanting to make a living in a factory but being unable to because the liberals were protecting you (from exploitation, despite you making more at the factory than you did farming dirt), the environment (by green-taxes that make it too expensive to by fuel to heat your house or pump water), the unions (through strict protectionist tariffs), animals (through poaching and conservation laws that prevent you from harvesting the natural resources in your own backyard), status quo (food aid? That just puts farmers out of business and makes people rely on the warlords who distribute it.)I'd play that. This will likely be a very different game (that is to say most of the code would be useless), but it would be really cool.
The 'good guy' organization could be the factory owners (tongue in cheek comments about how pure shit the conditions are should be enough irony there), Christian Missionaries (teaching kung fu along with the bible?) and... US military interventionists (maybe? setting up a US friendly regime that'll boost trade and lower tariffs with a little tongue in cheek 'more than pays for the costs of corruption')
That should be conservative viewpoint enough without being too awful.
Post by: E. Albright on September 29, 2009, 07:56:24 pm
I really don't think the average conservative believes in murdering civilians, have you got any examples :-\?
Look to the fringe - the mainstream isn't that far gone (http://dneiwert.blogspot.com/2006/12/eliminationism-in-america-i.html) yet, and hopefully will never get there.
If anything liberals are definitely more violent that conservatives, for example see PETA which I would say is a fairly mainstream liberal group.
:o
I'm not even sure where to begin on the notion that PETA is even vaguely mainstream. High-profile ≠ mainstream.
As to liberals being more violent, again, see the above link on rightwing eliminationism. Oh, and get back to me when you have liberals carrying semiautomatic rifles to opposition political rallies, or start seeing the equivalent of these popping up on the backs of Priuses:
Spoiler (click to show/hide)
To say nothing of the political orientation of the individuals and groups responsible for the majority of "domestic" terrorism in the US over the last decade or two.
Post by: E. Albright on September 29, 2009, 08:01:34 pm
I'd play that. This will likely be a very different game (that is to say most of the code would be useless), but it would be really cool.
Wasn't there some abortive discussion of a vaguely related idea a year or so back? Iraqi Crime Squad or the like, as a generalized sectarian violence "simulator"?
Post by: EuchreJack on September 29, 2009, 09:04:12 pm
LCS satires both the Conservatives and the Liberals. As the game is seen from the Elite Liberal Standpoint, the satire of the Conservatives is blantant, whereas the satire of the Liberals is more subtle.
Obviously, if the game were to be reversed, with the player acting as the CCS, the satire would also be reversed. The Commie-Liberal laws would be scary, with the Pure Conservative laws being funny.
Example:
Abortion Issue in CCS:
Commie-Liberal: Killing of the Unborn is mandated for anyone who already has a child.
Liberal: Abortion is the most common form of birth control
Moderate: Abortion is legal in some cases.
Conservative: Abortion is only legal in the case of rape or deficient mental capability, and only if requested by the mother.
Pure Conservative: Abortion requires a two-thirds vote of Congress and Presidential Authorization
Now, some might question my Commie-Liberal and Liberal satire. I respond: China and Russia.
In China, it's illegal to have more than one child (although they don't mandate abortion, to the best of my knowledge, instead either taking away the second child for adoption or allowing the parents to pay a fine [bribe/fee] in order to keep the child)
In Russia, Abortion is the leading form of birth control. Which is saying alot based on how rampant prostitution is in Russia.
And by the way...it wasn't long ago that this idea was discussed in a positive light. The main problem wasn't the "idealogical" issues but rather the technical ones. AKA: Everyone wanted to work on the existing game and not build a new, functionally similar one.
Post by: The13thRonin on September 29, 2009, 09:21:54 pm
If Fox has the time... He probably has a lot on...
But one can dream... :)
Post by: HAMMERMILL on September 29, 2009, 09:25:19 pm
That said, this is Bay12 games where horrible, irrational things happen all the time in the course of any game Toady has ever inspired.
The LCS represents ignorant idealism. The CCS could just portray a bitter cynicism and the dialogue and politics and gameplay of this version would reflect that.
I think it would work and it would entertaining just to see a bunch of 1974 Bugs full of Hippies and Yoga Instructers ambushing you after your raid on the Welfare office or Greenpeace Office, or whatever.
Post by: cowofdoom78963 on September 29, 2009, 09:26:45 pm
Quote
Its not that Im against the idea, I think about it alot myself.Quoteliberalism is idealistic, conservatism is not. Thats why I think the game wouldent work.
So basically we should remove the CSS which already exists there from the game then?
The conservatism of the LCS forum is both amusing and ironic...
Although I guess you have a point. I've just been thinking on the liberal side of things too much and have been having some trouble understanding how anyone would even want an arch-conservative society, but after some thought I can see how the CCS could be "the good guys."
So then I would imagine:
the CCS gunning down protesters to stifle free speech
the CCS gunning down abortion clinics to stifle abortion
the CCS gunning down gay bars to stifle homosexuality
the CCS gunning down homeless shelters to stifle taxation
the CCS gunning down prisons to enforce the death penalty
the CCS gunning down illigal immigrants
the CCS gunning down hippie gatherings fighting the war on drugs
And I know some arch-conservatives in real life. They would pretty much agree with all of these acts.
Anyway yeah Im all for this now, sounds pretty interesting.
Post by: Rakonas on September 29, 2009, 09:58:20 pm
The Prohibition of Abortion isn't a conservative idea. While many conservatives, and primarily conservatives, support it, it's just a christian/moral thing. Personally, I think that having abortion be a factor doesn't really make sense.
Post by: cowofdoom78963 on September 29, 2009, 10:01:50 pm
Hmmm,If anything is a conservative issue abortion is a conservative issue...
The Prohibition of Abortion isn't a conservative idea. While many conservatives, and primarily conservatives, support it, it's just a christian/moral thing. Personally, I think that having abortion be a factor doesn't really make sense.
Post by: E. Albright on September 30, 2009, 12:21:09 am
Hmmm,
The Prohibition of Abortion isn't a conservative idea. While many conservatives, and primarily conservatives, support it, it's just a christian/moral thing. Personally, I think that having abortion be a factor doesn't really make sense.
I know devout Christians and moral individuals who are fervently anti-abortion, and I know devout Christians and moral individuals who are fervently pro-choice. It's a bit more complicated than "anti-abortion = moral Xians and pro-choice = immoral atheists", and in the US tend to cleave fairly tightly (though not perfectly so) to political outlook.
Post by: IndonesiaWarMinister on September 30, 2009, 01:41:43 am
Wouldn't work. This entire game is satire, basically - a fantasy world which is how some activists describe it, a world where conservatives are like a huge, fascist group of conspirators and Liberals and free, open minded underground society. For Conservative Crime Squad to work, the world would have to be created from their point of view.Then we shall create them in the shades!
Post by: Jonathan S. Fox on September 30, 2009, 04:05:00 am
Post by: Leafsnail on September 30, 2009, 10:02:55 am
Elite Liberal (note: Maybe the terms "Elite Liberal" and "Arch Conservative" should be changed, as "Elite" implies good while "Arch" implies bad. Can't think of any terms right now): Honest and hardworking businessmen are bled dry by the ruthless taxmen
Liberal: Hard work is actively penalized by crippling taxes.
Moderate: The poor receive huge tax breaks while the rich struggle with their huge tax burdens.
Conservative: Men earn what they deserve, but a large portion of the hardworking man's (No need for gender neutral pronouns now, we're conservative!) salary is still given to the state.
Arch conservative: Everyone earns what they are entitled to.
You get the idea.
Post by: Servant Corps on September 30, 2009, 11:19:21 am
Quote
Others would change -- the CCS would now be in favor of free speech.
Thinking about that, would the LCS fight for "politcal correct" speech (like how the CCS fights against "hate speech" in the LCS game)? So, in a Commie-Liberal/Liberal-Elite/whatever Utopia, "politically incorrect words" can get censored. The word "terrorist attack" gets replaced by [Political Activism], for instance.
Leafsnail: The term "Elite Liberal" is really just "Liberal Elite" flipped around. And Liberal Elite is a insult.
Post by: Necaladun on September 30, 2009, 11:52:15 am
I really don't think the average conservative believes in murdering civilians, have you got any examples :-\?
My Lai?
Now there's the making of a great game.
Post by: E. Albright on September 30, 2009, 11:55:14 am
Remember, try to set M as *roughly* what we have now. I'd slide C up to M.
Now, I may not be the best person to try to lay something like this out (I'm L++ or maybe L# ;)), but if I took a stab at laying one out, it'd be roughly along these lines (although it probably could use to be a bit "spicier"):
L+: Everyone earns the same salary whether they work or not.
L: Crippling progressive taxation on all forms of income and massive subsidies to the poor and unemployed discourage hard work and innovation.
M: The income tax scale is moderately* progressive, and limited benefits exist for low-income earners and the unemployed.
C: A flat income tax on wages only is in effect, and workers who lose their jobs only receive help looking for a new one.
C+: Personal income is not taxed, and the government is funded a modest national sales tax.
One nice thing about this is, as noted, difficulty scaling. Early on your members would be on the dole, but as you pushed taxes towards C+, that income would vanish (or if you pushed privacy laws towards the red first, it might become dangerous to collect it...)
(*If you disagree that the US has merely a moderately progressive income tax, I suggest you have a look at top-bracket marginal rates over the last century (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Income_tax_in_the_United_States#History_of_top_rates.5B20.5D). 35% ain't nothin'.)
Thinking about that, would the LCS fight for "politcal correct" speech (like how the CCS fights against "hate speech" in the LCS game)? So, in a Commie-Liberal/Liberal-Elite/whatever Utopia, "politically incorrect words" can get censored. The word "terrorist attack" gets replaced by [Political Activism], for instance.
I'd say yes. Any religious reference should also be obscured/made "general", and if one was really ambitious one could add gender-neutral pronouns (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gender-neutral_pronoun#Invented_pronouns).
Post by: Neonivek on September 30, 2009, 12:17:01 pm
Though I didn't think Conservatives were into super Political correctness... I thought that was some sort of weird offshoot of crazy
Post by: Goron on September 30, 2009, 12:37:15 pm
liberalism is idealistic, conservatism is not. Thats why I think the game wouldent work.this.
In a dreamy liberal world of happiness everyone is happy. So any fight against this world by a CCS would essentially be one that ends universal goodness and replaces it with a (realistic) mix of good, bad, happy, sad.
Thats why LCS works. Any halfway intelligent person knows in a truly conservative world you have under privileged and exploited members of society. People make their means at the expense of others. And as such the LCS tries to equalize the problems by punishing the successful for the benefit of everyone else (don't deny it you lazy bums!). That can ultimately be seen as a noble cause (think robin hood).
The CCS would be out to allow small sects of the liberal masses to step up and above the filth of humanity and become successful- but at cost to others. That seems like a very anti-noble (sic) cause (think sheriff of Nottingham- ultimately he has the law on his side and is collecting legal and rightful debts- yet he is still portrayed as bad).
Since a truly L+ world cannot exist (sorry to burst the bubble folks- that's just how it is) it is fun to play and try to achieve such goals- because your 'terrorist' actions are ultimately for the greater good- the majority will be better off in the long run at the expense of the few.
But to try and push a C+ agenda in an already L+ world is really kind of evil since your goal will be to allow the rise of the few at the expense of the many...
Post by: Granite26 on September 30, 2009, 01:20:26 pm
The Conservative Crime Squad game wouldn't have you playing the CCS that's depicted in LCS -- the positions would have to be altered because the game's entire world would revolve around the Radical Conservative viewpoint, not the Radical Liberal viewpoint that it does now. Some things might seem to stay the same -- the CCS would still fight to end abortion, in order to stop parents from murdering their children. Others would change -- the CCS would now be in favor of free speech. Mechanically, things would have to change as well. You may still be committing credit card fraud, but you're not engaging in prostitution or selling brownies -- and you're certainly not seducing people of the same sex. I think a CCS game would be a lot of fun, and it would scale pleasantly: the game WOULD get harder as you turn more issues C+. If done properly, playing the two games and experiencing the difference could be enlightening.
I was thinking of some game elements and how they'd play out. It seems like you'd actually be able to unlock gameplay as you advance in CCS...
1: Gun Control (As you moved this towards C+, you'd have access to more and more guns, good for gameplay developement)
2: Environmentalism (As you moved towards C+, everything, especially the car, would become cheaper. It's CSS, so you just ignore the actual environmental effects)
3: Taxation (Here's a fun one... as you move this C+, you lose less money per turn. Take it far enough, and you can make expensive things impossible to get before a certain point, because of the highly progressive tax rate.)
4: Drug Use (Drugs are bad, M'kay? recruiting good conservatives is harder if they're all doped up. Additionally, this could make the game harder, as progress means your opposition starts to sober up.)
5: Hate Crimes (Drawing heavily on Canada for hate speach here, but any crime you commit would get multiplied by X... You robbed the liquor store and are sent to criminal rehabilitation for 3 days. However, because the liquor store owner was 1/32nd Indian on his Nanny's side, your actions were deemed a hate crime and you must spend 30 days in sensitivity training. Also: Free speech does go both ways. You'd have fewer options to push your agenda without violating hate speech laws.
Other CCS dystopic elements to fight:
Terrorists and Illegal Im. thieves.
Personally, I think an interesting bit would be to make either side, starting from the C+++ or L+++ difficulty level impossible to win, due to the locked down freedom of speech and state control of opposition issues.
Post by: Leafsnail on September 30, 2009, 02:12:13 pm
Post by: a1s on September 30, 2009, 03:53:13 pm
Conservatives have a utopia of their own. Survival of the Fittest. Low, flat taxation means that those who pull the weight get to enjoy the fruits of their labor. Gun ownership protects the individual from the state (and/or Bad Guys): you don't have a gun- you will not be protected (think Wild West). Pollution laws are survival of the fittest on national level- American Indians lived off the land while Europeans raped the earth through mining and clear-cutting, guess who became the dominant civilization? Homosexuality and abortion seem odd (let them not not pass their genes, right?) until you again see it as a national thing- every boy not born to a poor family of teenage parents is one less GI to be sent overseas 18 yers down the line.liberalism is idealistic, conservatism is not. Thats why I think the game wouldent work.this.
<...>
Thats why LCS works. Any halfway intelligent person knows in a truly conservative world you have under privileged and exploited members of society. People make their means at the expense of others.
Post by: cowofdoom78963 on September 30, 2009, 04:52:26 pm
the CCS would now be in favor of free speech.I guess free speech could be debated...
However anti-flag burning is as conservative as it gets.
Post by: Servant Corps on September 30, 2009, 05:06:38 pm
We had a similar situation before with the LCS who only cared about domestic issues such as nuclear power, and being alright with the military-industrial complex as long as it is enviromentally friendly.
Post by: E. Albright on September 30, 2009, 05:25:40 pm
The "unholy alliance" of social and fiscal conservatism has been pretty much part and parcel to movement conservatism for the last four or so decades, and is kinda hard to avoid if you want to draw on popular stereotypes of it. This does hearken back to discussions we've had of CCS models, though; a Phineas Priesthood CCS wouldn't care in the least about fiscal conservatism, just as an underground corporate-sponsored CCS would probably only deal with social conservatism as PR window-dressing.
Still, if the aim is to draw broad sweeping comparisons, it's probably best to try to leave the fusion intact.
Post by: IndonesiaWarMinister on October 01, 2009, 04:36:02 am
Post by: Jonathan S. Fox on October 01, 2009, 05:05:04 am
Post by: Solarn on October 01, 2009, 06:26:27 am
Quote
Commie-LiberalWhere did the notion that socialism/communism is merely an extreme form of liberalism come from? Seriously. That's just ass-stupid. Communism is an entirely separate set of ideals that has more in common with extreme conservativism (by a very tiny bit) than extreme liberalism.
THE POLITICAL SPECTRUM IS NOT A LINE, IT'S A FUCKING TRIANGLE!
Post by: Leafsnail on October 01, 2009, 07:57:49 am
Post by: Solarn on October 01, 2009, 08:03:33 am
And people all across America actually believe that! Even though with a bit of thinking, even Joe Average Sixpack Hockeymom could understand how wrong it is!
Post by: Leafsnail on October 01, 2009, 08:06:30 am
From the Conservatives' point of view (and a CCS game would be created from their point of view) commies and liberals are the same thing.
Post by: Solarn on October 01, 2009, 08:14:58 am
Post by: Leafsnail on October 01, 2009, 08:17:23 am
Post by: Granite26 on October 01, 2009, 08:41:26 am
But that's stupid. American Conservatives can't all be stupid. I have several Conservative friends (granted, we're nowhere near America) and they are actually quite intelligent.viewing what's going on with the health care system and the financial system as socializing those areas of the economy is stupid?
Actually, if we're going crazy with this, that's a good idea... going around to different businesses, all of which want their share of the government teat, and convincing them they need to wean themselves off... To a certain extent, shouldn't conservative (business) objective be to roll back laws?
Anywho, you do your wander in, and you're not trying to destroy the capitalist regime, you're trying to destroy the machinery of state dominance, and convince them that their reliance on the government to help and fund them is holding back their success.
Post by: Solarn on October 01, 2009, 09:38:08 am
Yes. While government takeover of lethally wounded services is, by definition, socializing them, you get to keep your incompetent private health care and banks too, there will simply be a government option. Also, socializing certain areas of the economy /= socialism.But that's stupid. American Conservatives can't all be stupid. I have several Conservative friends (granted, we're nowhere near America) and they are actually quite intelligent.viewing what's going on with the health care system and the financial system as socializing those areas of the economy is stupid?
I LIVE IN A FORMER SOCIALIST BLOC COUNTRY, FUCKHEAD! DON'T YOU DARE TELL ME WHAT SOCIALISM IS AND ISN'T!
Post by: Aldaris on October 01, 2009, 10:14:07 am
Angry Commie Internet Man!Yes. While government takeover of lethally wounded services is, by definition, socializing them, you get to keep your incompetent private health care and banks too, there will simply be a government option. Also, socializing certain areas of the economy /= socialism.But that's stupid. American Conservatives can't all be stupid. I have several Conservative friends (granted, we're nowhere near America) and they are actually quite intelligent.viewing what's going on with the health care system and the financial system as socializing those areas of the economy is stupid?
I LIVE IN A FORMER SOCIALIST BLOC COUNTRY, FUCKHEAD! DON'T YOU DARE TELL ME WHAT SOCIALISM IS AND ISN'T!
Quick! Kill it!
Spoiler (click to show/hide)
Post by: E. Albright on October 01, 2009, 11:05:02 am
viewing what's going on with the health care system and the financial system as socializing those areas of the economy is stupid?
I'd not say stupid, I'd say naive or ill-informed. The financial bailout imbroglio last year was a massive handout (with few strings attached) to private entities responsible for the mess. They were "too big to fail", but the logical conclusion of "if they're too important to be let fail, they should be publicly owned, so as to socialize both risk and gain" was instead replaced with "if they're too important to be let fail, the public should briefly interrupt their hands-off stance for long enough to prop them up financially before butting back out, so as to socialize only risk". In health care reform, socialized medicine was never on the table - it wasn't even in the room. Socialized health insurance is a scared, beaten figure hiding in a shadowy corner of the room. The current health care socialist bugaboo is, what, a means-tested public option to be allowed to compete with private insurers for customers the insurers don't really want?
The point upthread about a CCS needing to go around trying to convince corporations to wean themselves off of welfare provided by the corporatist state is, alas, not without a point.
Oops, forgot the earlier "point" I was going to make. Liberal = commie-socialist because commies want to take your stuff (by socializing the means of production), and liberals want to take your stuff (by having non-minimalistic taxes). Likewise, commies want to give your stuff to undeserving loafers ("from each as they can, to each as they need", etc., at least in principle) and liberals want to give your stuff to undeserving loafers (by providing some sort of social safety net). See? Exactly the same thing, so long as you ignore all the differences... which are pretty trivial when you think about it. I mean, seriously: how much of a difference is there really between regulating private enterprise and abolishing it?!?
Post by: Granite26 on October 01, 2009, 11:24:34 am
I've always heard communist bloc, and to me they are two seperate things. In my mind, it's possible to be socialist(state controls stuff) and democratic(people decide en-masse what the state does) at the same time, while communist(as implimented in Eastern Europe and implying totalarianism) and democratic aren't as likely.
According to the political theory that I am familiar with, most of Europe is now considered to be highly socialist (heavy government involvement in most facets of peoples lives), but is still very democratic and thus free.
An example I'm dealing with at work is the inability of my company to publish an org chart because of business rules in Europe.
Which leads me to Albright: Your facts are 100% right. The only argument I have is that it's a slippery slope. (On a personal level, I agree with you... either you're hands off or you're hands on, and if you say 'too big to fail', the government has a moral obligation to regulate... It's the 'too big to fail' that bugs me) Claims of socialism are 50% strawman exagerations and 50% cardinal directions ('It's socialism of here' in a manner similar to 'It's East of here'), but given the slippery slope (do we want to start down that path?) I don't think they are... too far wrong.
Post by: Servant Corps on October 01, 2009, 11:38:33 am
Quote
I mean, are all scientists and police officers really conservative, or is this supposed to be part of the satire?
On that point. Scientists support evolution and the theory of global warming, yet support animal research and nuclear power. It would make sense for them to be classifed as moderates, but instead they are classifed as conservatives. Why?
Post by: Solarn on October 01, 2009, 11:46:06 am
I'm not trying to aggravate this, butFirst of all, sorry for the outburst. It's kind of a berserk button with me.
I've always heard communist bloc, and to me they are two seperate things. In my mind, it's possible to be socialist(state controls stuff) and democratic(people decide en-masse what the state does) at the same time, while communist(as implimented in Eastern Europe and implying totalarianism) and democratic aren't as likely.
According to the political theory that I am familiar with, most of Europe is now considered to be highly socialist (heavy government involvement in most facets of peoples lives), but is still very democratic and thus free.
An example I'm dealing with at work is the inability of my company to publish an org chart because of business rules in Europe.
Secondly, while what you are saying is true, we've always referred to our past selves as "socialist bloc" because when it was here, it called itself socialism, by a sort of twisted Marxist-Leninist doctrine that holds socialism (state controlled economy and commerce, planned production, forced equality, basically a "workers' dictatorship" with democratic trappings) as the immediate predecessor of communism (communally owned everything, no outwards commerce, production to meet needs, true equality, happy fun land) and then turned it on its head (the "workers' dictatorship" was controlled by a self-destroying elite of indoctrinated Communist intelligentsia, Party members were culled by the hundreds in petty power struggles and the planned economy were a joke).
And I stand by my point that while socialism involves socializing economy and services, partly socializing a few key areas of those is nowhere near socialism.
And really, Europe as socialist? While I guess socializing parts of our economy and services is much more common here than in GLORIOUS CAPITALISTIC FREE-MARKET AMERICA, socially we're nowhere near socialism. In fact, most current European leaders got to their posts on platforms of heavy nationalism and thinly-veiled intolerance.
Also, man, that's a lot of words beginning with social- in a few sentences.
Post by: Leafsnail on October 01, 2009, 11:50:01 am
Quote
On that point. Scientists support evolution and the theory of global warming, yet support animal research and nuclear power. It would make sense for them to be classifed as moderates, but instead they are classifed as conservatives. Why?Simple. The LCS regards scientist as evil corporate whores who will torture animals and destroy the planet just for their own bank balances, so that's how they are portrayed in-game. Same for police officers.
Post by: Granite26 on October 01, 2009, 12:04:25 pm
On that point. Scientists support evolution and the theory of global warming, yet support animal research and nuclear power. It would make sense for them to be classifed as moderates, but instead they are classifed as conservatives. Why?
Game is from the PoV of the LCS, where the great can be the enemy of the good. In CCS, the global warming and evolution would be sufficient to mark scientists as Liberal. Technically most scientists tend to be... Democrats, if not liberal. (Personally, I think this has to do with government teats and who funds science, but that's opinion)
First of all, sorry for the outburst. It's kind of a berserk button with me.1. No worries...
And I stand by my point that while socialism involves socializing economy and services, partly socializing a few key areas of those is nowhere near socialism.
And really, Europe as socialist? While I guess socializing parts of our economy and services is much more common here than in GLORIOUS CAPITALISTIC FREE-MARKET AMERICA, socially we're nowhere near socialism. In fact, most current European leaders got to their posts on platforms of heavy nationalism and thinly-veiled intolerance.
2. It's a cardinal direction thing. I'm crazy libertarian man, so rather than looking at the world on a Democratic/Republican line, everything looks like it's skewed towards socialism for me. Socialist isn't intended as an insult, nor, really meant as a type of government. It's just equivilent to saying that governments are liberal or conservative. I understand that you're standing in the middle of your political universe, and from where you're standing, socialism is even further in that direction.
Post by: Capital Fish on October 01, 2009, 12:05:47 pm
QuoteOn that point. Scientists support evolution and the theory of global warming, yet support animal research and nuclear power. It would make sense for them to be classifed as moderates, but instead they are classifed as conservatives. Why?Simple. The LCS regards scientist as evil corporate whores who will torture animals and destroy the planet just for their own bank balances, so that's how they are portrayed in-game. Same for police officers.
A little off topic, but what would stem-cell researchers be regarded as? In game, of course...
Post by: Solarn on October 01, 2009, 12:22:34 pm
Makes sense. For me, politics is mostly about social issues anyway. I don't care much about economy as long as it stays away from either extreme (although I might be in favour of a little more control, I think both ways could be made to work), so when I think of socialism, I think of collectivism and the social implications that go along with it and the complete socialization of services like health care, public transport and communication, instead of areas of economy. Therefore, what the Democratic Party is currently trying to do in America doesn't even register on my "socialism radar".On that point. Scientists support evolution and the theory of global warming, yet support animal research and nuclear power. It would make sense for them to be classifed as moderates, but instead they are classifed as conservatives. Why?
Game is from the PoV of the LCS, where the great can be the enemy of the good. In CCS, the global warming and evolution would be sufficient to mark scientists as Liberal. Technically most scientists tend to be... Democrats, if not liberal. (Personally, I think this has to do with government teats and who funds science, but that's opinion)First of all, sorry for the outburst. It's kind of a berserk button with me.1. No worries...
And I stand by my point that while socialism involves socializing economy and services, partly socializing a few key areas of those is nowhere near socialism.
And really, Europe as socialist? While I guess socializing parts of our economy and services is much more common here than in GLORIOUS CAPITALISTIC FREE-MARKET AMERICA, socially we're nowhere near socialism. In fact, most current European leaders got to their posts on platforms of heavy nationalism and thinly-veiled intolerance.
2. It's a cardinal direction thing. I'm crazy libertarian man, so rather than looking at the world on a Democratic/Republican line, everything looks like it's skewed towards socialism for me. Socialist isn't intended as an insult, nor, really meant as a type of government. It's just equivilent to saying that governments are liberal or conservative. I understand that you're standing in the middle of your political universe, and from where you're standing, socialism is even further in that direction.
Post by: E. Albright on October 01, 2009, 12:41:48 pm
2. It's a cardinal direction thing. I'm crazy libertarian man, so rather than looking at the world on a Democratic/Republican line, everything looks like it's skewed towards socialism for me. Socialist isn't intended as an insult, nor, really meant as a type of government. It's just equivilent to saying that governments are liberal or conservative. I understand that you're standing in the middle of your political universe, and from where you're standing, socialism is even further in that direction.
The problem with accepting such cardinal-direction slippery slope arguments as at all useful means you open yourself up to retorts in the same vein. Increasing business regulation is a dangerously slippery slope to the socialism of where we stand? Well, decreasing regulation is a dangerously slippery slope to the corporatism of here. Better to make arguments based on merits than on undefined possibilities.
Post by: Aldaris on October 01, 2009, 01:54:12 pm
Form the CCS point of view?QuoteOn that point. Scientists support evolution and the theory of global warming, yet support animal research and nuclear power. It would make sense for them to be classifed as moderates, but instead they are classifed as conservatives. Why?Simple. The LCS regards scientist as evil corporate whores who will torture animals and destroy the planet just for their own bank balances, so that's how they are portrayed in-game. Same for police officers.
A little off topic, but what would stem-cell researchers be regarded as? In game, of course...
Arch Liberal Immoral Evil Monstrosities that Meddle with Things We Are Not Supposed To Know.
Or something like that, anyway.
Post by: The13thRonin on October 01, 2009, 02:15:30 pm
Post by: 0_0 OH MY SCIENCE 0_0 on October 01, 2009, 02:38:15 pm
Post by: Aldaris on October 01, 2009, 02:42:40 pm
*Snip*Gadzooks! Something must be done!
Post by: Granite26 on October 01, 2009, 03:36:43 pm
2. It's a cardinal direction thing. I'm crazy libertarian man, so rather than looking at the world on a Democratic/Republican line, everything looks like it's skewed towards socialism for me. Socialist isn't intended as an insult, nor, really meant as a type of government. It's just equivilent to saying that governments are liberal or conservative. I understand that you're standing in the middle of your political universe, and from where you're standing, socialism is even further in that direction.
The problem with accepting such cardinal-direction slippery slope arguments as at all useful means you open yourself up to retorts in the same vein. Increasing business regulation is a dangerously slippery slope to the socialism of where we stand? Well, decreasing regulation is a dangerously slippery slope to the corporatism of here. Better to make arguments based on merits than on undefined possibilities.
I won't do too much defending of slippery slope, mostly because I agree with you that it's generally a BS argument (in this case I wasn't even saying slippery slope, just from where I stand Democrats are closer to socialists than they are to my views. (Same is ALMOST true of Republicans and Fascists, so don't get your feelings hurt :) Only reason it's not is the dychotomy between Christians and Capitalists, and I ignore the religious right.)
As the slight, weak defense, I'll offer up the justified buyouts (to save the economy) leading to justified additional regulations (because if the governement is implicitely backing you...) leading to companies following the incentives by spending more time lobbying for favorable rules (justified from their PoV) and politicians using their clout to support their specific
(I accept that you may not find this compelling or the end results 'necessary'. I just find them extremely likely.)
Post by: EuchreJack on October 01, 2009, 09:15:06 pm
Form the CCS point of view?QuoteOn that point. Scientists support evolution and the theory of global warming, yet support animal research and nuclear power. It would make sense for them to be classifed as moderates, but instead they are classifed as conservatives. Why?Simple. The LCS regards scientist as evil corporate whores who will torture animals and destroy the planet just for their own bank balances, so that's how they are portrayed in-game. Same for police officers.
A little off topic, but what would stem-cell researchers be regarded as? In game, of course...
Arch Liberal Immoral Evil Monstrosities that Meddle with Things We Are Not Supposed To Know.
Or something like that, anyway.
To answer Leafsnail: You're actually describing two different scientists (maybe). From what I can tell, the scientific community is sharply divided in at least two parts.
Aldaris: Sorry, but Stem-Cell Research doesn't exist in Liberal Crime Squad. Please play the newest game by those wonderful people on the Bay 12 GAmes LCS forums entitled: Conservative Crime Squad! Where ALL scientists HATE God and LOVE killing babies for the stem cells!
Please, please, for the love of Armok, please realize I'm just saying that's the case in Conservative Crime Squad*. In real life, most scientists have some basic belief in a divine being or beings, and not all stem cells come from aborted fetisis, AND there's a difference between fetises and babies.
*Conservative Crime Squad Not yet invented, as we're discussing it's future development currently. As I'm no programmer, I won't be involved in it's creation other than throwing out the rare idea.
Post by: Servant Corps on October 01, 2009, 10:17:39 pm
Anyway, considering that I still have to release a new version of LCS with the Stalinist Comrade Squad, have to begin coding a game set in Fedualistic America, have to finish a secret project, etc. I have little hope that I myself will take on the project to convert LCS into CCS. Never mind the fact that my own plans for CCS was rather...interesting.
Spoiler: "SUPER DUPER SECRET CCS PLAN" (click to show/hide)
Post by: E. Albright on October 01, 2009, 10:37:15 pm
...
...
...
Yes, I mean objectifying and refactoring. No, I'm not volunteering.
Post by: The13thRonin on October 02, 2009, 12:13:17 am
Post by: Granite26 on October 02, 2009, 08:41:11 am
After I figure out how to make 'political activism' and commiting conservative crime make society more conservative I will implement it in game, I've already changed all the text. I need to fix the Liberals to have a strong starting position too... Instead of the Conservatives?
It'd be a major mod, but consider leaving it alone. The big conservative fight is perceptually against the slide and decline of society, not trying to fix an inherently broken one.
Post by: The13thRonin on October 02, 2009, 08:58:12 am
After I figure out how to make 'political activism' and commiting conservative crime make society more conservative I will implement it in game, I've already changed all the text. I need to fix the Liberals to have a strong starting position too... Instead of the Conservatives?
It'd be a major mod, but consider leaving it alone. The big conservative fight is perceptually against the slide and decline of society, not trying to fix an inherently broken one.
No.
Post by: Solarn on October 02, 2009, 09:01:27 am
But the same can be said for the big liberal fight too. Basically, in reality both sides perceive their duty as preventing society from falling prey to the excesses of the other side, so there should be no problem in exaggerating that to "changing a fatally broken society by force" in LCS/CCS.After I figure out how to make 'political activism' and commiting conservative crime make society more conservative I will implement it in game, I've already changed all the text. I need to fix the Liberals to have a strong starting position too... Instead of the Conservatives?
It'd be a major mod, but consider leaving it alone. The big conservative fight is perceptually against the slide and decline of society, not trying to fix an inherently broken one.
And as proof, I present the comic series Liberality For All (http://"http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Liberality_For_All"), which is basically CCS in comic book form.
Post by: Granite26 on October 02, 2009, 10:28:38 am
But the same can be said for the big liberal fight too. Basically, in reality both sides perceive their duty as preventing society from falling prey to the excesses of the other side, so there should be no problem in exaggerating that to "changing a fatally broken society by force" in LCS/CCS.After I figure out how to make 'political activism' and commiting conservative crime make society more conservative I will implement it in game, I've already changed all the text. I need to fix the Liberals to have a strong starting position too... Instead of the Conservatives?
It'd be a major mod, but consider leaving it alone. The big conservative fight is perceptually against the slide and decline of society, not trying to fix an inherently broken one.
And as proof, I present the comic series Liberality For All (http://"http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Liberality_For_All"), which is basically CCS in comic book form.
I'm not... arguing for one side or the other. It's my perception that Progressives(Progress) define themselves as motion towards a better place, while Conservatives(Conserve) define themselves as holding on to what is good.
For the most part, Modern Liberalism (as opposed to Classic) has been mainstreamed, and the modern centrists (and society in general) really are being pulled in two directions. That isn't how the groups sell themselves though.
Post by: Servant Corps on October 02, 2009, 11:13:25 am
EDIT: Altough, you will need a L+ Nightmare mode. That is contigent on you coming up with nightmare L+ stuff though.
Post by: Granite26 on October 02, 2009, 11:51:58 am
Post by: Solarn on October 02, 2009, 01:16:41 pm
Yes, but that mindset can be twisted to become a Crime Squad as well. Let's say that the Conservatives are saying that they'll bring back what was good. (You know, "we tried to hold on to it but those damned liberals took it away so now we're bringing it back".)But the same can be said for the big liberal fight too. Basically, in reality both sides perceive their duty as preventing society from falling prey to the excesses of the other side, so there should be no problem in exaggerating that to "changing a fatally broken society by force" in LCS/CCS.After I figure out how to make 'political activism' and commiting conservative crime make society more conservative I will implement it in game, I've already changed all the text. I need to fix the Liberals to have a strong starting position too... Instead of the Conservatives?
It'd be a major mod, but consider leaving it alone. The big conservative fight is perceptually against the slide and decline of society, not trying to fix an inherently broken one.
And as proof, I present the comic series Liberality For All (http://"http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Liberality_For_All"), which is basically CCS in comic book form.
I'm not... arguing for one side or the other. It's my perception that Progressives(Progress) define themselves as motion towards a better place, while Conservatives(Conserve) define themselves as holding on to what is good.
For the most part, Modern Liberalism (as opposed to Classic) has been mainstreamed, and the modern centrists (and society in general) really are being pulled in two directions. That isn't how the groups sell themselves though.
Post by: HAMMERMILL on October 03, 2009, 12:26:14 am
It might be more accurate to make the standpoint of the CCS more libertarian, rather then theocratic and make the LCS less touchy-feely and more socially depraved and totalitarian.
The CCS would be like white-hat cowboys that rage against the absurdities of political correctness, big government bureaucracy, affirmative action and the repression of individual freedom.
+L nightmare mode would be mandatory vegan diets, pets registered to vote (represented by lawyers and new-age animal psychics.) inefficent state-owned industries, 80% income taxes and the vast majority of people living as welfare-check collecting deviants that kill people to pass the time, ala A Clockwork Orange.
Post by: EuchreJack on October 03, 2009, 03:40:54 am
EuchreJack: Actually, a Pew Survey (http://people-press.org/report/?pageid=1550) suggest that scientists do in fact share the same beliefs. Scientists are strongly supportive of evolution, global warming theory, nuclear power, and animal research.
How do I know I can trust this or any other survey?
Besides, saying that "All X think the same" is inherently dangerous, regardless of evidence.
Nice to see work on CCS! Awesome!
Post by: The13thRonin on October 03, 2009, 04:17:14 am
Post by: 0_0 OH MY SCIENCE 0_0 on October 03, 2009, 05:09:25 am
Post by: IndonesiaWarMinister on October 03, 2009, 09:51:45 am
[And as proof, I present the comic series Liberality For All (http://"http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Liberality_For_All"), which is basically CCS in comic book form.Url is busted.
Here it is, fixed: here (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Liberality_For_All)
Of course, if we made something like that, I'll instantly reverse-engineer it so that we may play as: HERO OF THE PEOPLE OF [INSERT RANDOM MIDDLE-EASTERN SOUNDING NAME], [First name] bin [father name]!
Post by: Jonathan S. Fox on October 03, 2009, 01:32:28 pm
To make actions make society more Conservative instead of more Liberal, you can find the function calls to change public opinion and put a minus sign in front of the amount being sent to it. This will reverse the effect. It's a little hard to explain without the code in front of me. If you want to reverse the effects of EVERYTHING, you can just go the function that changes public opinion itself and multiply the value of the amount of change by negative one before everything else, but you'd probably have a lot of unintended results from that.
If you want to change the starting conditions of the game, it's probably in newgame.cpp or something named similar to that, and you'll want to find a section assigning numbers to arrays that have names like congress or exec, then change the signs on those. -2 becomes 2, 1 becomes -1, that kind of thing. That'll make Liberals into Conservatives and Arch Conservatives into Elite Liberals, and vice versa.
I'm sorry my help isn't more actually helpful.
Post by: The13thRonin on October 03, 2009, 08:13:21 pm
I found the ALIGNMENT function and reversed that. This changes all the issues to turn more green as they become more conservative. But the game still gets lost when society goes arch-conservative AND I think political activism and stuff still makes society more liberal. If you get the time I'd love it if you could message me say a really quick guide to the overall source... I seem to be most capable in areas of the code that have your oversights (written in green) next to the source.
EDIT: The long and short is that I still don't understand but I'll have a poke around and see if I can figure it out.
Post by: EuchreJack on October 04, 2009, 09:08:31 pm
The CCS operating out of the Homeless Shelter doesn't seem right to me. How about renaming the Homeless Shelter, "Lowdown Bar", where the CCS members live off stale peanuts and flat beer? When you learn how to change the sites more drastically, I'd suggest changing the local to feature likely CCS recruits. EDIT: Actually, you just need to replace the Hippies with some worthy CCS architype. I'm not certain how to do it, but maybe find the word "Hippie" in the site description, and change to "Redneck"? Might work...
The LCS wouldn't operate out of a Bar & Grill, so how about renaming it "Liberal Conservation Society HQ" (or some other liberal activist group sounding name), which is the semi-legitimate front for LCS activities Downtown?
Honestly, you can probably keep the fallout shelter as a LCS safehouse. Somehow, it seems ok.
I believe the final hideout currently is an abandoned military base. I'd suggest renaming that "Nature Retreat".
Longer-term ideas:
Liberals with guns? Ok, maybe some of them might use guns, but how about setting it so that some LCS members use swords and other Obolete equipment? Maybe even making Mithril WORK (increase it's armor value by one should do that), and be Elite LCS equipment.
Speaking of the Obillete, how about changing it to "Hardware Store", where the CCS can buy Torches, Pitchforks, Chains, and working Body Armor, instead of crazy liberal Medival Wear? Of course, the Hardware Store makes extra cash by featuring Halloween equipment all year round, so the Halloween menu can stay the same.
I don't know much about explosives, but I'd suggest renaming theose evil liberal "Molotov Coctails" into something not named for some Commie, like "Oil Bombs".
Just a few ideas, glad to see work being done! Long live the CCS!
Post by: cowofdoom78963 on October 04, 2009, 09:18:54 pm
Quote
so how about renaming it "Liberal Conservation Society HQ"What?
Post by: Servant Corps on October 04, 2009, 09:20:26 pm
Post by: Granite26 on October 05, 2009, 12:59:28 pm
Or, we could have the CCS safehouses be the the standard "Desert Bar and Grill"/"Robert E. Lee Bunker"/etc., while the LCS safehouse be the "Homeless Shelter" and a couple of Liberal Business Fronts.
Maybe some punny Christian and Illuminati organizations (like the freemasons and crap like that) for storefronts? As a replacement for Hippies, maybe Rednecks, Fundamentalists, Rabid Libertarians? MBA Grads?
For liberals, maybe art galleries and coffee houses? Union Halls and perminent streetside protests?
Post by: HAMMERMILL on October 07, 2009, 04:25:48 pm
The same mechanic, just a slightly different flavor that suggests the CCS relies less on deception and subterfuge to hide out from the authorites and more on obscurity and isolation. Think like the real-life compounds conservatives have built like David Koresh's compound, Ayran Nation, and Elohim City.
The default site could be "The Desert Eagle Bar and Grill" since that can be said to be the big scummy 24 hr dive-bar/ package store the CCS can loiter at for free. They can recruit bikers and whatnot if they cause trouble like at the homeless shelter. The idea of the CCS living off stale pretzles and abandoned piss-warm beers is funnier then having them crash at some church charity house akin to the homeless shelter.
Post by: cowofdoom78963 on October 07, 2009, 07:06:03 pm
Post by: Capntastic on October 08, 2009, 04:12:54 am
Post by: Granite26 on October 08, 2009, 09:14:28 am
But conservatives despise charity and handouts! Imagine...leeching off the tax dollars of honest workers!
Good point... maybe a faith-based organization? Or 'going back to daddy for more money', which gives you cash, but reduces... something
Edit: Rich privilege increasing liberal rage?
Post by: cowofdoom78963 on October 08, 2009, 12:13:14 pm
But conservatives despise charity and handouts! Imagine...leeching off the tax dollars of honest workers!Exactly, thus the daily juice drain from being in such an institution.
Post by: EuchreJack on October 08, 2009, 05:41:29 pm
Maybe instead of turning abandoned factories into business fronts, the CSS just turn abandoned military bases, fallout shelters, and isolated rural locations that they just build compounds that they name after they fortify it or buy improvements. So things like the "Robert E Lee Bunker" could be a possible randomly generated name for the compound like "Lucas Manpower" is for the LCS.
The same mechanic, just a slightly different flavor that suggests the CCS relies less on deception and subterfuge to hide out from the authorites and more on obscurity and isolation. Think like the real-life compounds conservatives have built like David Koresh's compound, Ayran Nation, and Elohim City.
The default site could be "The Desert Eagle Bar and Grill" since that can be said to be the big scummy 24 hr dive-bar/ package store the CCS can loiter at for free. They can recruit bikers and whatnot if they cause trouble like at the homeless shelter. The idea of the CCS living off stale pretzles and abandoned piss-warm beers is funnier then having them crash at some church charity house akin to the homeless shelter.
Or, we could have the CCS safehouses be the the standard "Desert Bar and Grill"/"Robert E. Lee Bunker"/etc., while the LCS safehouse be the "Homeless Shelter" and a couple of Liberal Business Fronts.
Thanks, that coincides with what I was thinking.
However, the problem with Outskirts locations is the need of a car in order to send a squad there, despite it being very accurate that the CCS have bases in the outskirts of the city.
Post by: Granite26 on October 09, 2009, 10:50:32 am
Solves the problem AND adds another layer of 'damn hippies' to the game.
Post by: E. Albright on October 09, 2009, 01:00:04 pm
Post by: Aldaris on October 09, 2009, 01:51:31 pm
Well, no. That doesn't sound right. You'd need to take socialist Mass Transit into the inner city at the start, is all....Which results in juice hits...
Post by: Andir on October 09, 2009, 04:17:31 pm
I generally place conservatism and liberalism in terms of resources. I'd also like to point out that (in my opinion) possessions (be it guns, money, etc.) are not a liberal vs. conservative issue. It's a Libertarian vs Authoritarian issue.
If you think about a square:
Code: [Select]
Libertarian
A-----------B
| |
Liberal | | Conservative
| |
C-----------D
Authoritarian
You can place personal choice, personal property, and personal rights on the libertarian side of the box. (Personal being the keyword) You place distribution of wealth, state property, and such things as "public owned" in the authoritarian side. (Social/Communal: Controlled/owned by the Authorities) You place abundance on the liberal side and necessity on the conservative side.Liberal vs Conservative is just a degree of each of these ideals. I'm talking about resource conservative vs resource liberal. Resources being everything from labor to land.
Examples of these...
A. Liberal Libertarian: Giving everyone as much liberty as they can to do what they like. (Anarchy)
B. Conservative Libertarian: Someone who wants personal freedom as long as it doesn't use too many resources or require too much overhead. (The original US Government, Peaceful Tribes of Native Americans -- now, I know what you are going to say, and I'll respond with a singular word: "corruption." The founders learned from the Native Americans and I'm sure they were an influence.)
C. Liberal Authoritarian: Forcing everyone to sacrifice as much as they can for the government/authoritarian need to expand as much as possible. (Communism)
D. Conservative Authoritarian: The small strong government enforcing at the expense of personal rights. (Oligarchy/Dictatorship)
Now, owning a gun is something I would not place in the conservative bracket exclusively. It's more of a resource or a property. Authoritarians would rather the government control these and Libertarians opt for personal ownership. Now, a liberal libertarian would be all for gun ownership... several guns, as big as you like! A conservative libertarian could say, "If you need one, make it a small one." A liberal authoritarian thinks we need a huge government military and policing the world and a conservative authoritarian thinks we might just need one big enough to defend our borders.
Now, I know this flies in the face of the current conservative/liberal stereotype, but think about the meaning of the words and you'll see why I laugh at all these posts.
Post by: Leafsnail on October 09, 2009, 05:47:16 pm
Post by: Servant Corps on October 09, 2009, 06:04:43 pm
Post by: Megaman on October 09, 2009, 06:07:02 pm
Post by: Frogwarrior on October 09, 2009, 06:40:22 pm
Post by: E. Albright on October 09, 2009, 10:21:36 pm
Whoosh! It seems that Andir cannot understand political satire. Afterall, ASCII games are srs bsns, right?
You know, I was going to lay in on his typically libertarian exclusion of the very possibility of anarchism being other than anarcho-capitalism and such individualist strains, or how his laser focus on property ignores all notions of social contracts (and has a wonky view of "authority"), but I think your response is more apropos.
Andir: liberalism and conservatism as debated here are crude hyperbolic stereotypes. They're supposed to be laughable.
Post by: Andir on October 09, 2009, 10:32:52 pm
You assume I wasn't laughing... just for a different reason than you were. Reading back on it, it does sound kind of serious... and no, I don't agree that view on authority is wonky in any means. You let someone else decide your rights... social contracts really have no place there. You give up some personal freedom (liberty) for social contracts. If you claimed you were a strict libertarian, you'd be living in a woods, in a cabin you built yourself. The Letters are more of a vector as opposed to a limit.Whoosh! It seems that Andir cannot understand political satire. Afterall, ASCII games are srs bsns, right?
You know, I was going to lay in on his typically libertarian exclusion of the very possibility of anarchism being other than anarcho-capitalism and such individualist strains, or how his laser focus on property ignores all notions of social contracts (and has a wonky view of "authority"), but I think your response is more apropos.
Andir: liberalism and conservatism as debated here are crude hyperbolic stereotypes. They're supposed to be laughable.
Post by: E. Albright on October 10, 2009, 12:02:45 am
and no, I don't agree that view on authority is wonky in any means.
I'd argue it is, though. The viewpoints you lay out suggest that authority is something imposed on the individual, but that the individual cannot impose. Which is, not to put too fine a point on things, silly.
Look. That the very existence of "liberal libertarianism" of a non-individualist-anarchist nature is not considered in the model you laid out strongly suggests its view on authority is going to have some blind spots, and that the freedom this stance lays out includes the freedom to restrict others' freedom (but not their freedom to restrict your freedom to restrict their freedom, etc.).
You assume I wasn't laughing...
Actually, no, you were pretty clear that you were laughing. :P
Post by: Jonathan S. Fox on October 10, 2009, 12:17:25 am
Post by: E. Albright on October 10, 2009, 01:43:19 am
Post by: Xavior on October 10, 2009, 04:04:18 am
Spoiler (click to show/hide)
Post by: narskie on October 10, 2009, 04:13:02 am
The goal should be to make it from a rank and file conservative perspective (which is how Fox News presents itself, although clearly they favor corporate/elite control not freedom). So i definitely think the religious aspect should remain. The anti-gay stuff should also be there (The Gay agenda conspiracy to turn all your kids gay), be not necessarily racism, as most conservatives feel they are "freeing" minorities from the government and the liberals are rascist. It should be from their perspective (the rank and file, not corporate elites), but still poking fun at them the way LCS does to liberals.
It's a challenge though, since I don't think anyone on here could provide that perspective. The closest we have are quasi-Ron Paul types.
Post by: Xavior on October 10, 2009, 06:25:40 am
Actually, what if we make it so the whole game works exactly the same, only you get to choose which squad you fight for!
Post by: Zangi on October 13, 2009, 03:26:03 pm
The conservative equivalent of hippy: yuppie... and rednecks too...
Post by: E. Albright on October 13, 2009, 06:21:51 pm
Post by: EuchreJack on October 15, 2009, 02:18:17 am
Post by: HAMMERMILL on October 17, 2009, 10:05:47 am
A "trailer park" location might be a little cliche'd though.
Post by: Toady Two on October 17, 2009, 11:08:31 am
Also, for the conservative crime squad, the game would scale better. In the begging, you would only have access to melee and weapons you steal. Those are adequate for your early needs but as more heat come your way and your conservative agenda grows then gun laws become more C you are able to buy firearms to better resist arrest. Also in an L+ country the police force would favour nonlethal methods and as the game progesess they would also become better armed.
Also the character creation questions would have to be replaced with more consevative answers...
Post by: E. Albright on October 17, 2009, 11:19:07 am
Post by: Ciarog on October 17, 2009, 02:02:25 pm
2. It's a cardinal direction thing. I'm crazy libertarian man, so rather than looking at the world on a Democratic/Republican line, everything looks like it's skewed towards socialism for me. Socialist isn't intended as an insult, nor, really meant as a type of government. It's just equivilent to saying that governments are liberal or conservative. I understand that you're standing in the middle of your political universe, and from where you're standing, socialism is even further in that direction.Refer to things you don't like as statist instead.
After all, libertarians are just anarchists who don't realize that taxation ain't made more tolerable by calling it rent. ;)
Post by: Ciarog on October 17, 2009, 02:19:35 pm
It's a challenge though, since I don't think anyone on here could provide that perspective. The closest we have are quasi-Ron Paul types.I used to consider myself a falangist; I could probably help out a bit.
Post by: E. Albright on October 17, 2009, 05:32:45 pm
Maybe this is a little too conservative, but I'd like to see a United Nations/New World Order invasion scenario somehow factored into a game played from the Conservative Crime Squad perspective.
I don't think it's too C++ (see e.g. this actual game (http://www.usofearth.com/2011-obamas-coup-fails.php)), but I think there's the domestic focus to consider*. But that is a point worth debating, I think.
*As in, LCS is fairly focused on the domestic. Though admittedly, there isn't a big liberal fear of an international bogeyman, and the same can't be said of conservatism at the fringe...
Post by: EuchreJack on October 17, 2009, 06:12:11 pm
Then, the CCS needs to destroy the will of the EU/UN (in much the same way that the Taliban/Al Quida ruined the will of the United States to fight) as an additional requirement for victory.
Post by: mainiac on October 19, 2009, 02:55:04 am
I think everyone brainstorming about CCS needs to take a step back and think about why LCS is funny.
LCS is funny because they're liberal terrorists. And liberal terrorist is an oxymoron. Yes, there are tons of left wing terrorists, but precious few liberals in the LCS sense. The liberal agenda was written by waffling intellectuals, it's full of contradictions and caveats and I would challenge you to find two liberals in the country who are in complete agreement politically. That's not an agenda that is likely to inspire a dogmatic, disciplined, ruthless army of killers, neh? The LCS contridicts itself in it's every action, they kill for gun control, they drive cars to attack auto plants, they use terrorism against the media in support of free speech. There is no Bible of Liberalism, no dogma, they're true believers without a belief. At it's core, the LCS is a walking contradiction and that's why it can be satire.
This formula does not apply naturally to conservatism. There is no contradiction to using violence to defend the right to bear arms, the using dogmatism in support of religion, to silencing the opposition in favor of censorship. There's nothing funny in these things, because there's no contradiction.
If you want to make a CCS, then you need to come up with a similarly absurd conservative agenda. LCS liberalism proudly bears nonsensical caricatures of the right wing. A conservative agenda would need to be put together more artfully, because the satire is less self-evident.
I should wrap this up and get to sleep, but in a nutshell, if you make a game where CCS patriots fight for a flat tax, it won't be funny, it will be obnoxious. What you need is to make a game where CCS working stiff's without highschool diploma's are fighting to reduce the tax burdens of millionaires, and convey that in a snappy format. And you probably also need to find a way to use pacifism in the service of violence and come up with jokes about people who are intolerant against even themselves (without brushing reality too closely...) CCS ain't as straightforward as LCS.
Post by: Duuvian on October 19, 2009, 06:12:58 am
Gadzooks, what is happening to LCS?
I think everyone brainstorming about CCS needs to take a step back and think about why LCS is funny.
LCS is funny because they're liberal terrorists. And liberal terrorist is an oxymoron. Yes, there are tons of left wing terrorists, but precious few liberals in the LCS sense. The liberal agenda was written by waffling intellectuals, it's full of contradictions and caveats and I would challenge you to find two liberals in the country who are in complete agreement politically. That's not an agenda that is likely to inspire a dogmatic, disciplined, ruthless army of killers, neh? The LCS contridicts itself in it's every action, they kill for gun control, they drive cars to attack auto plants, they use terrorism against the media in support of free speech. There is no Bible of Liberalism, no dogma, they're true believers without a belief. At it's core, the LCS is a walking contradiction and that's why it can be satire.
This formula does not apply naturally to conservatism. There is no contradiction to using violence to defend the right to bear arms, the using dogmatism in support of religion, to silencing the opposition in favor of censorship. There's nothing funny in these things, because there's no contradiction.
If you want to make a CCS, then you need to come up with a similarly absurd conservative agenda. LCS liberalism proudly bears nonsensical caricatures of the right wing. A conservative agenda would need to be put together more artfully, because the satire is less self-evident.
I should wrap this up and get to sleep, but in a nutshell, if you make a game where CCS patriots fight for a flat tax, it won't be funny, it will be obnoxious. What you need is to make a game where CCS working stiff's without highschool diploma's are fighting to reduce the tax burdens of millionaires, and convey that in a snappy format. And you probably also need to find a way to use pacifism in the service of violence and come up with jokes about people who are intolerant against even themselves (without brushing reality too closely...) CCS ain't as straightforward as LCS.
This is an excellent post. You have raised the quality of the internet slightly.
EDIT: I'm not being sarcastic, just rare internet praise.
Post by: Servant Corps on October 19, 2009, 11:20:20 am
Quote
I should wrap this up and get to sleep, but in a nutshell, if you make a game where CCS patriots fight for a flat tax, it won't be funny, it will be obnoxious. What you need is to make a game where CCS working stiff's without highschool diploma's are fighting to reduce the tax burdens of millionaires, and convey that in a snappy format.
C+: The United States reward innovation via tax breaks.
Post by: mainiac on October 19, 2009, 05:11:59 pm
Post by: Servant Corps on October 19, 2009, 05:39:19 pm
I'm trying my best to meet your satire qualification, by the way.
Post by: mainiac on October 19, 2009, 06:03:43 pm
Post by: E. Albright on October 19, 2009, 06:37:24 pm
Post by: mainiac on October 19, 2009, 06:48:43 pm
Post by: E. Albright on October 19, 2009, 07:32:34 pm
Post by: Aldaris on October 21, 2009, 10:22:56 am
-CCS should be funny
-The conservatives should be fighting for a utopia fitting within C+ ideals, and portray that utopia in a staggeringly positive light.
-The liberals should be portrayed as insane monstrous commies stiffling all incentives to put effort into work.
-The hardest part to get right programme-wise is going to be the issues.
If we can get a list like that agreed upon, we can work on a unified list of issues. The discussion is running around in circles right now, so I thought I'd point it towards a next waypoint.
Post by: Servant Corps on October 21, 2009, 11:29:59 am
The main problem I see is that the LCS's L+ laws aren't exactly unrealistic utopian satires.
"Animal tesing is prohibited."
"There are police elections."
"Elections are done via electoral lists and proporational votes."
"The United States promote civil liberites."
Oh boy, I'm laughing my socks off. Earlier versions of the game did have some rather strange stuff like "Animals are people too", but that has been removed after it is concluded that giving animals the same status of people is too liberal for the L+ to consider. Police elections seem rather strange, but I put that down to less people considering the issue, rather than it actually being a deconstruction.
Really, that's what I was aiming for with my "innovation" statement, really. It doesn't seem funny at all, it only seems funny when you 'deconstruct' it and take the law to its illogical conclusion, but at the face of it, it is not insane. But I highly doubt that you can 'deconstruct' L+ ideals.
Post by: Aldaris on October 21, 2009, 12:34:21 pm
I'll edit that.
Post by: mainiac on October 21, 2009, 01:27:36 pm
But I'd argue that the more important thing isn't how left-wing the LCS is. The important thing is that their agenda is not something you'd expect people to fight for. Consider gay marriage for example. Many people consider the difference between L gay civil unions and L+ gay marriage to be very important. But how many people would be willing to kill for that difference?
Post by: cowofdoom78963 on October 21, 2009, 06:33:05 pm
Quote
But how many people would be willing to kill for that difference?Lots.
Post by: mainiac on October 21, 2009, 10:40:50 pm
Post by: HAMMERMILL on October 24, 2009, 10:18:55 am
"Hey amigos, hop in the truck I got work for ya'll."
Hiring a group of day laborers at minimum wage to go storm the police station sounds like it would be perfect for a satire of the freemarket and whatnot.
Post by: mainiac on October 24, 2009, 12:31:58 pm
Post by: IndonesiaWarMinister on October 24, 2009, 11:01:30 pm
Really, really good.
Post by: LiteralKa on October 26, 2009, 11:30:33 am
Just a random thought I had. How about instead of "liberating" child workers and prisoners, they "hire" groups of day laborers and illegal aliens? It trades in say, 50$ per conservative hired and they turn into semi-permanent members?Hmm, interesting idea.
"Hey amigos, hop in the truck I got work for ya'll."
Hiring a group of day laborers at minimum wage to go storm the police station sounds like it would be perfect for a satire of the freemarket and whatnot.
Post by: EuchreJack on October 26, 2009, 04:03:11 pm
If a potential recruit's wisdom is less than their intelligence, then there should be a severe disadvantage in recruitment attempts. Adds to the "Conservatives are dumb" stereotype. Of course, the player needs a snappy remark from the attempted recruit, such as, "I'm too smart to do this..."
Of course, there should be a list of "I'm too smart" comments the player can receive.
This also draws on how even very smart people can be diluted into joining the Conservative Crime Squad, if they're "Patriotic" enough (Wisdom is high enough).
Post by: HAMMERMILL on October 28, 2009, 12:50:57 am
CCS should hold bake sales as a legal means of generating income. Like churches do, only in this case, its funding domestic terrorists, which is nothing like foriegn terrorists.
Also, "[W]ork as scab labor" could be a notority-raising and money making activity to fight the liberal labor unions. This would be illegal with L or L+ laws. Ironically, recruitment dialogue might be something like "They are taking our jerbs!" and whatever south-park dialogue you can work off with that.
CCS should raid prisons just to kill prisoners to make a point about how crime isn't being punished harshly enough. CCS members should be beaten by prisoners rather then the police if captured.
Post by: EuchreJack on October 28, 2009, 04:26:27 pm
Not to mention the freeing of corrupt businessmen, corrupt cops, and the occasional interrogator who really crossed the line, who according to the CCS really aren't criminals once you think about it.
I love the bake sale idea.
Redneck: Git ya brownies! Sup'ort tha C.itizens C.ommunity S.upporters!
Hippie: Cool dude, hook me up!
Redneck: Here ya go, five dollars!
Hippie: Thanks...[chomp chomp chomp]...Hey DUDE! These don't got the GOOD stuff!
*Redneck Shoots Hippie with Magnum.*
*Hippie crumbles like the brownie he was just eating.*
Post by: HAMMERMILL on October 28, 2009, 06:42:06 pm
Imagine them breaking out somebody like Ol' Timmothy McVeigh and recruiting him with an offer he can't refuse. Almost like a movie hook.
Still think they should make Conservative points by blowing away minor drug offenders and generic gangmembers in prison while avoiding harming the conservative prison guards.
Post by: narskie on October 28, 2009, 07:08:04 pm
Post by: HAMMERMILL on October 28, 2009, 07:13:43 pm
Post by: Servant Corps on October 28, 2009, 08:00:29 pm
Post by: HAMMERMILL on October 28, 2009, 08:16:53 pm
The problem is, other than, say, The13thRonin, me, IWM, and (possibly) Aqizzar, I don't know of any other Conservative here. And it's rather likely that we'd disagree on what would be the most "positive" form of extreme Conservative thought out there.
I'm fairly conservative. More of a centrist, but I voted for McCain in any case.
I think the entire point of the game is to NOT make extremism seem "positive".
Post by: mainiac on October 28, 2009, 09:03:27 pm
Post by: EuchreJack on October 29, 2009, 05:10:12 pm
You could still be right, but the statistic is irrelevant.
Post by: 0_0 OH MY SCIENCE 0_0 on October 29, 2009, 05:23:07 pm
Post by: mainiac on October 29, 2009, 11:16:14 pm
How does that show that conservatives believe they are moderates? Was McCain so Conservative (he wasn't) than no right-thinking moderate would vote for him to bring the numbers from 40% to 45%?
You could still be right, but the statistic is irrelevant.
Not irrelevant in the least.
It's self evident that the population of self labeled moderates contains real moderates, real conservatives and real liberals. Generally speaking, the liberals are the least likely to vote for a conservative candidate, the conservatives the most likely and the moderates in between.
Given this set up, it follows that the larger a candidates share of the moderate vote, the more real moderates they need. If on the other hand a candidate has very few self declared moderates, that population is going to consist mainly of their own partisans.
This wouldn't hold so well if a candidate somehow alienated their own base, but McCain didn't do that. The issues he ran on were completely orthodox conservative red meat.
If it quacks for duck food and it hangs around with ducks, we might as well call it a duck.
Post by: Necaladun on October 30, 2009, 05:21:15 am
Homosexual, Non-White, and Women's rights would be crushed by a CCS. If you can make a game funny about these issues, I applaud you.
Or you could just kill them all, to save them from communism.
Post by: HAMMERMILL on October 30, 2009, 11:53:12 am
McCain's reputation for being a moderate is mostly due to his non-partisanship and his earlier voting record. While he pushes for plenty of traditional right-wing stuff he also works with democrats and supports more liberal standpoints. McCain is was best friends with Ted Kennedy, who was probably one of the most traditionally liberal members of congress around, after all.
So what is considered "moderate" or "centrist" is really not set in stone. Colin Powell is a widly considered to be a moderate, but most liberals would label him as another knuckle-dragging baby-killing neo-con because he was with the Bush administration and most "Sarah Palin" conservatives would label him as a socialist traitor communist because he supports Affirmative Action.
Post by: E. Albright on October 30, 2009, 02:29:30 pm
McCain is was best friends with Ted Kennedy, who was probably one of the most traditionally liberal members ofcongressthe Senate around, after all.
Fixed that for ya.
Post by: Servant Corps on October 30, 2009, 03:38:20 pm
It may be because I'm from a society that considers Obama to be right wing, but I don't see much funny about Conservative issues.
Homosexual, Non-White, and Women's rights would be crushed by a CCS. If you can make a game funny about these issues, I applaud you.
C+: The United States funds sex change operations for homosexuals wishing to keep their lifepartner.
C+: The United States funds race change operations as part of a drive to end racial discrimination forever.
I got nothing for Women's rights though.
Post by: Necaladun on October 30, 2009, 08:35:08 pm
It's at least funny to me in the same way that Castrates movements never seem to last more than a generation or two.
Post by: EuchreJack on October 31, 2009, 08:50:30 pm
It may be because I'm from a society that considers Obama to be right wing, but I don't see much funny about Conservative issues.
Homosexual, Non-White, and Women's rights would be crushed by a CCS. If you can make a game funny about these issues, I applaud you.
C+: The United States funds sex change operations for homosexuals wishing to keep their lifepartner.
C+: The United States funds race change operations as part of a drive to end racial discrimination forever.
I got nothing for Women's rights though.
Why that's easy...
C+: The United States funds sex change operations for women wishing to keep their jobs.
;D
Post by: mainiac on November 01, 2009, 12:53:07 am
Post by: Jonathan S. Fox on November 01, 2009, 02:17:30 am
It may be because I'm from a society that considers Obama to be right wing, but I don't see much funny about Conservative issues.
Homosexual, Non-White, and Women's rights would be crushed by a CCS. If you can make a game funny about these issues, I applaud you.
C+: The United States funds sex change operations for homosexuals wishing to keep their lifepartner.
C+: The United States funds race change operations as part of a drive to end racial discrimination forever.
I got nothing for Women's rights though.
Why that's easy...
C+: The United States funds sex change operations for women wishing to keep their jobs.
;D
Oh goodness, I just started laughing when I read that.
Post by: Leafsnail on November 02, 2009, 10:17:14 am
Post by: 0_0 OH MY SCIENCE 0_0 on November 02, 2009, 08:28:11 pm
Post by: Leafsnail on November 03, 2009, 12:20:16 pm
...
Trying not to imagine a snail version.
Post by: Aldaris on November 03, 2009, 01:26:02 pm
Also, come to think of it, isn't the 40k Imperium of man C++? We could use that as a basis.
Kill the alien,
Burn the heretic,
Purge the unclean.
Post by: HAMMERMILL on November 03, 2009, 09:57:20 pm
They'd fetch that cat out of the tree. Or something.
Anyways, I imagine a C+ society would view animals as a natural resource and little else. A bit how people since the dawn of time of viewed animals. Something that only has the right to be delicious.
Post by: Soadreqm on November 05, 2009, 10:16:10 am
Speaking of curfews, why don't we have those? V had curfews. I want to be breaking the law just by going outside damnit!
Post by: mainiac on November 05, 2009, 10:21:53 am
Speaking of curfews, why don't we have those? V had curfews. I want to be breaking the law just by going outside damnit!
Says a guy posting on the Bay12 forums.
Bay12, cave adaption isn't mandatory, but it helps.
Post by: HAMMERMILL on November 05, 2009, 10:28:33 am
With women, you'd just be relegated to doing their traditional roles as mothers, secretaries, registered nurses and strippers. So most skilled workers encountered out on raids would be males. No lady cops or firemen or nothing. The few that are workers should be no older then 30, as they'd be expected to be married, barefooted and pregnant by that age.
Just think of C+ as the 1950's paradigm taken to an extreme.
As for curfews, I suppose most raids take place in broad daylight, where there are more targets to shoot and whatnot. Whats the fun in blowing up an abortion clinic or the welfare office when nobody is there?
Post by: E. Albright on November 05, 2009, 12:19:45 pm
With women, you'd just be relegated to doing their traditional roles as mothers, secretaries, registered nurses and strippers.
How could you possibly forget Teachers? And if we're being open-minded about Papists, nuns?
Post by: HAMMERMILL on November 05, 2009, 12:42:02 pm
Not to mention most C+ types would suspect a male teacher to be a pedophile at best.
Post by: Soadreqm on November 06, 2009, 02:35:53 pm
As for curfews, I suppose most raids take place in broad daylight, where there are more targets to shoot and whatnot. Whats the fun in blowing up an abortion clinic or the welfare office when nobody is there?Oh, there's a lot of things to do at night. Hiding bombs everywhere, sneaking about stealing things and prostitution for example. And just stalking the streets in a sinister manner, violating the curfew.
Post by: Pips40 on November 09, 2009, 06:43:44 pm
Post by: mainiac on November 10, 2009, 06:51:19 pm
ima help with the low skill i got!
Uh, just to avoid any confusion, I would like to stress that this is not a forum for organizing domestic terrorism, but rather is for the discussion of video games.
Post by: Aldaris on November 11, 2009, 09:20:14 am
Not until it's absolutely necessary, anyway. Which won't be until it's approaching 1984 levels, or passing the 9000 mark.ima help with the low skill i got!
Uh, just to avoid any confusion, I would like to stress that this is not a forum for organizing domestic terrorism, but rather is for the discussion of video games.
Post by: Servant Corps on November 11, 2009, 01:47:48 pm
Post by: Aldaris on November 11, 2009, 02:13:47 pm
But didn't General Discussion argue that Lone Wolf Terrorism is ineffective in doing anything productive other than appealing to the ego of the terrorist?Exactly, that's what the forum is for, making sure it isn't lone wolf.
I believe this would be the moment to state that I like sarcasm.
Post by: 0_0 OH MY SCIENCE 0_0 on November 12, 2009, 10:11:16 am
Post by: Servant Corps on November 12, 2009, 06:01:58 pm
Of course, it's a bit of a contradiction for the (old) Democratic Party to favor slavery, but you're just not thinking in the right mindset. The most important individual freedom is the freedom to own property, no?
The LCS would waste them both.
Post by: tehstefan on November 12, 2009, 08:33:25 pm
Post by: 0_0 OH MY SCIENCE 0_0 on November 12, 2009, 11:15:57 pm
Post by: HAMMERMILL on November 13, 2009, 12:30:58 am
But it all turns out that President Lincoln was an early reptilian overlord seeking control of the planet.
So...
I don't get how this is funny or anything.
Post by: Aldaris on November 13, 2009, 03:59:35 am
Post by: HAMMERMILL on November 13, 2009, 04:04:45 am
What is not funny about a tardis appearing in the middle of a soylent green plant, the door being kicked open from the inside, and 6 body armoured guys with machine guns storming out and shooting at everything conservative?
its not funny because soylent green is people >:(
Post by: 0_0 OH MY SCIENCE 0_0 on November 13, 2009, 10:47:29 am
Post by: winner on November 14, 2009, 06:38:14 pm
Post by: jaked122 on November 18, 2009, 05:17:59 pm
Post by: Leafsnail on November 19, 2009, 11:50:35 am
as a conservative in real life, there are some people who do deserve a fiery molten bit of lead in their cranium, but those are only the extreme idiots.That would be every conservative in Planet LCS ;D.
Post by: EuchreJack on November 19, 2009, 04:43:23 pm
as a conservative in real life, there are some people who do deserve a fiery molten bit of lead in their cranium, but those are only the extreme idiots.That would be every conservative in Planet LCS ;D.
Actually, it's those kind of extreme idiots the CCS should be based on.
With the LCS extreme idiots showing up just as the CCS extreme idiots actually start to succeed.
Post by: Jetman123 on November 21, 2009, 07:00:36 am
To say it again, I think the point of Liberal Crime Squad is to be a political satire about the arbitrary stupidity of dividing every issue between two labels, two parties! Liberal and Conservative, Democrat and Republican! For every person in the world, there is something you will agree with them on and something you will disagree with them on. To effectively "divide" everybody into groups that encompass all of their personal convictions and beliefs, you would have to make as many groups as there are humans.
Amen.
And this is why I love the game. :D
Post by: Ciarog on January 08, 2010, 09:12:28 pm
Imagine them breaking out somebody like Ol' Timmothy McVeigh and recruiting him with an offer he can't refuse. Almost like a movie hook.Holy crap, you could reenact the Dirty Dozen!
Post by: Ciarog on January 08, 2010, 10:10:18 pm
LCS is funny because they're liberal terrorists. And liberal terrorist is an oxymoron. Yes, there are tons of left wing terrorists, but precious few liberals in the LCS sense. The liberal agenda was written by waffling intellectuals, it's full of contradictions and caveats and I would challenge you to find two liberals in the country who are in complete agreement politically. That's not an agenda that is likely to inspire a dogmatic, disciplined, ruthless army of killers, neh? The LCS contridicts itself in it's every action, they kill for gun control, they drive cars to attack auto plants, they use terrorism against the media in support of free speech. There is no Bible of Liberalism, no dogma, they're true believers without a belief. At it's core, the LCS is a walking contradiction and that's why it can be satire.Satire? Irony? Why, I never even noticed. :P
Well, yes I did. But when I send my gang members off to gun down cops and torch police stations, their motivations take a distant second in my mind to their actions. If I were sending militiamen to do the same thing for slightly different reasons, I really can't say I'd be any more concerned with the subtext, just because it makes a bit more sense in the proper mindset.
Post by: mainiac on January 08, 2010, 10:32:37 pm
Yes, a different game could have crime and terrorism without any of the satire of liberals. However it would be a different game.
Post by: Ciarog on January 08, 2010, 11:05:29 pm
Post by: Andir on January 09, 2010, 07:22:30 pm
Post by: Conservative Swine on January 26, 2010, 05:02:48 pm
It is the LCS of the CCS Game that would probably need new and more oppressive goals/policies. Hate speech, thoughtcrimes, re-education/work/farm camps etc.
Post by: Servant Corps on January 26, 2010, 06:39:55 pm
Speaking of which. If this ever comes about, I'd like the option of playing as the EU/UN/Comintern forces that invade America to restore order. I always was a fence sitter when watching Red Dawn. Though you're probably right about it being beyond the scope of the game as it stands now.
If you're still there Ciarog, I recommend playing Shattered Union as the European Union (in fact, EurcheJack pointed to Shattered Union when arguing for an EU intervention). Okay, so it takes place after George W. Bush's assassination after he get elected to a third term, but it's still an EU intervention.
Post by: Gantolandon on January 26, 2010, 07:23:44 pm
Quote
It is the LCS of the CSS Game that would probably need new and more oppressive goals/policies. Hate speech, thoughtcrimes, re-education/work/farm camps etc.
Or maybe... The nightmare of planned economy looming on the horizon, as the private investors choke on the 99% progressive tax? Discrimination of males, who are reduced to subservient role, with feminists in latex (with strapons!) as a gender police? Homosexual propaganda in
Take anything from the articles written by EU's far right (they sometimes also try to create sci-fi dystopias). You will have plenty of ideas.
Post by: Conservative Swine on January 26, 2010, 08:23:01 pm
Quote
Or maybe... The nightmare of planned economy looming on the horizon, as the private investors choke on the 99% progressive tax? Discrimination of males, who are reduced to subservient role, with feminists in latex (with strapons!) as a gender police? Homosexual propaganda inelementary schoolskindergartensnursery schoolsthe womb of the child'smotherparent_1? Hobos employed for straightening bananas (which are too bent according to norm GWASDDW-2746) earning more than bankers?
Take anything from the articles written by EU's far right (they sometimes also try to create sci-fi dystopias). You will have plenty of ideas.
Since the people demand equality; all social groups and classes are to be taxed at 100%.
Everyone will then be issued an equal # of vouchers to exchange for the corresponding goods, which will be illegal to trade to other citizens. Of course; failure to work will be a criminal offense because it is detrimental to society.
The workplace will have men and women. All conversation and body language will be constantly monitored by Human Resources personnel via video, audio, and physical observation and any signs of sexual, political, visual, cultural, or "other" harassment will be swiftly and aggressively dealt with. Your contributions to society are valued.
In all seriousness though: Stalin, Mao, Castro, Guevara, Kim Jong Il, and the other assorted leftist trash in the modern West provide all the real life examples a person could want.
Post by: Necaladun on January 26, 2010, 11:40:56 pm
Post by: Conservative Swine on January 27, 2010, 12:58:48 am
Stalin and Kim Jong are pretty bad examples for left wing. They're military dictators. Kim Jong especially, being near godhood, is not a good example for equality. Stalin's syphilus induced mass murder and cult status also takes a fair bit away from the egalitarian ideas of the left wing.
Stalin and company are the worst of the worst that Communism; a left wing ideological movement, had to offer the world. "Egalitarianism and equality" might have been the unattainably absurd fantasy being fed to the people; the reality was an even more rigidly defined class structure to go along with the new brutal tyranny.
Collectivization and enforced equality has to come from the unchecked power of the state; as represented by the police, military, and civil governing authorities, because individuals in society have to be controlled to be equal. Dictators are the natural heirs to, and guardians of egalitarian absolutism(which is impossible).
Post by: Necaladun on January 27, 2010, 01:27:56 am
Hitler and company are the worst of the worst that Facism, a right wing ideological movement, had to offer the world.
However, Hitler is not the ultimate aspiration of the right wing (I hope). A military dictatorship such as Hitlers, or Stalins, comes when it is no longer ideal, and their own takes on it are especially corrupted from the original ideals. Being in a dictator's position of power, you've already ripped equality apart. Looking at the L+ issues, Stalin was against a hell of a lot of them.
Obviously, these two mass murderers are extremes. LCS is about extremes, but current day ones. The left wing of the 40s had little to do with animals being able to vote. For a CCS, we need funny policies like that. Gay rights, for instance, I don't know how using radical acts to change society to ban/gas homosexuals is funny.
Post by: Necaladun on January 27, 2010, 01:29:22 am
Post by: Jonathan S. Fox on January 27, 2010, 02:13:41 am
Post by: CheGregory on January 27, 2010, 02:41:21 am
The workplace will have men and women. All conversation and body language will be constantly monitored by Human Resources personnel via video, audio, and physical observation and any signs of sexual, political, visual, cultural, or "other" harassment will be swiftly and aggressively dealt with.
Who watches the watchmen?
Post by: Necaladun on January 27, 2010, 03:04:23 am
In a C+ society, would cops who bash a gay to death get the death penalty?
Post by: Conservative Swine on January 27, 2010, 03:08:54 am
We've played so close to the Godwin line, that I'm just gonna jump it.I agree that dictatorship wasn't the goal.
Hitler and company are the worst of the worst that Facism, a right wing ideological movement, had to offer the world.
However, Hitler is not the ultimate aspiration of the right wing (I hope). A military dictatorship such as Hitlers, or Stalins, comes when it is no longer ideal, and their own takes on it are especially corrupted from the original ideals. Being in a dictator's position of power, you've already ripped equality apart. Looking at the L+ issues, Stalin was against a hell of a lot of them.
Obviously, these two mass murderers are extremes. LCS is about extremes, but current day ones. The left wing of the 40s had little to do with animals being able to vote. For a CCS, we need funny policies like that. Gay rights, for instance, I don't know how using radical acts to change society to ban/gas homosexuals is funny.
Many of the left wing issues of the past have carried over to the present and the new ones are directly influenced by those of the past.
IMO: the Left-Right divide isn't the most accurate representation of political and economic differences.
Nazism/Fascism "right" has more in common with Communism "left" than it does
with american conservatism.
Quote
Who watches the watchmen?The people from Corporate HR come down for a day once every 6 months to check out some of the paperwork.
Quote
In a C+ society, would cops who bash a gay to death get the death penalty?If being gay is illegal and they resist arrest, maybe not. Cops get away with a lot already.
Post by: CheGregory on January 27, 2010, 09:02:20 am
We've played so close to the Godwin line, that I'm just gonna jump it.I agree that dictatorship wasn't the goal.
Hitler and company are the worst of the worst that Facism, a right wing ideological movement, had to offer the world.
However, Hitler is not the ultimate aspiration of the right wing (I hope). A military dictatorship such as Hitlers, or Stalins, comes when it is no longer ideal, and their own takes on it are especially corrupted from the original ideals. Being in a dictator's position of power, you've already ripped equality apart. Looking at the L+ issues, Stalin was against a hell of a lot of them.
Obviously, these two mass murderers are extremes. LCS is about extremes, but current day ones. The left wing of the 40s had little to do with animals being able to vote. For a CCS, we need funny policies like that. Gay rights, for instance, I don't know how using radical acts to change society to ban/gas homosexuals is funny.
Many of the left wing issues of the past have carried over to the present and the new ones are directly influenced by those of the past.
IMO: the Left-Right divide isn't the most accurate representation of political and economic differences.
Nazism/Fascism "right" has more in common with Communism "left" than it does
with american conservatism.
Pinochet would be an example of a extreme right-winger...
As to comparing Facism and American Conservatives, what they have in common is that the both put up a pointless resistance to the historical dialectic, and are stuck in the past.
Racism...anti-semitism...homophobia...
If slavery, female oppression, and segregation can be overcome...the issues that conservatives fight over today (social issues, the two biggies: abortion/ GLBTQI issues) will be soon righted in the name of Liberalism.
Post by: Servant Corps on January 27, 2010, 12:30:24 pm
To help out, I will need to make a list of all the C+ utopia laws that have been suggested. I want to make sure that the CCS is funny and, most of all, politically correct.
Post by: Servant Corps on January 27, 2010, 01:27:20 pm
Military Spending: America is 85% safe from terrorism.
Political Campagining: Political speech is unrestricted./Corporations have the right to free speech.
*Tax Laws: The United States reward innovation via tax breaks.
Animal Testing: Scientific research is unhindered.
*Homosexual Rights: The United States funds sex change operations for homosexuals wishing to keep their lifepartner.
*Civil Rights: The United States funds race change operations as part of a drive to end racial discrimination forever.
*Women's Rights: The United States funds sex change operations for women wishing to keep their jobs.
*Abortion: All abortions must be approved by the President and a 2/3rd majority vote in Congress.
Pollution: Carbon taxes reduces pollution without harming industry.
Nuclear Power: The United States is free from dependence on foregin oil.
*Free Speech/"Political Correct Speech": Free speech is universially protected.
Death Penalty: The death penalty have deterred crime.
Drugs: The streets are safe from the horrors of illegal drugs.
Flag Burning: The flag is universially protected from potential vandals.
Post by: mainiac on January 27, 2010, 01:31:28 pm
Left wing extremism is not liberalism. Liberalism is the non-extremist form of left wing ideology. This is why the SLA was so captivating; liberal terrorism is an oxymoron in a democracy.
Conservatism is a much broader ideology. Like liberals, there are plenty (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ben_Nelson) of (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mankiw) moderate (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Colon_Powell) conservatives. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ben_bernanke) But unlike liberalism, conservative terrorism in a democracy is not an oxymoron. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Klu_Klux_Klan) Where the LCS is absurd, the CCS is tragic.
Post by: Servant Corps on January 27, 2010, 01:41:32 pm
The KKK was motiviated by racial prejudicie, fighting against African Americans and Catholics. I don't think the KKK would suddenly start shooting bunnies to protect animal research. The CCS, on the other hand...
Post by: Gantolandon on January 27, 2010, 02:09:04 pm
Quote
*Women's Rights: The United States funds sex change operations for women wishing to keep their jobs.
*Homosexual Rights: The United States funds sex change operations for homosexuals wishing to keep their lifepartner.
It still reeks of liberalism ;)
I don't think any arch-conservative polititian or ideologue would advocate sex changes, as they view them as an instrument of decadence and moral corruption. They seem to view homosexuality as some sort of viral disease, spreaded by propaganda and entirely curable with a bit of prayer and psychology. Women wishing to keep their lucrative jobs also doesn't exist in right-wing ideology - if they do, they are obviously brainwashed by feminists.
Post by: Andir on January 27, 2010, 03:10:50 pm
It doesn't make any one more violent than the other. The current "Right Wing/Left Wing" is not the same as it was 50 years ago, so comparing conservatism today to conservatism in the 40's is moot. It changes with each generation. A liberal crime squad would be the most radical ideas of change while a conservative crime squad would be about the most radical "keeping things the same."
The only real "violent" conservative game you could have is a bunch of hermits who will shoot anyone trespassing and travel in packs to enforce group think on others. If you stray from "clean" thought, you will be dealt with. It would be rather boring.
And I thought this thread died some time ago...
Post by: mainiac on January 27, 2010, 03:22:16 pm
It's not an oxymoron that high schoolers are risking their lives just so that rich CEOes pay less taxes?
No it's not an oxymoron. I believe the word for that would be the second gulf war.
Post by: Conservative Swine on January 27, 2010, 05:35:48 pm
Racism and Anti-Semitism are not features of the conservative movement. Opposition to the GLBT agenda comes from traditional moral convictions, not fear.
About CCS:
Sex change wouldn't be an option for C+'s for any issue.
Abortion and contraception would be illegal. Businesses would put the glass ceiling back in and lower it, along with hiring much fewer women under 40, and not giving them leave time for pregnancy, less pay.
The Gov. funds Anti-GBLT instructional school programs and denies GBLT people all benefits and government employment.
Businesses would not be regulated at all. Consumers are responsible for deciding which products are safe and ethically produced.
Post by: EuchreJack on January 27, 2010, 08:36:45 pm
Discrimination of males, who are reduced to subservient role, with feminists in latex (with strapons!) as a gender police?
Imagery like that can only help the Liberal cause. ;)
Post by: mainiac on January 27, 2010, 10:55:58 pm
The rich pay too much in taxes already. There should only be one income tax rate, applied to everyone.
That is one opinion. Another opinion is that you are a cruel cruel bastard for expecting people in need to give up from their little while allowing those in comfort to remain in comfort.
Post by: Necaladun on January 28, 2010, 01:48:07 am
It doesn't make any one more violent than the other.
The Hawks arn't more violent than the Doves?
Between Daisy Cutters, the death penalty, and William Calley, I think one is a bit more violent/psychopathic than the other.
Post by: CheGregory on January 28, 2010, 02:07:20 am
The Conservative Agenda (Agendas marked with *s have been brought up before in this thread, everything else is new.)
Military Spending: America is 85% safe from terrorism.
Political Campagining: Political speech is unrestricted./Corporations have the right to free speech.
*Tax Laws: The United States reward innovation via tax breaks.
Animal Testing: Scientific research is unhindered.
*Homosexual Rights: The United States funds sex change operations for homosexuals wishing to keep their lifepartner.
*Civil Rights: The United States funds race change operations as part of a drive to end racial discrimination forever.
*Women's Rights: The United States funds sex change operations for women wishing to keep their jobs.
*Abortion: All abortions must be approved by the President and a 2/3rd majority vote in Congress.
Pollution: Carbon taxes reduces pollution without harming industry.
Nuclear Power: The United States is free from dependence on foregin oil.
*Free Speech/"Political Correct Speech": Free speech is universially protected.
Death Penalty: The death penalty have deterred crime.
Drugs: The streets are safe from the horrors of illegal drugs.
Flag Burning: The flag is universially protected from potential vandals.
Homosexual Rights??? = a Liberal crime against God
Civil Rights??? = easier to just not tolerate them
Women's Rights??? = easier to just treat them like dirt
Free Speech??? = Censorship of speech that is particularly offensive is encouraged.
Was that post a joke? In several of those cases you listed the the United States [Government] will fund said things, yet cite Libertarian ideals of unfettered free speech. What you have described just sounds like a socially-strange, fiscally moderate USA.
Post by: Conservative Swine on January 28, 2010, 02:11:34 am
Equal treatment by the law, including tax law. Doesn't sound cruel to me.The rich pay too much in taxes already. There should only be one income tax rate, applied to everyone.
That is one opinion. Another opinion is that you are a cruel cruel bastard for expecting people in need to give up from their little while allowing those in comfort to remain in comfort.
Here's another opinion:
You and I don't have the right to decide what other people deserve to earn and keep. We don't also have a right to what others have, simply because they have it and we don't.
Post by: Necaladun on January 28, 2010, 02:25:29 am
Post by: Conservative Swine on January 28, 2010, 03:45:28 am
Deserve and earn are different. Just because someone earns millions a year, does not mean they deserve.Someone who earns millions deserves those same millions, because they earned it.
Assuming they didn't get it criminally.
Post by: Necaladun on January 28, 2010, 04:18:04 am
Sorry, I was talking morally, not legally.Deserve and earn are different. Just because someone earns millions a year, does not mean they deserve.Someone who earns millions deserves those same millions, because they earned it.
Assuming they didn't get it criminally.
Post by: Jonathan S. Fox on January 28, 2010, 04:51:16 am
Post by: Conservative Swine on January 28, 2010, 06:26:49 am
Morally?Sorry, I was talking morally, not legally.Deserve and earn are different. Just because someone earns millions a year, does not mean they deserve.Someone who earns millions deserves those same millions, because they earned it.
Assuming they didn't get it criminally.
Where is the morality of taxing rich people over and above everyone else?
You think the rich need to have more of their money confiscated and that you have the right to demand it.
Where does that kind of moral authority come from and how did you get it?
Post by: Cheeetar on January 28, 2010, 06:45:01 am
C+ Censorship: People are protected from things that would harm their minds and views.
C+ Homosexual Rights: Homosexuals do not exist thanks to rigorous prayer and moral education.
C+ Pollution: Industry is free to operate without fearing imaginary impacts on the environment.
Post by: Andir on January 28, 2010, 08:59:34 pm
Morals are opinons, wrapped in brainwashing. Morals are self induced masturbation in order to feel good about your own decisions when you know they are not fair. Morals are what make people decide that, for some reason, Haiti needs 305 million dollars (http://money.cnn.com/2010/01/21/news/international/haiti_donations/index.htm) to recover from an earthquake ... that's over 30 million per person (http://www.google.com/publicdata?ds=wb-wdi&met=sp_pop_totl&idim=country:HTI&dl=en&hl=en&q=population+of+haiti) that lives there.Morally?Sorry, I was talking morally, not legally.Deserve and earn are different. Just because someone earns millions a year, does not mean they deserve.Someone who earns millions deserves those same millions, because they earned it.
Assuming they didn't get it criminally.
Where is the morality of taxing rich people over and above everyone else?
You think the rich need to have more of their money confiscated and that you have the right to demand it.
Where does that kind of moral authority come from and how did you get it?
You could give a check for $30mill to each resident of Haiti and let them buy their own plane and fly anywhere in the world or build themselves multi-million dollar mansions along the beaches and live in luxury the rest of their lives.
But I tell you what... those morals are definitely making someone richer and keeping all those donors in self induced good graces with their %DEITY%. Morals are a way for people to claim dominance over someone else where that dominance isn't obtained via a physical possession. They are like smoke. Easily brushed aside when they need to get through, but easy to push in your face when they want to. They are also as easy to hold onto.
Post by: Leafsnail on January 28, 2010, 09:09:30 pm
Quote
Morals are opinons, wrapped in brainwashing. Morals are self induced masturbation in order to feel good about your own decisions when you know they are not fair. Morals are what make people decide that, for some reason, Haiti needs 305 million dollars to recover from an earthquake ... that's over 30 million per person that lives there.This is the most dodgy bit of maths I have seen in my entire life. Bravo.
Post by: Andir on January 28, 2010, 10:11:05 pm
Oops, yeah, you caught me in a tired mode... I should be sleeping.QuoteMorals are opinons, wrapped in brainwashing. Morals are self induced masturbation in order to feel good about your own decisions when you know they are not fair. Morals are what make people decide that, for some reason, Haiti needs 305 million dollars to recover from an earthquake ... that's over 30 million per person that lives there.This is the most dodgy bit of maths I have seen in my entire life. Bravo.
Post by: Jonathan S. Fox on January 28, 2010, 11:42:56 pm
Post by: mainiac on January 29, 2010, 12:32:12 am
Goddamn Orwellian conservative swine...
Post by: Conservative Swine on January 29, 2010, 01:42:34 am
Morality isn't a stupid game where the person who wins gets a tacky little ribbon, it's life and death business. We care about morals because in the absence of morals we can not denounce the abhorrent like genocide or talking during movies. Complain about someone's arbitrary morals if you will, but the underlying idea that morality exists is evident from the way we live, as is the fact that we can behave in morally positive ways. Subjectivist bullshit about morality not existing deserves to be punished with a good swift kick to the head.I hope that isn't directed at me, because I didn't say that bullshit.
Goddamn Orwellian conservative swine...
Post by: Zangi on January 29, 2010, 03:10:01 am
Let us remember that this thread is for embracing Conservatism, not debating against it. :PQFT
We are trying to be Conservative here people... not Liberal. Go spread your flower-power somewhere else you damned Hippies. :P
C+ Womens Rights: Women are taught how to better serve their husband and raise a happy family.I like this alot. Works well in the Conservative viewpoint.
C+ Censorship: People are protected from things that would harm their minds and views.
C+ Homosexual Rights: Homosexuals do not exist thanks to rigorous prayer and moral education.
C+ Pollution: Industry is free to operate without fearing imaginary impacts on the environment.
Post by: Jonathan S. Fox on January 29, 2010, 04:17:08 am
Government Spending: Most non-security government bureaus have been eliminated entirely.
Taxes: Taxes are low, flat, and clean of special interest exceptions.
Abortion: Legal protection is afforded to children from the point of conception.
Stem Cells: Embryonic stem cell research is banned.
Marriage: Traditional marriage is Constitutionally protected.
Pollution: Industry self-regulates through private trade groups to ensure consumer trust.
Guns: The individual right to bear arms is upheld as a critical tenet of a free society.
Energy: The United States is a lead innovator and net exporter of energy.
Drugs: Education and enforcement have eliminated the worst of drug trafficking and abuse.
Illegal Immigration: Strict enforcement has virtually eliminated illegal immigration.
Political Campagining: Political speech is unrestricted.
Free Speech: Free speech is religiously protected.
Education: Public schools adopt best practices from the extensive private school system.
Death Penalty: Murders and rape are punishable by death.
Military Spending: United States military superiority is unrivaled.
Foreign Policy: American foreign policy is based on vigorous pursuit of international liberty and economic prosperity.
Post by: Necaladun on January 29, 2010, 06:26:49 am
Abortion: Legal protection is afforded to sperm. Contraception is considered murder.
Stem Cells: Stem cell research is classified as murder.
And to be more in line with the US of today:
Death Penalty: Murder and rape are punishable by death. Minors and the mentally retarded are not immune.
Post by: Zangi on January 29, 2010, 06:51:22 am
Well, they are already doing it for narcotics...
Post by: The13thRonin on January 29, 2010, 04:10:43 pm
PS - everyone saying a CSS game would be immoral because the liberal agenda is fighting for justice, etc, etc fails at understanding LCS. The liberal agenda is not meant to be portrayed in a good light by the game :-\.
Post by: CheGregory on January 29, 2010, 05:53:27 pm
Is anyone taking up the project? I tried and failed miserably :P.
PS - everyone saying a CSS game would be immoral because the liberal agenda is fighting for justice, etc, etc fails at understanding LCS. The liberal agenda is not meant to be portrayed in a good light by the game :-\.
It wouldn't be immoral, just disturbing. If the CCS game was fighting towards the C+ agenda in LCS...then it would be quite disturbing.
Post by: Zangi on January 29, 2010, 05:54:45 pm
Is anyone taking up the project? I tried and failed miserably :P.
PS - everyone saying a CSS game would be immoral because the liberal agenda is fighting for justice, etc, etc fails at understanding LCS. The liberal agenda is not meant to be portrayed in a good light by the game :-\.
The liberals have led the people astray with their liberal propaganda machine! We must protect family values and America from these ne'er-do-wells!
Post by: Soadreqm on January 29, 2010, 06:42:37 pm
What would the colors be in CCS? The liberals are red for COMMUNISM and BLOOD OF INNOCENT BABIES, but what about conservatives? Green? Blue? Maybe blue would be good.
Post by: Nobody1225 on January 29, 2010, 07:10:18 pm
Hows Prohibition and something similar against smoking sound? That a conservative thing?
Well, they are already doing it for narcotics...
From what I've seen, prohibition against smoking tobacco is not really Conservative in the present day. Liberal Boulder imposed a city-wide smoking ban everywhere except private homes. More conservative areas don't generally do this.
To simply speak the party line, but not personally support it (my views would put me in the Moderate Crime Squad, but I've affiliated with wackos of both extremes in the past):
- Narcotics like pot are bad because they impair your judgment, cause brain damage, and are gateway drugs to the narcotics that can really screw you up and turn you into a violent ghetto sociopath baby-snatching axe-murderer. And the gateway effect is not, sociology be damned, just because people who buy one illegal thing tend to get exposed to other illegal things to buy. Also, certain studies to contrary be damned, it does exist.
- Smoking may not be healthy, but it doesn't harm anyone else (and second-hand smoke studies are all lies) and it doesn't warp your personality and it's not a gateway to anything else and it's not Nanny Government's business to tell you not to smoke.
- Alcohol is awesome. Unless you're from the Evangelical part of the big tent. Then it's not awesome, but it's still not Nanny Government's business to tell you not to drink: that's between you and the Lord.
Whereas the LCS counterpoints would more likely be:
- With regards to marijuana (harder narcotics require different and more difficult arguments), stoned people are less violent than drunk people might be. Also, unlike alcohol, marijuana is not physiologically addictive. Also, Conservatives hate it, so it's probably good. And if there is a gateway effect, it's only because it's illegal: legalize it and no one goes looking for acid or heroin.
- Second-hand smoke is the devil, and while marijuana cigarettes have plenty of the same toxins in the same quantities as tobacco cigarettes, pot smokers don't usually smoke the equivalent of two or three packs a day the way hardcore nicotine freaks do, so tobacco has a greater total impact on health compared to cannabis. Also, universal health care, so yes, it is the government's business if you screw up your body, because society is holding the bill.
- Alcohol is destructive and physiologically addictive. Stoned people don't beat their spouses, but drunk people do. Some major religions require the regular use of it in rituals, so banning it could be fun. However, this is more borderline than the former two.
Post by: Zangi on January 29, 2010, 08:28:02 pm
*snip*
Ah you make a very good point. I don't have much of anything to say against it.
Post by: Necaladun on January 29, 2010, 11:07:38 pm
Post by: Servant Corps on January 30, 2010, 03:06:59 am
Put it this way. Yes, granting animals the right to vote is not something that Liberals support, especially not something Liberals would support as a way to stop animal testing. But it is something the LCS supports. Why? For the comedy.
Post by: HAMMERMILL on January 30, 2010, 11:01:24 am
Post by: LordBucket on January 30, 2010, 02:58:25 pm
From what I've seen, prohibition against smoking tobacco
is not really Conservative in the present day.
Realism is not a requirement. Comedy is.
I say...at C++ coffee and aspirin smugglers are shot on sight at the border.
Post by: LordBucket on January 30, 2010, 03:23:43 pm
The Conservative Agenda (Agendas marked with *s have been brought up before in this thread, everything else is new.)
Military Spending: America is 85% safe from terrorism.
Political Campagining: Political speech is unrestricted./Corporations have the right to free speech.
*Tax Laws: The United States reward innovation via tax breaks.
Animal Testing: Scientific research is unhindered.
*Homosexual Rights: The United States funds sex change operations for homosexuals wishing to keep their lifepartner.
*Civil Rights: The United States funds race change operations as part of a drive to end racial discrimination forever.
*Women's Rights: The United States funds sex change operations for women wishing to keep their jobs.
*Abortion: All abortions must be approved by the President and a 2/3rd majority vote in Congress.
Pollution: Carbon taxes reduces pollution without harming industry.
Nuclear Power: The United States is free from dependence on foregin oil.
*Free Speech/"Political Correct Speech": Free speech is universially protected.
Death Penalty: The death penalty have deterred crime.
Drugs: The streets are safe from the horrors of illegal drugs.
Flag Burning: The flag is universially protected from potential vandals.
Remember this needs to be fun. Try something more like this:
Military Spending: The military industrial complex operates all industry without state interference.
Political Campaigning: Citizens are selected by lottery to be allowed to read pre-made campaigning support speeches.
Tax Laws: The central church collects an entirely optional but mandatory 50% tithe.
Human Testing: Subhuman mutants have been bio-engineered as a race of fallow test subjects.
Homosexual Rights: Male on male physical contact, such as hugs between family members, is punishable by death.
Civil Rights: Wasteful judges and juries have been abolished. Death squads perform the only punishment: execution.
Women's Place: Women may not attend school and are forbidden from leaving the home.
Baby murder: Accidental miscarriage is punishable by death.
Pollution: Harmless nuclear and radioactive byproducts are a valuable commodity ingredient for baby food.
Nukuler Power: All homes are powered by portable U-238 fission generators.
Free Speech: Electronic mind control devices are implanted in every baby at birth to insure no improper thoughts.
Death Penalty: Death squads patrol every street, performing public executions daily.
Drugs: Coffee and Aspirin smugglers are shot on sight at the border.
Flag Pride: Flying the flag is legally required on all cars, homes and business. Anyone failing to do so is executed.
Post by: winner on January 30, 2010, 05:20:37 pm
Perhaps, for a slightly more Christian feel:not enough victim blaming.
Abortion: Legal protection is afforded to sperm. Contraception is considered murder.
Stem Cells: Stem cell research is classified as murder.
And to be more in line with the US of today:
Death Penalty: Murder and rape are punishable by death. Minors and the mentally retarded are not immune.
If someone has sex with an animal, you kill the animal. Why not extend that to most crimes?
OOh I know any sort of premarital sex is punishable by marriage.
Post by: Leafsnail on January 30, 2010, 05:24:45 pm
Post by: Nobody1225 on January 30, 2010, 05:27:24 pm
Realism is not a requirement. Comedy is.
I say...at C++ coffee and aspirin smugglers are shot on sight at the border.
I can't say I agree with that approach. Only a very few of the L+ elements of the Liberal Agenda are actually absurd anymore--animals literally being equal to people and maybe the election of individual police officers--the humor in the game is not that their agenda itself is hilarious but the dark, twisted, and basically hypocritical measures (brainwashing people to ensure free speech, using submachine guns to bring about a gun-free society) they take to achieve it in a basically dysfunctional society. I don't agree with some of the end goals of the LCS, but it does appear to be a basically coherent agenda that you can picture someone (like, the founder I'm running) choosing to uphold.
A conservative equivalent deserves the same treatment. While the agenda should be taken in good humor at parts, it should look like a mostly-coherent agenda someone bright, charismatic, violent and ambitious (like your founder) could get behind, even if you personally disagree with it. Then the sick humor is when they do terrible and hypocritical things to bring about their version of utopia. If a protagonist CCS's end goal (not the antagonist CCS of the main game) was a society with a death penalty for every last thing, for instance, then wanton violence to bring it about wouldn't be hypocritical.
Or funny, really. It'd just be "Ha ha, KKKonservatives r stoopid & eeevil, see?" We can get penny-ante humor like that in a low-end Flash game on a site alongside doll-maker games. This is a more sophisticated work and it deserves better than that.
Another Possible Conservative Agenda:
Jonathon S. Fox's version of the Conservative Agenda is quite coherent, for instance; I can see a grassroots-level vigilante embracing it, rather than, say, one of the nastier James Bond villains. Is it really that funny in itself? Well, no. Other than animals being literal people too, the LCS agenda isn't funny anymore either. The dark irony kicks in, say, when the military-praising and national-security-minded Conservatives are forced to choose between slaughtering the soldiers and cops they claim to support, or giving up the guns they have a right to and turning themselves in to a justice system that will either let them off because it's too liberal (early in the game) or execute them for murder and treason because they've already successfully de-liberalized it.
Post by: Necaladun on January 30, 2010, 09:03:28 pm
A conservative equivalent deserves the same treatment. While the agenda should be taken in good humor at parts, it should look like a mostly-coherent agenda someone bright, charismatic, violent and ambitious (like your founder) could get behind, even if you personally disagree with it. Then the sick humor is when they do terrible and hypocritical things to bring about their version of utopia. If a protagonist CCS's end goal (not the antagonist CCS of the main game) was a society with a death penalty for every last thing, for instance, then wanton violence to bring it about wouldn't be hypocritical.
It deserves what it gets, regardless or morality :P
More seriously, a lot of the absurdity I find from the LCS is the horrible immoral means to make a society that wouldn't be that bad to live in. A lot of the current laws in America are considered already to be C+ (If not just disguisting) by much of the western world, especially the death penalty.
A few more random C+ ideas, invisible sky fairy themed.
Military: The USAF is now an officially recognized crusading army, finally capable of winning wars against small third world countries.
Tax Laws: The central church collects an entirely optional but mandatory 50% tithe. (Unchanged cause I love it.)
Baby murder: "Accidental" miscarriage is punishable by death. (We all know you were thinking sinful thoughts at it.)
Free Speech: Is a universal right to all, but not to offend.
Death Penalty: Is applied to murder, rape, treason, arson, homosexuality, blasphemy, and the "Three strikes and you're out".
Flag Pride: Anyone with less than 3 flags on their person is to be charged with treason.
Political Campaigning: We report. God decides.
Civil Rights: All those who are under the yoke of slavery must have unqualified respect for their masters, so that the name of God and our teaching is not brought into disrepute. (Timothy 6:1)
Womens Rights: As in all the churches of God's holy people, women are to remain quiet in the assemblies, since they have no permission to speak: theirs is a subordinate part. (Corinthians 14:34)
Gay Rights: If a man has sex with a man in same way as with a woman, they have committed an abomination. They are certainly to be put to death. (Leviticus 20:13)
Post by: winner on January 30, 2010, 09:41:19 pm
"All the Muslims, Jews, Catholics and atheits are allowed to worship Jesus freely as much as they want to."
Post by: Necaladun on January 30, 2010, 10:07:39 pm
freedom of religion?
"All the Muslims, Jews, Catholics and atheits are allowed to worship Jesus freely as much as they want to."
I Lol'd.
Post by: Nobody1225 on January 30, 2010, 11:21:27 pm
a society that wouldn't be that bad to live inLike I said, the L+ agenda really isn't that absurd, especially the way it's phrased on the victory screen; it doesn't look like that bad a place. I basically agree.
But suppose we insisted on phrasing the L+ agenda as follows?
- Abortion: Massive numbers of abortions are causing demographic disasters with missing generations and rapidly aging populations.
- Animal Research: Many life-saving drugs cannot be developed, because there are no legal means of testing. Hopefully unlimited human embryonic stem cell research has all the answers to every remaining medical question.
- Law Enforcement: Police officers cannot act without approval from the majority of a community. Police officers cannot protect unpopular minorities in their community without being removed from their posts.
- Privacy Laws: Attempting to learn the names or phone numbers of people to whom you wish to sell products is illegal. Asking for names and ID to verify checks or credit cards is illegal. All trade must return to a cash or barter basis.
- Death Penalty: Multiple murderers must be kept alive and healthy at any cost, including cosmetic surgeries necessary for maintenance of self-esteem, until death by old age. In fact, life without parole is barbaric, too; forty years as an upper limit to incarceration. No one who murdered at 18 might do it again at 58, right? Also, the death penalty is completely barbaric, so embargoes against China, Japan, and other Eastern nations for practicing it.
- Nuclear Power: efficient, clean, and with modern developments, extremely safe, power sources are banned. Increased coal and natural gas will be needed until we can finish paving Nevada with solar panels.
- Pollution: all factories using potentially noxious chemicals, or emitting any kind of fumes, close. Slack is picked up instead in developing nations, where there are no incentives whatsoever to reduce pollution or care for customer safety and there is of course absolutely no chance that heavy metals might be introduced into infant formula as a cost-saving measure.
- Workers: all workers have a living wage with full benefits and humane working hours--assuming they can get one of the very few remaining jobs as private industry slashes workforces by 80% to afford the minimum government requirements for key employees.
- Homosexual rights: persons holding views about human sexuality not ordained by the LCS are sentenced to re-education and forbidden from speaking those views.
- Corporate Law: corporations cannot function in any way. Any form of enterprise can be operated by the government, worker's collectives, or single-owner unlimited-liability only.
- Free Speech: Free speech is universally supported--unless it's from a source that disagrees with the LCS; then it can be gunned down in mid-broadcast, or labeled un-person by decree and deported from the country.
- Flag Burning: The right to burn a flag is universally protected--even if the flag is on someone's uniform and they're trying to wear it at the time.
- Gun Control: If a crazy man on meth breaks into a woman's apartment at midnight, all she can do is go for a useless can of pepper spray and
prayhope that she's not fatally injured before the police arrive. - Taxes: Doctors choose to stop working four months into the year because the salary they make for any additional hours worked would be confiscated.
- Women's Rights: Men cannot be hired to any position or promoted if there is a woman who also wants that position.
- Affirmative Action: Caucasians, regardless of background, cannot be hired to any position or promoted if there is a non-Caucasian, regardless of background, who also wants that position.
- Drugs: The right of persons to smoke copious amounts of marijuana before operating heavy machinery or motor vehicles shall not be infringed.
- Immigration: all borders are completely open and citizenship is automatic to anyone who wants it, unlike such backwards non-progressive countries as France, the Netherlands, or the United Kingdom.
- Campaign Finance: It is illegal for groups of persons exceeding one in number to pool money for any political cause.
- Military: The military is scaled back greatly. Unemployment spikes dramatically. Defense commitments to friendly nations are discarded. America minds its own business and wishes its former friends the best of luck should their neighbors become hostile in the future.
- Interrogation: Persons suspected of plotting to bomb public places receive defense lawyers before polite interviews are held regarding placement of said bombs. Such persons usually can therefore arrange guarantees of total legal immunity before detonation of said bombs and loss of human life. Harsh tactics are reserved only for those who disagree with the LCS, who may be starved, dehydrated, beaten, deprived of sleep, and forced to consume narcotic substances.
Wouldn't it be stupid to phrase it that way? Wouldn't that be a completely ridiculous agenda to fight and die for? Would there be any point in playing a game where your goal was to bring about such a result?
For protagonists, the agenda needs to reflect their end goals they way they would see them, not the way their opponents would insist on framing them. I've got no problem having the losing conditions--that is, the C+ variants of the laws when the LCS are the protagonists--being goofy, over-the-top, and incoherent, and really the base game does a pretty good job of that already. I just think a role-reversal mod should be better thought-out than that.
Quote
Tax Laws: The central church collects an entirely optional but mandatory 50% tithe. (Unchanged cause I love it.)And this is ludicrous. Even if you insist on going by basic stereotypes (and hey, why not? The game is full of it), the default religion for American Conservatives would be Protestant Christianity--Lutherans and Anglicans and Baptists and mega-churches and thousands of flavors of Evangelical and many other things. That means no one central church. Would a Conservative Utopia likely have everyone going to a church every Sunday? Sure. Would there be a unified church, or anything identifiable as a central church? No.
Quote
Free Speech: Is a universal right to all, but not to offend.Both Liberal and Conservative Americans seem to think that this is the other guy's view, and that they're the ones who embrace total freedom of speech. Conservative pundits blast the notion of political correctness and the idea that they shouldn't say offensive things pretty much constantly--and then say those offensive things constantly as well. So do Liberal pundits. The only differences are who they claim they shouldn't have to worry about offending.
Post by: Servant Corps on January 31, 2010, 12:01:14 am
Quote
Military: The military is scaled back greatly. Unemployment spikes dramatically.
You know, all that money devoted to the military could be thrown at some other lame project, thereby boosting employment in that direction. You don't hear about Welfare Liberals supporting a small government.
Post by: EuchreJack on January 31, 2010, 12:16:39 am
Thus:
Civil Rights would be renamed "Employment Regulations" with the following:
C+: Employers can hire those employees best qualified for the job
L+: Crackheads are given priority over honest Americans because they're "disabled"
For the C+, of course we all know this isn't how it would really work, but that's the party line. For L+, there is a King of The Hill episode about just this situation.
Freedom of religion would probably be keep its name, but be phrased thusly:
C+: People of all religions are able to pray and organize wherever they want
L+: Acknowleging religion/diety/prayer in public is a felony
Again, the government under C+ doesn't stifle individual freedom to religion, it's the fault of the society that such discretion breeds that does so.
I'd suggest basing the death penalty in the Arch-Conservative paradise on pre-1970's Death Penalty usage (it was in the 1970's that the death penalty was restricted to crimes ending in victim death), where it is used in the case of violent felonies (including robbery). Thus, I'd agree with the previous post about it not extending to every infraction of the law.
For programming purposes, I'd suggest that at C+ death penalty, that it is only applied when the CCS member's prison term exceeds one year. Maybe even longer. From my experience in starting the game in a C+ paradise, death penalty for everything only reinforces why such a system is stupid: If vandalism nets me the death sentence, why don't I just kill someone to make my point? Just like the final result of LCS, the result of CCS has to be vaguely believable.
Post by: Necaladun on January 31, 2010, 03:51:41 am
Civil Rights would be renamed "Employment Regulations" with the following:I really like the wording there.
C+: Employers can hire those employees best qualified for the job
L+: Crackheads are given priority over honest Americans because they're "disabled"
I'd suggest basing the death penalty in the Arch-Conservative paradise on pre-1970's Death Penalty usage (it was in the 1970's that the death penalty was restricted to crimes ending in victim death), where it is used in the case of violent felonies (including robbery). Thus, I'd agree with the previous post about it not extending to every infraction of the law.The death penalty is a very big issue, mostly because it affects the player. For every infraction...well, if it's carried out, you'll have a very small population. Unfortunatly, it isn't unrealistic for it to be in place for sodomy, adultery, or witchcraft, or on a racial basis. These have all been used somewhere in the world in the last century. I know sodomy, adultery and witchcraft are still capital offenses in many theocratic type governments.
The other option is:
X Laws: The X Laws keep this country safe from terrorism.
(Repeat ad nauseum)
Post by: LordBucket on January 31, 2010, 06:52:38 am
The "optional but mandatory 50% church tithe" becomes a gameplay mechanic. Once the CCS reaches C++ for that issue, they are hounded by the church for the tithe.
"Death squads" offer something similar. At C++ death squads wander the streets and attack the squad for having old model rifles instead of shiny new ones. That sort of thing.
Platonic male on male contact being a crime makes people who carry wounded from failed site actions acquire anotehr felony.
The only penalty for any crime being execution (how dare you chew gum, time to die) once again, makes the later stages of the game more difficult.
Etc.
Post by: winner on January 31, 2010, 01:39:55 pm
To be fair, even LCS seems to acknowledge that in an Arch-Conservative society, racial inequality wouldn't be mandated by law, but rather a result of society acting without affirmative action.
Thus:
Civil Rights would be renamed "Employment Regulations" with the following:
C+: Employers can hire those employees best qualified for the job
L+: Crackheads are given priority over honest Americans because they're "disabled"
For the C+, of course we all know this isn't how it would really work, but that's the party line. For L+, there is a King of The Hill episode about just this situation.
Freedom of religion would probably be keep its name, but be phrased thusly:
C+: People of all religions are able to pray and organize wherever they want
L+: Acknowleging religion/diety/prayer in public is a felony
Again, the government under C+ doesn't stifle individual freedom to religion, it's the fault of the society that such discretion breeds that does so.
I'd suggest basing the death penalty in the Arch-Conservative paradise on pre-1970's Death Penalty usage (it was in the 1970's that the death penalty was restricted to crimes ending in victim death), where it is used in the case of violent felonies (including robbery). Thus, I'd agree with the previous post about it not extending to every infraction of the law.
For programming purposes, I'd suggest that at C+ death penalty, that it is only applied when the CCS member's prison term exceeds one year. Maybe even longer. From my experience in starting the game in a C+ paradise, death penalty for everything only reinforces why such a system is stupid: If vandalism nets me the death sentence, why don't I just kill someone to make my point? Just like the final result of LCS, the result of CCS has to be vaguely believable.
you're right, L+ needs to be a dystopia and C+ needs to be a fairly nice place to be.
I can't think of a funny way to phrase it, but one thing I hear complaints about from conservatives is that men aren't allowed to be real men and women aren't allowed to be real women.
C+ hardworking americans get what they earn.
L+ lazy welfare queens get rich off of other people money.
freedom of speech
C+ Congress shall make no law abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press.
L+ (I can't think of a good way to phrase "anti hate speech legislation" that sounds right)
Post by: HAMMERMILL on February 04, 2010, 02:30:07 am
Something like "American Flags are given more legal rights then citizens." is better, imo, since burning a flag could be punishable by death while shooting a homeless guy (unless they are a veteran!) could be punishable by a fine and community service.
Post by: EuchreJack on February 04, 2010, 04:22:24 pm
For the freedom of speech, we need simply look at foreign countries for Liberal infringement. The term "political correctness" describes the trend in the 1990's to avoid saying thing in a way that would offend certain groups, extending the groups that could be offended past race and gender to encompass, at it's worst, everybody and anybody. And then society fought back with South Park and related shows.
L+: Any insult of another is a crime.
Women's rights is a difficult issue to explain the Conservative Viewpoint. While we can easily see how other countries deprive women not only of the right to work and vote, but of the very basic rights of survival, I doubt the United States of today could shift to such a condition being mandated by law. Isn't one of the stars of the Arch-Conservative movement a woman? (Palin) But, the Conservative Cause might be willing to remove many safeguards that protect women, in the fight for "equality". But, since the "Employment Regulations" pretty much extend to the issue of women in the workforce, perhaps we can discuss the issue of "Sexual Harassment". Personally, I think we need all the regulations currently on the books, but extend those regulations too far and you can see obvious problems.
Workplace Dating Rights:
C+: Employees are free to flirt, date, and marry.
L+: Looking at coworkers of the opposite sex is a felony/grounds for termination.
Edit: The major downfall of not having the CCS go all out for oppressing women is the loss of satirical value that would otherwise be gained by having female recruits fighting for the dehumanisation of women. It's really a decision of whether the CCS game should go back to the roots of LCS of absurdity, or adopt the current inclination of the LCS with subtle satire. It will probably fall upon the team that actually starts work on CCS to decide on the optimum balance.
Post by: Conservative Swine on February 04, 2010, 06:23:41 pm
Post by: winner on February 04, 2010, 11:08:05 pm
What if the "Conservatives" try to install a Monarch or create a Presidential Dictatorship?American conservatives would find that unthinkable to support. That doesn't stop them from wishing it when they're in power.
list to keep them compiled
Spoiler (click to show/hide)
another good link for material
http://www.closecombattraining.com/cctraining/startg.php?gclid=CODltrim2p8CFSEbawodeG34HA (http://www.closecombattraining.com/cctraining/startg.php?gclid=CODltrim2p8CFSEbawodeG34HA)
a wonderful excerpt
Quote
Warning do not read this if you have moral ethical or religious reasons forcing you to cower helplessly while someone attacks you, your wife, or your kids
Post by: EuchreJack on February 04, 2010, 11:13:02 pm
My thoughts are that it would go back to the tone that the future developers of CCS are pursuing. In real life, I doubt even the Arch-Conservatives would want a dictatorship. But it would be funny.
Post by: Jonathan S. Fox on February 05, 2010, 01:30:18 am
Edit: The major downfall of not having the CCS go all out for oppressing women is the loss of satirical value that would otherwise be gained by having female recruits fighting for the dehumanisation of women. It's really a decision of whether the CCS game should go back to the roots of LCS of absurdity, or adopt the current inclination of the LCS with subtle satire. It will probably fall upon the team that actually starts work on CCS to decide on the optimum balance.
Did LCS ever have an absurd Liberal Agenda? I adjusted some of the wording on a few of the laws, but I don't think I toned them down. The only really substantive change I remember making was Animal Rights, and that was to make it more silly in order to justify a game mechanic.
Post by: EuchreJack on February 05, 2010, 02:17:43 pm
Post by: Conservative Swine on February 05, 2010, 05:11:53 pm
I know. That's why I put Conservative in quotation marks. If the game took place in Europe, real life Con's might actually want that.What if the "Conservatives" try to install a Monarch or create a Presidential Dictatorship?American conservatives would find that unthinkable to support.
Quote
That doesn't stop them from wishing it when they're in power.I've never wished for King Bush or McCain. They were bad enough as President and Senator.
Quote
Did LCS ever have an absurd Liberal Agenda?It's at least as absurd as the real life Liberal Agenda. :)
Post by: Necaladun on February 05, 2010, 09:03:33 pm
However, the L+ issues for nuclear power, animal testing, free speech, etc, I agree with being the way they are in the game. Even though they don't fit into my views, they are the view of most of the left wing. It seems especially hard to see in the US, where voting with the party isn't required. To confuse matters even more, the most right wing party (who have a decent number of seats) here is the Australian Liberal Party.
Plenty of conservatives seemed very annoyed about Palin, but she still is representative of C+ in many ways. A lot of political spectrum's I've seen have divided left/right wing and liberal/authoritarian.
So, to actually get around to my point:
Many American Conservatives have liberal views it seems (Gun ownership, for instance).
C+ seems right+authoritarian, and L+ seems Left+Liberal, for the most part. Dividing it four ways goes against the black and white spirit of the game. Does this agree with people's view of the game/issue divisions?
Post by: winner on February 06, 2010, 01:07:49 am
it doesn't have to do with either right or left wing but a lot of problems wouldn't come up if people who had my type of views were permanently in power.I've never wished for King Bush or McCain. They were bad enough as President and Senator.What if the "Conservatives" try to install a Monarch or create a Presidential Dictatorship?That doesn't stop them from wishing it when they're in power.
Quote
apparently you don't actually need closing quotes html just assumes them
Post by: Zangi on February 06, 2010, 07:55:12 pm
I think his radio thing's 'trademark' is "We allow people who disagree get on air and say their piece."
What that really means is "We screen the Liberals calling to put Rush down. The smarter Liberals will never get on air, but the dumber ones, who havn't done any research to what they say and/or those who would just end up insulting Rush get on air."
Either way, Rush makes a lot of Conservative points. He can be the Conservative Crime Squads mentor figure.
Post by: CheGregory on February 09, 2010, 11:39:09 pm
Listening to Rush Limbaugh is pretty entertaining... especially after putting some time into LCS...
I think his radio thing's 'trademark' is "We allow people who disagree get on air and say their piece."
What that really means is "We screen the Liberals calling to put Rush down. The smarter Liberals will never get on air, but the dumber ones, who havn't done any research to what they say and/or those who would just end up insulting Rush get on air."
Either way, Rush makes a lot of Conservative points. He can be the Conservative Crime Squads mentor figure.
After he got his fat ass off the couch and stopped bitching...
Rush and his goon squad could never win anyways, against the Elite Liberal Squad of Canine Heroes with heavy body armour and AK-47's.
Post by: winner on February 12, 2010, 01:55:21 am
L+ DIY Abortion kits are available from free dispensers at every elementary school.
C+ An Unborn child is given full rights as a citizen.
Post by: EuchreJack on February 12, 2010, 02:35:28 am
Oh, and since when can Canine's use AK-47s? ;)
Post by: Jonathan S. Fox on February 12, 2010, 03:14:07 am
Post by: Asmodeous on February 12, 2010, 09:20:04 am
C+ An Unborn child is given full rights as a citizen.
\o/
;)
Post by: EuchreJack on February 12, 2010, 10:28:22 pm
Why, canines can use AK-47s ever since they all suddenly turned into clones of Brian from Family Guy when animal rights turned L+... though that doesn't really fit in CCS as well. :P
That is so awesome! Actually, I can see Brian fighting the CCS, maybe a boss character...
Oh, and here's to unborn children...
\;D/
Post by: Kay12 on February 13, 2010, 09:42:14 am
L+ taxes: "The government is abandoning currency in favor of equal poverty."
L taxes: "Oppressive taxes are bankrupting businesses all around the country."
M taxes: "High taxes are slowing national development."
C taxes: "Fair tax rates reward industries and investors."
C+ taxes: "Low and equal tax rates give everyone an equal chance."
L+ police laws: "The police are powerless and ineffiecent because of nationwide restrictions."
L police laws: "Many police actions require a judge's approval."
M police laws: "Law enforcement has few special rights."
C police laws: "The police are given many rights concerning crime suppression."
C+ police laws: "Law enforcement is obliged to protect the people sparing no expense."
L+ drug laws: "All drugs are legal, and can be bought, sold and exported."
L drug laws: "There are few restrictions on drug cartels and exporting them."
M drug laws: "Mild drugs are allowed and a licence is needed for dealing them."
C drug laws: "Medical use of certain drugs is allowed."
C+ drug laws: "Misuse of drugs is being countered with good results."
L+ gun laws: "Anything that can be considered to be a weapon is illegal."
L gun laws: "Any weapon dealer must meet strict requirements or be shut down."
M gun laws: "A licence is needed to buy and sell weapons."
C gun laws: "People are allowed to have and sell weapons with few limitations."
C+ gun laws: "The government provides free weapons for people who can't protect their family otherwise."
L+ corporate: "All corporations are subsidiaries of the State."
L corporate: "The government has the right to override corporate decisions."
M corporate: "Corporations are monitored excessively."
C corporate: "The government can't interfere with corporate affairs unless law is explicitly broken."
C+ corporate: "Corporations are rewarded significantly for helping the economy."
L+ union laws: "Labor unions run the country and eliminate opponents ruthlessly."
L union laws: "Union representatives are immune to prosecution."
M union laws: "Labor unions have a little more freedom than other organizations."
C union laws: "Unions are treated fairly but given no special rights."
C+ union laws: "Labor unions are monitored to prevent illegal actions."
I still prefer LCS though. LCS laws are a lot more goofy... I sought the same effect with union laws though - treat them like a bloody secret society or something.
Post by: EuchreJack on February 14, 2010, 02:29:46 am
Thus: C+: Unions are no longer allowed to limit the rights of workers and businesses.
Post by: Jonathan S. Fox on February 14, 2010, 03:19:29 am
- Threaten reprisals against union workers or offer inducements to non-union workers.
- Discriminate against or fire employees that join a union or advocate unionization.
- Discriminate against or fire employees that file charges or testify against them.
- Dominate a union so that the employer has significant influence over union activities.
- Refuse to negotiate with a union.
- Place anti-union clauses in employee contracts.
This comes from the fact that these are all special regulations that union members today take for granted, but are actually government interventions to encourage and protect union organizing. A C+ government would consider unions more harmful than productive, and would withdraw the government protections against employer crackdowns. This "natural order" for unions without government protection is that it is very scary to be a union organizer.
A C society would, at the very least, be right-to-work: contracts that require employers to fire employees that refuse to unionize would be illegal.
Post by: Kay12 on February 14, 2010, 03:22:58 am
I like what you did with the unions, but in all honesty most conservatives hate the unions. In the mind of the conservative, Unions are associated with organized crime, communists, and elitists. Unions are often blamed for our losing market share to other contries. The decline of GM is often attributed to union activity, the accuracy of which I decline to comment.
Thus: C+: Unions are no longer allowed to limit the rights of workers and businesses.
That's a good one! Perhaps then move the old C union law to M, the old C+ law to C and have that one be the C+.
One more concerning nuclear power:
L+: Most electric devices are banned to prevent power shortages.
L: Nuclear power is restricted to research use.
M: Existing nuclear plants are allowed to operate but new ones can't be built.
C: Nuclear power is legal and regulated to prevent accidents.
C+: New nuclear technology is supported by the government, allowing safe and clean power for millions.
The LCS's nuclear plant could be replaced by a Biofuel plant. Stopping the generators there will make the people wish for more stable power. Of course, in L+ no one really notices the brownout since all power sources apart from solar and wind are banned, meaning no one's got enough electricity. If there's still a nuclear plant in the game, on C+ they should be renamed to "fusion plants".
Post by: Jonathan S. Fox on February 14, 2010, 04:24:57 am
L+ taxes: "The government is abandoning currency in favor of equal poverty."
L+: Most electric devices are banned to prevent power shortages.
I love these.
Post by: Conservative Swine on February 14, 2010, 02:55:11 pm
I like what you did with the unions, but in all honesty most conservatives hate the unions. In the mind of the conservative, Unions are associated with organized crime, communists, and elitists. Unions are often blamed for our losing market share to other contries. The decline of GM is often attributed to union activity, the accuracy of which I decline to comment.
Thus: C+: Unions are no longer allowed to limit the rights of workers and businesses.
Yes; we C's and C+'s totally hate unions for the reasons described above, and more. The UAW isn't even the worst. Teachers unions and other public employees unions are even more destructive.
Post by: EuchreJack on February 17, 2010, 12:17:42 am
Post by: Zangi on February 17, 2010, 02:40:52 pm
By Jah... I can agree to Teacher's Unions being worse then it is good for the education system.I like what you did with the unions, but in all honesty most conservatives hate the unions. In the mind of the conservative, Unions are associated with organized crime, communists, and elitists. Unions are often blamed for our losing market share to other contries. The decline of GM is often attributed to union activity, the accuracy of which I decline to comment.
Thus: C+: Unions are no longer allowed to limit the rights of workers and businesses.
Yes; we C's and C+'s totally hate unions for the reasons described above, and more. The UAW isn't even the worst. Teachers unions and other public employees unions are even more destructive.
My version of a Conservative viewpoint:
L+ union laws: "Labor unions are able to force unsound financial decisions upon businesses."
L union laws: "Union members are immune to prosecution and discipline for wrong doing."
M union laws: "Labor unions hold the power to stop business functions without prosecution or retaliation."
C union laws: "Unions can be negotiated with on equal footing."
C+ union laws: "Unions are no longer allowed to limit the rights of workers and businesses."
My reason for L is that it would be really hard to fire union members without going through a lot of crud... like discrimination and what-not... In the Conservative viewpoint... its pretty much a shield that could amount to immunity.
L+ Unions by then, probably have enough power to force the business to hire even more people, or give bonuses/wage ups... even if its a really bad idea...
Or further segregate jobs to little sections where 1 person pushes a button to open the warehouse door and the 2nd unloads product x off a truck and the 3rd moves product x into the warehouse and the 4th puts product x onto the shelves.
Sticking to job descriptions to say the least...
Post by: jasonred79 on February 19, 2010, 05:28:03 pm
I come from Malaysia.
C++: Unions are considered illegal gatherings, and as such, any union gathering would be considered against the law, leading to everyone being arrested and beaten.
OK, I'm exagerating. But basically, in Malaysia, WE DON'T HAVE UNIONS. Because Unions are NOT ALLOWED TO EXIST.
You guys and your "unions are restricted" blah blah blah. Just follow real life examples. There are in fact many countries that are so conservative that Unions are basically non-existant. To us, C union laws: "Unions can be negotiated with on equal footing." is a huge joke. That is a C? hahahaha. To us, a union existing is a dream. Someone who tried to form a union would be put in jail for being a threat to national peace. (I'm serious... IIRC it has happened before)
So:
C+: Laws are in place to discourage unions being formed, protecting free trade.
L+: Labour unions regularly force companies to go out of business, due to ridiculous wages and employee benefits.
This is also Real Life example... look at General Motors.
Post by: EuchreJack on February 19, 2010, 08:07:05 pm
Also, to clarify:
C+: Unions are no longer allowed to limit the rights of workers and businesses.
...Is intentionally vague. It can mean many things, from unions being restricted at the weakest, all the way up to "anyone contemplating forming a union is shot" at the strongest. From a gameplay standpoint, you'd no longer see union members except maybe as rare encounters in public places (representing those few people still fighting for the right to unionize).
Post by: Conservative Swine on February 19, 2010, 09:07:08 pm
Quote
C+: Laws are in place to discourage unions being formed, protecting free trade.
This should be C, perhaps an outright ban. My home state has a ban on a teachers union and I don't consider this a C+ or C++ state.
C+ could be union organizers and labor protester's facing prosecution or intimidation from the government/company authorities.
Post by: lastofthelight on February 21, 2010, 08:03:14 pm
For C+ I'd have something like: Slavery is normal and accepted, with most workers receiving no pay.
Post by: Zangi on February 22, 2010, 04:14:34 pm
How is the CCS going to justify slavery by outright calling it slavery? You need a viewpoint that makes it look good.
I would make that moderate or C, since you don't tend to see strong unions unless a government is already fairly liberal.This example is from the LCS perspective when it gets C+.
For C+ I'd have something like: Slavery is normal and accepted, with most workers receiving no pay.
This should be the Conservative perspective:
C+: Employees do not have to worry about food, wages and housing as everything they need is provided to them.
Post by: Andir on February 22, 2010, 08:16:37 pm
Post by: Necaladun on February 22, 2010, 09:58:34 pm
Can someone explain why slavery is considered a Conservative stance? ???
Slavery is deprivation of liberty. Therefore, Liberals oppose slavery. Therefore, Conservatives support slavery.
The other
Post by: Jonathan S. Fox on February 22, 2010, 11:34:19 pm
Can someone explain why slavery is considered a Conservative stance? ???
Slavery is deprivation of liberty. Therefore, Liberals oppose slavery. Therefore, Conservatives support slavery.
The otherLogical FallicyCorrect Theory, is that Conservatives wish for the good old days, and are obviously talking about the days when slavery was a-ok.
So I completely agree with this theory, but it only really works for Liberal Crime Squad. See the extended version of this argument in the CCS is under development thread. :P
Post by: lastofthelight on February 23, 2010, 10:28:09 am
Today we have stuff like minimum wage laws and various things to protect the worker in place, so in any real world its not likely that conservatism in our country could lead to 'slavery' but you can satirize the battles of liberals fighting for 'worker rights' verses conservatives fighting against 'regulation of the free market' to imply that such deregulation will ultimately lead us all back into wage-slavery.
Post by: EuchreJack on February 23, 2010, 09:14:26 pm
You have to spin it in a positive Conservative viewpoint though.
How is the CCS going to justify slavery by outright calling it slavery? You need a viewpoint that makes it look good.I would make that moderate or C, since you don't tend to see strong unions unless a government is already fairly liberal.This example is from the LCS perspective when it gets C+.
For C+ I'd have something like: Slavery is normal and accepted, with most workers receiving no pay.
This should be the Conservative perspective:
C+: Employees do not have to worry about food, wages and housing as everything they need is provided to them.
But, giving employees all the food, wages and housing they need is a Liberal notion! Thus, Slavery is Liberal! Conservatives only want the employees for work, if they die tommorow from starvation is of no concern to them.
Post by: Andir on February 23, 2010, 10:31:58 pm
Correct, Slavery is more a Liberal idea (more communist actually) than it is Conservative. Conservatism is more about self improvement, self worth, and I'd argue almost isolationist ("I'll do it myself".) The most Conservative businessman is one who allows people to work for their money, not take their money away. Conservatism is about making it on your own and allowing people to make it on their own. A "Polar" Conservative would watch their competitor fail then offer them a job working for them if they were good competition (ie: a good person), otherwise they could care less if they die. It's survival of the fittest. They aren't going to enslave that person to suit their own success. That violates the self improvement and self worth of the enslaved. It doesn't help them be any stronger for themselves if you provide for them.You have to spin it in a positive Conservative viewpoint though.But, giving employees all the food, wages and housing they need is a Liberal notion! Thus, Slavery is Liberal! Conservatives only want the employees for work, if they die tomorrow from starvation is of no concern to them.
How is the CCS going to justify slavery by outright calling it slavery? You need a viewpoint that makes it look good.I would make that moderate or C, since you don't tend to see strong unions unless a government is already fairly liberal.This example is from the LCS perspective when it gets C+.
For C+ I'd have something like: Slavery is normal and accepted, with most workers receiving no pay.
This should be the Conservative perspective:
C+: Employees do not have to worry about food, wages and housing as everything they need is provided to them.
Edit: I guess to summarize, Conservatism is about individual rights, not individual entitlements. Nobody says conservatism is guaranteed success (free labor is pretty much guaranteed success if you ask me...)
Post by: lastofthelight on February 24, 2010, 02:33:18 am
I strongly disagree. Slavery has historically been anything BUT a liberal notion, and I say this as someone who has studied it (though only briefly) in a college history course. From the days of ancient rome to 1800's america, liberals have clashed very violently with conservatives over the issue of slavery. (Though I'll cynically note that such usually only pops up in hard enough economic times that slavery is costing people paying jobs.)
The essential nature of slavery is not 'giving people free stuff' - that could be satirized in an L+ welfare state society, but the notion of 'individual rights' and 'self improvement' combined with 'do whatever you want' and 'we won't regulate the wealthy'. Liberals, for all their faults, have a consistent human rights stand, which is never a major platform of conservatism.
Post by: jasonred79 on February 24, 2010, 02:59:59 am
BUT... how about "close to slavery"? Like sweatshops and child labour and poor working conditions and all that similiar stuff that doesn't protect the worker and works in favor of the employer? Is that liberal or conservative?
hmm. Protecting employee rights SEEMS liberal to me... I could be mistaken.
Post by: Jonathan S. Fox on February 24, 2010, 05:03:02 am
On the other hand, a welfare state where some people are "no income workers" whose entire earnings go into paying their taxes to support state-provided living benefits, like a house and free food, that sounds like your L+ analogue to slavery to me. Stick slavery-like conditions somewhere at L+, just due to extremely exaggerated levels of tax and welfare, then let the CCS fight against those conditions.
Post by: Zangi on February 24, 2010, 10:24:42 am
In LCS, we already have child labor at C+. I wouldn't do the same for CCS since virtually all modern conservatives would likely find children in factories to be deplorable, and putting kids in factories is not much a cause to fight for.
On the other hand, a welfare state where some people are "no income workers" whose entire earnings go into paying their taxes to support state-provided living benefits, like a house and free food, that sounds like your L+ analogue to slavery to me. Stick slavery-like conditions somewhere at L+, just due to extremely exaggerated levels of tax and welfare, then let the CCS fight against those conditions.
By Jah... I love how in the LCS/CCS world... Slavery can be construed as both a Liberal and Conservative thing with such extreme perspectives...
Post by: Andir on February 24, 2010, 10:29:20 am
A true conservative wouldn't send out goon squads to enforce their ideals. They'd just sit back, do their thing and say, "I told you so!"
Slavery doesn't even make sense for a conservative standpoint. Why would a conservative opt in to supporting someone else? It's a liberal goal to give everyone a job, even if it means not paying them to do it. As long as it supports the greater wealth.
The conservative stand on human rights is that everyone has the right, but you are not entitled to it. Take healthcare that's hot right now. You have the right to obtain Healthcare, but you are paying for it yourself. If that's a "human rights" violation in your eyes, then sure, but it's more of a resource allocation issue than anything. You can't always win, but you have the right to try. That's conservative.
To be honest, a CCS game would be the most boring thing on the planet because it's just not as ridiculous as the liberal stand of feeding the entire country with a single jar of peanut butter.
Post by: Andir on February 24, 2010, 10:35:36 am
Protecting employee rights SEEMS liberal to me... I could be mistaken.Protecting rights is conservative, protecting entitlements is liberal. Protecting personal property is conservative, protecting public lands is liberal.
Post by: jasonred79 on February 24, 2010, 11:50:13 am
You have succesfully turned the USA into a Conservative Utopia!
... You are now under arrest for playing this game! This game is far too liberal! You think free speech is your god given right? The government safeguards us from uncensored and potentially dangerous literature such as this!
:(
Yeah, LCS is fantastic because it's very existence is liberal, lol. CCS... mmm.
Post by: Andir on February 24, 2010, 01:29:24 pm
... You are now under arrest for playing this game! This game is far too liberal! You think free speech is your god given right? The government safeguards us from uncensored and potentially dangerous literature such as this!Free speech is a "god" given right. A conservative would wholeheartedly agree with that. Censorship is not a conservative thought. You are trying to paint conservatism as if it were big government? Big government and oversight is a very liberal act. Conservatives embrace small government because it's more efficient and less intrusive, but unlike Far End Libertarians, they feel that some government is needed to protect their individual rights. This is why a CCS game would be pointless. They aren't going to send hit squads after you because you think differently than they do, but they'll fight to protect what is theirs.
Post by: Jonathan S. Fox on February 24, 2010, 01:46:47 pm
This is why a CCS game would be pointless. They aren't going to send hit squads after you because you think differently than they do, but they'll fight to protect what is theirs.
Neither are anything resembling proper Liberals. LCS/CCS should not be interpreted as representing sane, logically consistent worldviews. They are distorted versions of real political views whose members have been caught up in the romance of the "just cause".
Post by: Andir on February 24, 2010, 02:56:25 pm
Then the only real "just cause" would be to abolish all major governments in the world and quelling any and all mass organizations that seek to control. (I don't understand how most self proclaimed conservatives support organized religion, except maybe blind hope... but that's another matter.) You'd have to set a goal for them to achieve (like spreading our form of Democracy to every country...by force. Oh wait... that happens today!) The "hit squads" would seek to evaluate and judge all workers and compensate them strictly on a performance basis and would arrest anyone trying to help a failing person/business/etc. (If we go by extreme measure that is.) Charity should ethically be abolished under these rules as well.... but most of this seems to throw itself against the individual rights of another conservative to donate on their own free will/run their own company/etc, so you have a "tear" in the logic. You'll have to set your limits carefully.This is why a CCS game would be pointless. They aren't going to send hit squads after you because you think differently than they do, but they'll fight to protect what is theirs.
Neither are anything resembling proper Liberals. LCS/CCS should not be interpreted as representing sane, logically consistent worldviews. They are distorted versions of real political views whose members have been caught up in the romance of the "just cause".
If you go by extreme conservatism standards, you'd end up with a bunch of woodland lumberjacks and farmers living of the land.
Post by: Zangi on February 24, 2010, 03:06:44 pm
Sounds... bitter. >.>Then the only real "just cause" would be to abolish all major governments in the world and quelling any and all mass organizations that seek to control. (I don't understand how most self proclaimed conservatives support organized religion, except maybe blind hope... but that's another matter.) You'd have to set a goal for them to achieve (like spreading our form of Democracy to every country...by force. Oh wait... that happens today!) The "hit squads" would seek to evaluate and judge all workers and compensate them strictly on a performance basis and would arrest anyone trying to help a failing person/business/etc. (If we go by extreme measure that is.) Charity should ethically be abolished under these rules as well.... but most of this seems to throw itself against the individual rights of another conservative to donate on their own free will/run their own company/etc, so you have a "tear" in the logic. You'll have to set your limits carefully.This is why a CCS game would be pointless. They aren't going to send hit squads after you because you think differently than they do, but they'll fight to protect what is theirs.
Neither are anything resembling proper Liberals. LCS/CCS should not be interpreted as representing sane, logically consistent worldviews. They are distorted versions of real political views whose members have been caught up in the romance of the "just cause".
If you go by extreme conservatism standards, you'd end up with a bunch of woodland lumberjacks and farmers living of the land.
I'd think the Conservatives would be more along the lines of: Do whatever the hell you want with your hard earned money, we don't care.
It doesn't seem to be Conservative to regulate how and where you spend your money... thats Liberal.
But... its all a matter of how you present it in words.
CCS would never fight for 'Regulations on who/what you invest your money on.' From a Conservative view, that sounds very Liberal.
Well, I can't think of a CCS appropriate viewpoint for this here...
Post by: jasonred79 on February 24, 2010, 03:39:13 pm
Personally, I just took everything in LCS and reversed it. hmm.
I think many of you are PHAILING the LCS spirit.
The LCS spirit... is... in many ways... to NOT TAKE EVERYTHING SO BLOODY SERIOUSLY.
Chill. Andir, you're all like "you don't understand Conservatism! You are misrepresenting it!"
um.
DUH.
:)
That's the idea, sherlock. :)
Post by: Jonathan S. Fox on February 24, 2010, 04:25:20 pm
But above all, in our games and our sports, the message is peace and love between all mankind. And that goes for this thread too.
I'm such a hippie.
Post by: Andir on February 24, 2010, 04:51:42 pm
I'd think the Conservatives would be more along the lines of: Do whatever the hell you want with your hard earned money, we don't care.That's what I was trying to say before, but Jonathan wanted a "stretched to the breaking point" Conservative. (at least that's what I read it as... someone so Conservative and upset by the way of the world that they snap and must enforce their way on others.) It doesn't make sense to me, but whatever.
It doesn't seem to be Conservative to regulate how and where you spend your money... thats Liberal.
But... its all a matter of how you present it in words.
CCS would never fight for 'Regulations on who/what you invest your money on.' From a Conservative view, that sounds very Liberal.
Well, I can't think of a CCS appropriate viewpoint for this here...
And to clear the air... I'm more of one of those crazy Libertarian types than Conservative or Liberal. I fall somewhere way off the normal line, but maybe leaning Conservative. I tend to agree with a lot of what the Conservative stance offers (ie: self discipline, self worth, and self accountability, personal property, savings, etc.), but there's a very large part of modern Conservatism (and Liberalism) that freaks me out.
I mainly have an issue trying to paint Conservatives as slave traders because I don't believe anyone wants that "trait" and pinning it on anyone is possibly the farthest thing from funny that I can think of.
Post by: Conservative Swine on February 24, 2010, 05:27:54 pm
Quote
Free speech is a "god" given right. A conservative would wholeheartedly agree with that.Yes. God given just like all the rest.
That could be the motivation of the CCS.
Post by: jasonred79 on February 24, 2010, 05:30:12 pm
LCS portrays liberals as gun toting murderers who support terrorism and would seduce a doggy. Do you find that offensive? And it portrays americans as people who would be awed into supporting the LCS. Insulting?
It's just satire. LCS makes little to no sense. As jon says, chill. I agree with the way the pawn & gun handles the system. When you want it, you "buy a liberal gun". When it doesn't suit your purposes, you sell the conservative weapon! heh.
You obviously know your stuff about politics. But the concept of the LCS game was something like a madman from an asylum gets some vague idea about liberalism and conservatism from a pamphlet and launches on a crusade. And the rest of the gameworld is equally crazy.
Post by: Andir on February 24, 2010, 05:39:28 pm
really? So you weren't amused when you went to sweatshop site and released the naked workers? Or CEO mansion and released servants?I never played the game actually, and for the record: I'm not getting worked up. Just trying to keep things "sane" as far as positions are handled. There are no veins popping anywhere on this side of the screen.
...As jon says, chill.
And it portrays americans as people who would be awed into supporting the LCS. Insulting?I'd say it's rather true... Obama was elected, wasn't he? Us Americans have been "awed" into a lot of stupid things like The New Deal, Social Security, et al.
Post by: jasonred79 on February 24, 2010, 06:07:12 pm
I never played the game actually
OK. This explains a lot. No wonder.
Then I suggest you play LCS before giving suggestions on how CCS should be like?
Post by: Zangi on February 24, 2010, 07:12:20 pm
Agreed x2.I never played the game actually
OK. This explains a lot. No wonder.
Then I suggest you play LCS before giving suggestions on how CCS should be like?
At least try it.
It'll give you a better idea of what/why we are suggesting as we are here...
Post by: Necaladun on February 24, 2010, 09:46:20 pm
Us Americans have been "awed" into a lot of stupid things like The New Deal, Social Security, et al.
And napalming children! :)
Post by: Jetman123 on May 05, 2010, 03:19:01 pm
Post by: Kalos on May 18, 2010, 02:38:44 am
Oh no, death penalties for the weakest of crimes would hurt your squad in CCS?
It's a good thing that L+ gun control doesn't make carting the guns you used to liberalize the USA illegal... oh wait it totally does.
It'd be essentially a "what if" scenario where people trusted your least favorite Fox pundit with a gun.
Post by: Servant Corps on May 18, 2010, 03:07:57 am
However, Kalos, habeus corpus plays a major role in the US. You may have used an illegal gun before it was banned, but the government cannot arrest you for it. So, the LCS could decide...not to use an illegal gun.
In fact, L+ Gun Control helps the LCS, since it means that all its victims have no means of self-defense. This makes committing crimes easier.
The CCS, on the other hand, can't decide not to get caught. C+ Gun Control also harms the CCS, since it means everyone has guns...which they will then use to shoot at you.
It's more dangerous for the CCS to exist in a C+ world than it is for a LCS to operate in a L+ world.
Post by: Soadreqm on May 18, 2010, 05:23:17 am
And the L+ gun laws really do make the game easier, which only goes to show that when guns are outlawed, outlaws will still be able to assault the police station, murder a couple dozen swat officers with their bare hands and take their guns. Or cut a tank in half with a sword.
Post by: Kalos on May 18, 2010, 02:17:09 pm
In L+ Gun Control, it's legal to own a gun in private. It's not legal to own a gun in public though.
However, Kalos, habeus corpus plays a major role in the US. You may have used an illegal gun before it was banned, but the government cannot arrest you for it. So, the LCS could decide...not to use an illegal gun.
In fact, L+ Gun Control helps the LCS, since it means that all its victims have no means of self-defense. This makes committing crimes easier.
The CCS, on the other hand, can't decide not to get caught. C+ Gun Control also harms the CCS, since it means everyone has guns...which they will then use to shoot at you.
It's more dangerous for the CCS to exist in a C+ world than it is for a LCS to operate in a L+ world.
Conceding that you're right since you probably have more experience with the game... I'm still not sure how that's a bad thing. A game getting more difficult as it progresses had kind of been the standard for just about every good (and most bad) single-player games. Not only that, but things becoming worse off for the CCS would be a good thing in the eyes of an Arch-Conservative. While the Elite Liberal sees their usage of guns as a necessary evil to show the need for heightened gun control and as a proper defense against the conservative automatons, an AC would justify their use of gun violence as an object lesson as to why gun control needs to be loosened. The idea behind this being if everybody had guns, then nobody would want to go on mad shooting rampages, and the few crazies would be stopped rather quickly (this is an argument used in real life, too).
And besides, we know that granola-loving hippie scum wouldn't shoot a gun if their life depended on it.
Post by: Servant Corps on May 18, 2010, 05:10:53 pm
Post by: Kay12 on May 19, 2010, 03:03:36 am
It isn't bad. In fact, it is this "game gets harder as you win" dynamic that makes the CCS game so interesting.
Gameplay wise, it's good to have a curved difficulty so that the game starts out quite easy and gets more difficult as one proceeds. This way, newbies won't get squished right away but the game remains challenging to beat. However, I like the feeling in LCS when things are getting better as the country becomes more liberal, so some balance has to be in order. It would also be ridiculous if nightmare mode was very easy.