Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[Necaladun]

Perhaps just having the issues in a nice and easy text file, so we can easily change them around?

I doubt a lot of them will have much effect in the code. Unless miscarriage is coded in...

[Cheddarius]

That sounds like a good idea, dude.

[Asmodeous]

Politically correct, in which the CCS saves the world from liberalism, by changing it to a more or less current real life states of affairs which people will find comfortable and easily relate to.

Orwellian Nightmare: In which the CCS saves the world from liberalism by condemning it to an equally crazy opposite extreme.

Would that make everyone happy?

I think you're misunderstanding what people are saying. People aren't looking for it to be politically correct, however there is a difference between a world like George Orwell's 1984 or that from the movie Equillibrium and what you've been making as suggestions.

What we're suggesting to you is that if your goal was to make it edge closer and closer to a Big Brother setup like 1984 your ideas you've put forth thus far are far off the mark. Very, very far.

[LordBucket]

I doubt a lot of them will have much effect in the code.

A lot of them will. For example:

 * The "subhuman mutants" clause determines whether mutants exist in the game.
 * Corporal punishment determines whether the death penalty can be applied. At higher levels, it deterines whether Judge Dred style deathquads roam sites administering it themselves. At low to moderate levels it determines whether prison and justice sites exist.
 * Women's rights determines whether undisguised female party members are engaging in a crime, and whether women are generated at sites
 * Drug laws determine which drugs are available for use in-game
 * Extreme levels of legal homophobia determine whether it is a crime for CCS members who carry same-sex injured members who cannot walk on their own
 * Various levels of energy law determines whether certain sites are available for visit, and whether or not nuclear/radioative materials are readily available in-game

Making issues text-only is impractical.

[Duuvian]

LordBucket. Have you read about what I said about mentally retarded (or maybe homeless) people being classified as animals for purposes of "animal testing?" It seems to me that would be rather conservative, since they could argue that they aren't "pulling their own weight." In my opinion it makes more sense then having hybrid mutants. After all, the Nazis were pretty conservative and they classified other humans as sub-human.

Also, I thought my Sarah Palin joke was pretty funny but apparently no one else does or doesn't get it.

[Cheddarius]

Sarah Palin is a retard and used in animal testing or something?
I don't find it that amusing. Yeah, I sort of agree, but it's just not that funny to me.

[Zangi]

Also, I thought my Sarah Palin joke was pretty funny but apparently no one else does or doesn't get it.

Don't believe anyone cared.
Mid-Edit: I stand corrected, most people don't care. 

@Lordbucket
Somehow seems you are missing the boat. I'll echo some stuff...

Politically Correct, we don't want that.  Your ideas of C+ are actually C.
You want it a step up.  Not put it up by a mile.

Forget the C++ and the L++ stuff.  They don't matter right now.  Do they even effect the game?  No.
For example:

Code: [Select]

Gender Equality
 L++ It is illegal to acknowledge any difference between differently-gendered people.
 L+ Legal protections exist to ensure gender equality in the workplace.
 M No laws exist enforcing or discriminating for or against gender.
 C+ Women are legally restricted from certain positions in the military and politics.
 C++ It is illegal for women to leave the home without the escort of a male family member.
Women not being allowed to leave the house?  That is more then a mile.  Its crazy in the spectrum of the LCS world... and that is saying something.

Wait... why are you using C+ and C++... and not C?

Your C++... would be better believable if:
Women are not allowed in the workforce.  (Insert positive Conservative viewpoint here... protecting and pampering our dainty women/pretty princesses or some such... )

This here is a step up.  Unlike your example, as I said being a mile off.

[Necaladun]

I doubt a lot of them will have much effect in the code.

A lot of them will. For example:
(snip)
Making issues text-only is impractical.

Good point.

I doubt most of them will have much effect in the game. The C++ and L++ especially so.

Perhaps, a choice of what C+ issues you're fighting for? Increases complexity of the coding, and since my coding is limited to a few hello world's, I'm not sure how much so. But especially seeing as the conservative movement is fairly different to a lot of people. The other alternative is to find a C+ parallel to the SLA. The KKK is the first that springs to mind, but...erk.

[Jonathan S. Fox]

Fox, out of curiosity, ARE you working on anything else?

I'm in college full time, employed part time, and learning flash with most of what's left over. I'd like to work on developing a flash game at some point in the near future, but at the moment none of my projects are intended to be published.

Politically correct, in which the CCS saves the world from liberalism, by changing it to a more or less current real life states of affairs which people will find comfortable and easily relate to.

Orwellian Nightmare: In which the CCS saves the world from liberalism by condemning it to an equally crazy opposite extreme.

Would that make everyone happy?

I'd be comfortable with that. I would change the name for politically correct, since unless you're proposing to have the CCS save the world through TV advertising, it will be far from politically correct. Look at LCS for your example: The issues are very, very liberal. But they are still liberal, not entirely removed from the political spectrum and grafted into the game under a false flag of liberalism.

Perhaps, a choice of what C+ issues you're fighting for? Increases complexity of the coding, and since my coding is limited to a few hello world's, I'm not sure how much so. But especially seeing as the conservative movement is fairly different to a lot of people. The other alternative is to find a C+ parallel to the SLA. The KKK is the first that springs to mind, but...erk.

Giving the player a choice of what issues to focus on is definitely worth considering, and it's something I have long intended to do if I were writing a game like LCS from scratch, for a variety of reasons. Preference is one, but length of play, difficulty, and variation between multiple playthroughs are also factors. The coding complexity is pretty low if you plan for it in advance; retroactively changing the game would be somewhat harder, however, since it affects lots of things.

Although, now that I think of it, sufficiently clever execution could probably make LCS support issue selection at startup with only a couple of hours of work.

Regarding a conservative version of the SLA, it's pretty unlikely, as the SLA was fairly unique. With that said, the LCS doesn't take its views directly from the SLA; it is mainly just a bunch of issues that are important to liberals taken to the extreme of liberal thinking. The SLA itself was focused more on racial tensions and prison conditions.

[LordBucket]

Zangi :
Wait... why are you using C+ and C++... and not C?

I've been copy and pasting from my notes, which use a slightly different labeling convention than LCS. I assumed that people would pick up on the difference, but apparently it's been creating some confusion.

Code: [Select]

LCS  CCS
L+ = L++
L  = L+
M  = M
C  = C+
C+ = C++


Women not being allowed to leave the house?  That is more then a mile.  Its crazy in the spectrum of the LCS world... and that is saying something.

I have several reactions to this:

1) So what? What's the problem? It's simply a question of "how much crazy" we want in the game, and apparently my answer is more than some people want. But I don't understand the reaction. Let's say Johnathon added eye lasers to the mutants in LCS. Yes, it would be over the top. But it would be comical, and it wouldn't destroy the game. I could understand people saying, "yeah, that's a bit silly" but I don't think it would justify pages and pages of heated debate. Drawing from outside the pool of "real world" is acceptable to me. Clearly it's acceptable in LCS, too. I was never particularly bothered by being able to seduce dogs into joining your party.

2) This game is not a historical simulator, nor does it necessarily take place in present day USA. For example, like I've already stated, I feel no need to accurately recreate the US political system. I fully intend to create my own voting system and political offices with a mind towards making a fun game. One of the biggest drags of LCS is that it tries to confine itself to a "real world" political system, which however well it may work in real life...just doesn't work very well for a game. That's why games of LCS end with holding down the space bar for five minutes. I recall some discussion a month or two ago of moving LCS to Singapore, or possibly a fictional island-state somewhere to resolve these kinds of things. So...in a similar vein of thought, since I'm not limiting myself to modern, real-world US-specific voting schedules and political offices, I see no reason to limit myself to modern, real-world, US-specific standards of what happens to be considered conservative at this precise moment.

3) Finally, let me try to explain my thought process here. Some people in this thread have argued that the Arch Convervative laws I've described are not "real world" conservative, or are as you call it, "more than a mile over" the top. But there's a fundmental problem here. If you limit yourself to "real world conservatism" the game is conceptually flawed to begin with. If you think of "conservatism" in a literal sense of "conserving the way things are" and "maintaining the status quo" then what exactly are the CCS fighting for? If the norm in the gameworld is, as a random example, that everybody has universal healthcare provided by government...if that's the norm...then the "conservative" thing to do would be to maintain that status quo. I have no interest in juggling with what qualifies as conservative a year ago versus today versus a year from now. Nor am I particularly interested in making a CCS game in which the world is already a certain way, and CCS is there to prevent it from changing. Instead...my intent is to take the issues which people broadly tend to associate with conservatism, examine them on their own, and apply them to the world that would exist if the LCS had been in charge from day one. Not..."won." This isn't CCS showing up in a game a few years after the LCS has won. But rather, the world as if the people of LCS had been in charge to begin with.

So, for example...women's rights. Imagine a world in which the norm is total gender equality. Anyone who suggests men or women are not equal is clearly deranged. So...one day the CCS appears on the scene and says, "No. Women are not equal. Men are superior and we should be in charge." So, what kind of logical conclusion might we come to starting from that kind of thought? Is it..."women shouldn't be allowed in the workplace?" No, if you're accepting a line of thought that men are superior and that it's proper and good for men to be in charge, I think "women are property" is a more natural conclusion.

And yet some people in this thread are suggesting we stop at "keep women out of the workplace?" The real world is more extreme than that. Again...women have only even been allowed to vote in this country for the past 90 years. Here's a US court case in which a judge declared that a man has a right to whip his wife.

So with real life examples being more extreme than these things that some of you are saying are "more than a mile over the top" it's difficult for me to see where that line of thought is coming from.

If you want to say that "Women are property" is more appropriate than "Women cannot leave the home without an escort." then I might consider that. But that's not what people are saying.

And either way...honestly guys, wouldn't we all rather focus on actually having a game to tweak before we get all freaked out over where to draw these lines? Issues can be changed at a later date if it turns out they're not fun.

[Blacken]

I've stayed out of this thread given what happened last time similar behavior went down when I was in a thread, but it does seem, LordBucket, like you don't quite have a grasp on what either side would be, and a lot of your posts so far seem like cheap rips on political ideologies you disagree with. I certainly don't speak for Fox, but it's pretty clear that both sides get shelled with pretty decent regularity in LCS. Your posting seems very focused on shelling one side while glad-handing the other under the guise of "mechanics." I don't presume to assume that's your own viewpoint, but that's how it comes off, and I don't think it makes for a very consistent or interesting game.

I would suggest that you divorce your own political viewpoints from attempting to design the game, if only because it's an expedient toward making a good game.

[Necaladun]

For the Conservative SLA, I meant moreso for inspiration and example than taking their issues directly. It is unlikely to see a group fighting in the same way for the status quo, or to go back to the good old days. My American history is mainly knowledge of the foreign activites, so I really can't think of any groups.

Choice of issues would be great, as I don't think conservative ideals will ever be agreed or defined. Especially when it comes to issues influenced by religion, as what the magic sky man says seems to be taken in lots of different ways. A few quick searches show that getting a overall conservative viewpoint on the issues is impossible. Are we Conservative for the 90s? 70s? 2010? For which culture? Deep South Redneck or New York Bankers?

(snipsnipsnip)
If you think of "conservatism" in a literal sense of "conserving the way things are" and "maintaining the status quo" then what exactly are the CCS fighting for? If the norm in the gameworld is, as a random example, that everybody has universal healthcare provided by government...if that's the norm...then the "conservative" thing to do would be to maintain that status quo.

Exactly. Conservative for today is liberal for 1910. Right Wing Ideals, however, are much more consitant. Are we satirizing the Conservative, or the Right Wing Movement? If both, where is the emphasis?

Instead...my intent is to take the issues which people broadly tend to associate with conservatism, examine them on their own, and apply them to the world that would exist if the LCS had been in charge from day one. Not..."won." This isn't CCS showing up in a game a few years after the LCS has won. But rather, the world as if the people of LCS had been in charge to begin with.

I'm note sure exaclty when Day 1 would be - Colonization, Independance, or when we climbed out of the primordial soup. were created by our Intelligent Designer. (Sorry Kansas!)

So with real life examples being more extreme than these things that some of you are saying are "more than a mile over the top" it's difficult for me to see where some of you are coming from.

If you want to say that "Women are property" is more appropriate than "Women cannot leave the home without an escort." then I might consider that. But that's not what people are saying.

Given enough time, I can find someone who will believe something more extreme than anything you can come up with. There are feminazi groups who have called for the extermination of males, so it swings both ways.

And either way...honestly guys, wouldn't we all rather focus on actually having a game to tweak before we get all freaked out over where to draw these lines? Issues can be changed at a later date if it turns out they're not fun.

Having a game is fun.

I'll actually admit I have fun with the freaking out over where to draw the line though

[LordBucket]

Would that make everyone happy?
I'd be comfortable with that

Ok. Great. That will be easy to do.

Giving the player a choice of what issues to focus on
is definitely worth considering

I like the idea, and you're right: mechanically it wouldn't be difficult to do. I'll consider it. I see some difficulty in the "target range" of issues. If we draw a line from zero to 100 as opposite extremes for any issues, as the 18+ page thread has demosntrated, there are plenty of people who will see the 50-80 percent bracket as their ideal target. That would complicate things somewhat.

Not insurmountably...but it would complicate things.

[Jonathan S. Fox]

I certainly don't speak for Fox, but it's pretty clear that both sides get shelled with pretty decent regularity in LCS. Your posting seems very focused on shelling one side while glad-handing the other under the guise of "mechanics." I don't presume to assume that's your own viewpoint, but that's how it comes off, and I don't think it makes for a very consistent or interesting game.

It's more an issue of where the shelling is coming from. In LCS, the game is developed from the perspective of the radical left. It's written like someone who is fairly off their rocker and very liberal poured out their fantasy. It's along the lines of the Toady's "sub-games" in terms of inappropriateness, it's just a lot more fun. Liberals do get shelled, but they're shelled in ways that are either the backblast from the absurd attacks on conservatives (boy, those liberals are crazy for thinking conservatives will do that/you need to use violence to solve this problem!), or in tongue-in-cheek ways that show the writer understands liberals. Conservatives get blasted in ways that reflect that the game's author has really no idea how conservatives actually think, and is acting only on stereotypes.

My objection with CCS here isn't that there's some lack of equal opportunity for shelling, as I do think LordBucket at least intends to be very even-handed in his shelling. However, writing it so that the game sounds like a cynical moderate (or libertarian, as the case may be) wrote it, someone who doesn't understand how conservatives think and isn't making insightful jabs at conservatives but indiscriminate broadsides, is very different from the way LCS engages in its "friendly fire" shelling of liberals.

1) So what? What's the problem? It's simply a question of "how much crazy" we want in the game, and apparently my answer is more than some people want. But I don't understand the reaction. Let's say Johnathon added eye lasers to the mutants in LCS. Yes, it would be over the top. But it would be comical, and it wouldn't destroy the game. I could understand people saying, "yeah, that's a bit silly" but I don't think it would justify pages and pages of heated debate. Drawing from outside the pool of "real world" is acceptable to me. Clearly it's acceptable in LCS, too. I was never particularly bothered by being able to seduce dogs into joining your party.

So the eye lasers example, that's attached to conservative issues, which are radically misrepresented in LCS by design. Recruiting animals, on the other hand, is indeed a silly extension of liberal ideas into the absurd. It's the only really big example of that, and it works because it plays off of the concept of "animals are people too!" which is a well-known cry of animal rights activists. What you've talked about is more analogous to enabling seduction of (and marriage to) animals when gay rights is L+, which, despite having identical gameplay implications, I would never do. That's not actually a liberal extension of gay rights at all, and it's not satire or parody against liberals. Like the C++ issues you've set forth, it's just something that people who don't like or understand liberals can ascribe to them through a slippery slope argument.

Incidentally, I completely support including marriage to animals and polygamy for your liberal elite agenda. It has no place in LCS, but those are things conservatives say about liberals, so it fits perfectly in CCS.

This game is not a historical simulator, nor does it necessarily take place in present day USA. For example, like I've already stated, I feel no need to accurately recreate the US political system. I fully intend to create my own voting system and political offices with a mind towards making a fun game. One of the biggest drags of LCS is that it tries to confine itself to a "real world" political system, which however well it may work in real life...just doesn't work very well for a game. That's why games of LCS end with holding down the space bar for five minutes. I recall some discussion a month or two ago of moving LCS to Singapore, or possibly a fictional island-state somewhere to resolve these kinds of things. So...in a similar vein of thought, since I'm not limiting myself to modern, real-world US-specific voting schedules and political offices, I see no reason to limit myself to modern, real-world, US-specific standards of what happens to be considered conservative at this precise moment.

I agree 100% with your reasoning until you get to the point of drawing from outside the left-right spectrum that your audience will actually recognize to represent the game's protagonists. If you're not going to represent conservatism with your conservatives, it's not really living up to the name. Even though LCS has absolutely dystopian conservatives, they're recognizable as an embodiment of the real-world fears of the far left, because LCS is about playing as the far left and fighting against the things that scare them.

Finally, let me try to explain my thought process here. Some people in this thread have argued that the Arch Convervative laws I've described are not "real world" conservative, or are as you call it, "more than a mile over" the top. But there's a fundmental problem here. If you limit yourself to "real world conservatism" the game is conceptually flawed to begin with. If you think of "conservatism" in a literal sense of "conserving the way things are" and "maintaining the status quo" then what exactly are the CCS fighting for? If the norm in the gameworld is, as a random example, that everybody has universal healthcare provided by government...if that's the norm...then the "conservative" thing to do would be to maintain that status quo. I have no interest in juggling with what qualifies as conservative a year ago versus today versus a year from now. Nor am I particularly interested in making a CCS game in which the world is already a certain way, and CCS is there to prevent it from changing. Instead...my intent is to take the issues which people broadly tend to associate with conservatism, examine them on their own, and apply them to the world that would exist if the LCS had been in charge from day one. Not..."won." This isn't CCS showing up in a game a few years after the LCS has won. But rather, the world as if the people of LCS had been in charge to begin with.

This isn't really doing justice to conservatives. People who are conservative aren't conservative because they want nothing to change, they're just called conservative because that's a convenient way to refer to people whose political opinions happen to orient them toward preferring proven and traditional ways of life over dangerous and theoretical social progress. Yes, if you make a whole new world and political system, the definition of conservative in that world will vary, but that's not substantive, it's purely semantic. To your audience, conservative isn't a generic label, it refers to a specific set of beliefs in the here and now of the real world. Conservative means what conservatives are in the world we live in. If you call it Conservative Crime Squad and make it have nothing to do with modern politics, but instead substitute vaguely congruent but otherwise insane people on both sides of the spectrum, your game ceases to have the political relevance its title implies. This is why I suggested the possibility of going through with the development as you designed it, but simply renaming the game.

[Servant Corps]

If people aren't happy about LordBucket's game, I volunteer to try...although the controversy and non-"workingness" of the Stalinist mod doesn't bode well. 

Much like Jonathan S. Fox is able to satirize Elite Liberalism effectively by being a Blue Liberal, I think that Purple Conservatives are the best people who could satirize Arch-Conservatism.

When I made my suggestions for the CCS game (sex change operations for homosexuals, Presidential authorization for abortion), I wanted to do two things:
1) Make fun of the CCS.
2) Don't offend actual conservatives who do share the same beliefs as the CCS.

That was it. The end result is some twisted Arch-Conservative CCS who want to implement a rapid reactionary programme of national rebirth, but at the same time don't offend the Elite Liberal United Nations in the process and lose valuable oil contracts. But I prefer my ideas rather than some of the more disturbing Arch-Conservative suggestions...