darth_ender

In response to your last two sentences, I just asked.  I wasn't sure.  It wouldn't surprise me.  Your subtlety is often beyond this simpleton's grasp.  It causes me to second guess your statements.  So what?  In response to the rest, you make it difficult to have rational discussion.  I say one thing, you respond to the tangents; I tell you how I feel, you respond to how you're convinced I feel; I clarify my meaning, you respond to what you are so sure I actually meant.  And you ultimately disregard my valid points and statements.  I will respond more fully to your above post at a later time, but for now just know that you're arguing against someone else.

Of course the flickr page is fine.  Thanks for posting them.  I'll read them thoroughly when I can.

FYI, I cannot post without shortening the title because adding the RE: to it makes it too long.  I suggest you shorten the title.

Good, I'm glad we agree there.  I've been looking at your suggested openings, and I like version 12 the best.  But what do you think?  Is there too much space?  Maybe three squares between king and comrade is too much?  I mean, if a player wants more defense, it isn't hard to pull the reverse chariot and goose in closer.  Let me know what you think.  If you think that my suggestions (to which you faithfully adhered) are still worthwhile in that regard, then let's play that game.

Jesus Christ allowed himself to be captured, imprisoned, tortured, and executed, all as part of his master plan to resume his place as Ruler of the Universe.  So I guess it doesn't get much older than that.

Very cool.  I'll have to have a look at this.  Thanks for posting these.  However, some of the rules are hard for my 31 year-old eyes to read.  Any chance of getting some higher rez versions of the pictures?  :)

Bingowings said:

In the other thread I posted about my carrots and the remote probability that your child will have orange hair.

Well, I thought perhaps because you feigned sorrow for a pretended insult, that perhaps you were saying my apologies were insincere.  I'm still unclear as to whether this was your intent or not.

Incidentally, neither of our families has red hair in a near relative, so chances are pretty low of getting a ruddy baby, I'm afraid.

In this thread

Bingowings said : I 'm pretty sure other people would be more diplomatic but me being me I think you are being a bit of a cunt here, hopefully not deliberately but I feel it needs to be said.

Yes it's a taboo word, yes it's saved for special occasions and Frink is his own man if he feels you have nothing to apologise for that his own concern and your apology regardless of his lack of requirement for one is noted.

But I do  think you were being a bit of a cunt then so a retraction of my previous statement would serve only as a tidy deception.

I didn't expect or ask for an apology.  I just think it was unnecessarily rude and did more to show what a jerk you were being than indicate that I was being such.

You want your child, so in its current form of course it is more than just cells to you. It is a bundle of hope for the future. I dare say are already speculating some aspects of that future. As someone who believes in a soul injected into each and every embryo you will also endow those cells with that value too.

Not everyone feels the same way and not everyone who feels the same way has the opportunities you will hopefully enjoy.

I believe in a spirit of sorts too. I see it in non-human animals  I feel their suffering. I am powerless to prevent it but I am empowered to limit it as far as I am able by not eating the slaughtered or wearing them or hunting them or endorsing experiments on them. 

If you had the ability to end the slaughter of animals, would you?  If you had the opportunity to share your feelings and argue your reasoning, would you?  Do you see anything wrong with being open and passionate about those feelings?  Do you see anything wrong with trying to evoke change in the world around you because of those feelings?  You are not powerless to stop it, though your fight is definitely up a steep hill, and I encourage you to match whatever your passion with equal action.  If you want to end the slaughter of animals, pursue whatever course you feel is necessary to ensure it.  Who knows?  One day your actions may find greater fruition than you imagined.

And yes, I grant myself the same privilege.

You are similarly empowered. 

If you disagree with something don't do it, retract from the society of those that do and hope to lead by example but expect nothing.

Here I am, pulling a Warbler quoting/point-counterpoint.  Can someone get me a taco? ;)  You have political issues that are clearly very important to you, such as gay marriage.  Do you simply retract form the society of those that fight against it and simply lead by example?  Or have you actually 1) petitioned Parliament to take action ; or 2) marched in opposition to anti-gay marriage policies; or 3) canvased others sharing your views publicly; or 4) shared your feelings openly with people you associate with, face to face or online?  I know for a fact you've done at least one of these, and perhaps you have done more.  That said, you have not led by example and expected nothing.  You led vocally and expected action.

Progress is a retractable lure. In Russia and Iran even here in my own country hard earned freedoms and rights are being eroded or upended.

It's a complicated topic, I'm sure you appreciate that it's not as simple as saying "this thing is bad we must ban it and punish those who do it" there are people who believe that it is that simple.

My opinion on the subject is  the mother is an undeniable human identity an embryo is a debatably human identity that becomes more definitely human as the pregnancy progresses and as the child grows.

A woman with a bunch of cells in her body she doesn't want there is not the same as an expectant mother with a nearly fully formed child ready to be born. Other options should be made more readily available but ultimately medical and legal interventions should reflect that spectrum of physical development because it is clinically measurable.

A soul is not clinically measurable. Expectations of future happiness are not clinically measurable. The woman's health and will is measurable. God's will is not measurable. 

Laws and medical practise can only be based on what can be measured and proved not on assertion or feeling alone. 

 This is my favorite part of your argument.  If you argued this way in the first place, I'd be far more interested in listening.  To restate my original intent on the occasion that pissed you off so badly, I was struggling for a word, sympathy came to mind, I clicked "Post Reply" and thought no more on it.  I knew even as I posted it that it was probably not the right word, but I expected my point to get across.  Obviously such was not the case, and even looking back, I don't know why I expected anyone to understand me correctly because clearly "sympathy" was so clearly the wrong word.  What I was getting at I still cannot find a single word to state.  I felt like Frink's situation was a continuous emotional appeal argument that was being used to try and trump all my points, whether used validly or not.  I think I was not being what you describe me as.

That said, we can measure and assert that a unique life exists at conception.  It is a life that, unhindered, will continue in most cases to develop into what is, without a doubt in anyone's mind, a person.  This is certainly not debatable.  What is debatable is when a human becomes a person.  One might argue that it is when it could potentially survive outside the mother's womb.  But when technology improves, will it become a person sooner?  Is it a person later in third world countries?  Is it actually when it is born?  But is there any substantial difference between a child moments before and after its umbilical cord has been severed?  Some might say when it becomes self-aware.  But children are not truly self-aware until long after birth.  Heck, the human brain doesn't even fully develop until about 23.  So when is a person a person?  I say that when it is beyond a doubt a genetically complete and unique organism with the capacity to continue its development, it is a human, it is a person, its life is worth saving.

Let me give an analogy that I've thought long on.  The argument that an unborn child is not yet a person, as advocated by Mary Anne Warren, is severely flawed in my mind.  She suggests the following criteria define a person:

• consciousness (of objects and events external and/or internal to the being), and in particular the capacity to feel pain
• reasoning (the developed capacity to solve new and relatively complex problems)
• self-motivated activity (activity which is relatively independent of either genetic or direct external control)
• the capacity to communicate, by whatever means, messages of an indefinite variety of types, that is, not just with an indefinite number of possible contents, but on indefinitely many possible topics
• the presence of self-concepts, and self-awareness, either individual or racial, or both

Now let's hypothesize on an analogous train of thought.  Think of a man.  This man, due to the actions of a young male and female having fun with alcohol and a car, is injured and ends up comatose in a hospital bed.  In our little scenario, we have the technology to make a 97% guarantee that this man will not only come out of his coma (in about nine months), but will in fact ultimately make a full recovery, though there is a good chance his memory will be impaired.  But at the present we cannot detect any: a) consciousness; b) evidence of reasoning or significant brain activity; c) self-motivated activity; d) effort to communicate; d) enduring self-concepts.  This man is, according to Ms. Warren, not a person.  He is genetically human, but not a person.  The young couple involved did not have insurance, but because they are at fault in this accident, are required to pay for this man's medical bills and treatment.  However, simply euthanizing him is a cheaper option, and they won't be responsible for the physical therapy that would follow.  You see, when they chose to drink and drive, as fun as it was, they simply weren't ready for the consequences/commitment that might follow such actions.  Thank goodness this man was, at least for a time, a very large but ultimately nothing more than, a bunch of cells.

Bingowings, if you want to throw down your gloves (?) about a particular topic, feel free to do so here.  I'm not at all offended, but I feel like you are trying to say that I'm deliberately insensitive, but try to make up for it later with insincere apologies.  If that's how you take it, that's fine, but note that when you called me a certain very rude name due to my poor phrasing, Frink told me an apology wasn't even necessary, yet I did apologize for the misused word.  Just because you feel passionately that abortion should be the woman's choice does not mean I feel that life should be the preference.

This is my thread.  I started it.  I have been very vocal in it.  It is called "the abortion debate thread".  That means that we don't only discuss the pros and cons of abortions, or the pros and cons of giving women the choice, but also the pros and cons of giving the child's life a chance.  My child's life is more than a bunch of cells to me.  Perhaps it would have been wise to break the news in a good news thread, and then share my feelings here, but I did it in reverse, and started the other thread to keep the peace.  If you have a problem with my methodology, I suggest you spend more time confronting me directly and less time trying to be clever.

And if I'm wrong about your intent, I sincerely (as in I really am sincere) apologize.

RicOlie_2 said:

Do you have a minimum/maximum number of spaces you want between opposing sides? How about the minimum/maximum length of the board? I don't want to shrink it too much or leave too large of a gap between the two sides, so I want to know what size gap/board-length you want.

 I'd say five is the minimum, seven the max.  It really shouldn't be too far or too close, and that feels about right.  The size of the board doesn't really matter too much, though I'd say upper 20s or lower 30s feels about right for this many pieces (though we've removed a couple, so on the lower end of that estimate might be the way to go, though not necessarily so).

RicOlie_2 said:

I figured I would throw an idea your way to see if you liked it at all before I went through with it. How about putting the T/C behind the king, instead of in front? The T/C would be at the end of the board with the king immediately in front of it and two or three squares between it and the next piece. Having the king forward gives it more ability to defend itself and putting the T/C behind it prevents an opponent from dropping a piece on that square (with another piece defending that end square so the king can't move backwards and take it). Alternatively, however, you may want to move the king forward without putting the T/C behind it since that would be more conducive to paratroop offenses against the king.

 Both sound like interesting ideas.  Id' be willing to try them, but again, I'm worried about too much defense.  So I'd probably want to try a game with these pieces and without the T/C there first (and by the way, I was thinking that maybe it should be a T/S, just so the backward move is different from the unpromoted state, but I'm not positive about that), and if the offense is then too strong, or perhaps just to see how it plays out, have a second game with the general piece behind the king.

dxe4

RicOlie_2 said:

darth_ender said:

I'm almost tempted to end our current game and give this a chance, but I still need to work out the setup.

 "Almost tempted" you said.... Well is it "almost" or are we done? :D I'm perfectly happy with continuing for now, if you want to. And if you don't, then that's OK too.

I'm very certainly close to calling it quits, and let me explain why.  I cannot see a single move that I can do that will be beneficial.  I have two options: try to break through your defense, but likely at what will ultimately be at my expense for little to no gain; make time wasting moves hoping you'll try something bold and thus expose yourself.

This illustrates my point about games that are too defensive.  There comes a point where no one really wants to move.  I have nothing I can do to try to break through your fortress without losing powerful pieces, and likely it will be a failed attack, while you have nothing you can do little to try to break through, except maybe try to drop some of those pieces you're holding behind my lines, but then I doubt that will do much for you in the long run either.  It's too defensive a game.  We need more offense compared to defense.

RicOlie_2 said:

February 24:

A.D. 1582: Pope Gregory XIII announces the new calendar (the Gregorian and modern calendar) as a replacement of the less accurate Julian calendar.

 The question remains, was this on February 24 of the Julian Calendar, or on February 24 of the Gregorian Calendar? :P

Actually, the correct answer is of course this announcement was made under the Julian Calendar, as Gregorian was not implemented anywhere until October of 1582, and then only in four countries.

TV's Frink said:

Warbler said:

SilverWook said:

So, is it over? Did Putin ride bare chested on a giant horse through the closing ceremonies or anything?

 It is over, but no Putin did not ride bare chested on a giant horse.  

 Prove it.

 From what I heard, he was going to, but then his advisors informed him that gay men were lining the streets of Sochi to get pictures, so he decided against it.

Unless I made a mistake, d4 appears impossible, as I see a bishop on d3 and d2.

JEDIT: I'm guessing you meant e4.

Ng4

I'm glad you take it so well.  Sure, if you want to shoot me a PM with the latest version, I'll take a look and see what works best.  I'd love to hear your feedback on some of the substantial piece changes I've suggested.  And it looks like you were right in the first place about the lion :)

Thanks for being such a good game partner.  I really enjoy this and appreciate all your feedback. :)

I don't know if this is just typical Bingo silliness or if this is intended as a dig at me, but I'm certainly not offended in any way.  You just continue to make me smile with your unique sense of humor :)

@FanFiltration and Mrebo, thanks a lot :)

RicOlie_2 said:

darth_ender said:

Okay, these are some of the ideas I've come up with in order to meet the following shortcomings of the existing game:

1) Unpromoted pieces in general (though not always) should have some backward movement, but different and preferably weaker than their forward movement.

Definitely agree, especially if you go with permanent promotion.

2) Pieces need to be more offensive than defensive.

I agree for the most part, but I think there should be one mostly defensive piece in back, closer to the king.

Perhaps one, but even then I hesitate.  I'll give it some thought.

3) The setup needs to also be geared more for offense than defense.

I agree, but I would argue that this is already the case.

As I mentioned earlier, I'd like a three square space between the king and his neighboring friendly piece.  The more offensive, the more exciting games can be.  I know this sounds counterintuitive, and it can be overdone, but games that are too defensive are actually punitive to the player that takes initiative, and therefore the game becomes very long as both players imply hunker down and wait for the other to make a bold (and stupid) move.

4) There should not be too many pieces regardless of board size, or else they defend too many squares and the board gets really cluttered and difficult to effectively move on, particularly in certain sections where action is taking place.  It is especially wise to avoid moves that cover too many adjacent squares so there are "holes" in a piece's coverage.

Being the kind of guy I am, I say the bigger and more numerous the better, but that's probably not the way to go. :) I think that pieces with universal coverage, like the lion, can be restricted with a short range. Right now, the lion can only move two squares at a time, which really restricts its range. If you go with dropping the pieces at their lower value, the lion and similar pieces would work better than they do now. I think that having holes in a piece's coverage is good, but I don't think it matters if there are pieces like the lion, since they are limited in other ways. But the final decision is up to you of course.

The limits of a one-dimensional game cannot be overstated.  maneuverability is reduced, and the distances between pieces and objectives is increased.  With too many powerful pieces, ultimately players simply end up trading.  I almost feel we are at that point it our game.  I'm ahead in material, but I don't see how I'm going to break through your defense without sacrificing my own pieces, which could ultimately lead to my own fall.  And if we are simply trading, there is almost no way to win.  A player has to keep winning more and more pieces before he can get through.

I agree that the lion's range is limited, which can be a good thing.  However, there is no good way to approach it with short-range pieces.  In Chu Shogi that is okay, as there are lots of long-range pieces and another powerful lion to counter this.  But there are only a few, and the opposing lion is also very short range, so our lions can't even get close to each other to offset each other easily.  I just am having a hard time enjoying its abilities, which so far have not even been really used.

5) Promoted pieces should have stronger abilities, including improved backward movement, but should still not be too powerful; there still need to be gaps in their coverage.  The only exception would be the lance or similar piece, whatever we decide on, and this is compensated for by its inability to jump at all.

As I have said, if the piece can't move very far in a single turn, then I think it's limited movement makes up for it's ability to cover the entire board.

What makes chess/shogi combinations interesting to me is that no piece can counter every single piece that attacks it; there is always something that can attack it which it cannot return attack upon.  The queen can be attacked by the knight, the dragon king by the bishop, etc.  In Ito Shogi, the lion can be attacked by long-range pieces, but the lance and bishop hardly get used until later in the game, and the knight and goose almost stand no chance, as if they even attack the lion, it just gets closer where they can't reach.  My point is, the other pieces have too many holes in their coverage to make the lion's move very fair.  In shogi, two generals alone can defend each other against a lion.  This is much harder to obtain in Ito Shogi.  So I'm still kind of against it.

6) Though I believe alternately promoting and demoting adds an interesting dimension for both sides when their moves are very different (as in Micro Shogi where a gold general promotes to a rook), since pieces have similar style moves in most cases on both sides, it might be best to at least try permanent promotion and the ability to drop only the weaker face up.

I'm certainly willing to give this a try. Would there be a promotion zone like there is in regular Shogi, or would pieces promote upon their first capture? If you meant the former, I suggest going with the latter instead. Most Shogi variants either have the promotion zone or alternate between promoted and unpromoted values, but I think a first capture promotion makes a lot of sense. So much of the action takes place in the middle of the board that few pieces would get promoted until being dropped and moved. I don't think the game would be as much fun if pieces didn't get promoted as often, since there aren't a lot of different pieces. In other Shogi games, pieces often promote to the value of pieces that are already on the board, so the player has most of those moves available from the start. But in variants like this, the player starts out with the weaker values and has more limited options. Increasing the likelihood of promotion is a good thing in small variants, in my opinion.

Definitely no promotion zone.  In larger shogi variants, such as Dai Dai shogi, promotion is achieved by capturing.  I would use the same rule, whereby any piece that captures is promoted by compulsion, but stick with the regular shogi rule that once it is captured, it could only be dropped at demoted value.  So yes, I agree with you completely here.

7) I therefore wish to use the following pieces with brief descriptions of their moves.  All are based on pre-existing pieces following strict interpretive rules for changing them to single-dimensional moves, which you already know.

Pawn/Go Between - You already know this one
King - You know this one too
Tile General/Copper General: T-jumps to second square forward or steps one square back/C-steps one square forward or back, or jumps to second square forward
Heavenly Horse/Cavalryman: HH-jumps to third square forward or back/Cm-steps one square forward or back or jumps to third square forward or back
Goose/Phoenix: This one you know
Howling Dog/Silver Cannon: I'm still not sure about how I want to do this one.  I was talking about using the reverse chariot, but I also might just want to use the howling dog instead, which moves like a lance, but also has the option to take a single step backwards
Flying Swallow/Bishop: FS-like a bishop foward, or one step backward/B-you already know

That's it for now.  I may want to still use the reverse chariot instead of the howling dog, but otherwise, I think I want to try this piece combination.  I'm almost tempted to end our current game and give this a chance, but I still need to work out the setup.

 I think you should use the RC rather than the HD unless you think it's important to counterbalance the powerful SC.

 You are probably right.  I think I will go with the reverse chariot for now.  That piece is already limited as is, so it's good to have a more worthy lower value to better match its higher value, as well as simply being a more worthwhile piece in its lower state.

I hope you don't mind when I shoot down your ideas.  As I said, when we've hammered out these rules, I don't mind trying more powerful pieces and less powerful pieces.  But for now, I want a basic, playable game.  I haven't decided on a setup yet, but you are welcome to make another suggestion if you like.  You may even make use of your last suggestion, which I know you spend a lot of time working on and I haven't yet shown full appreciation for.  If the pieces are different, you might want to substitute the most similar piece I offer here.  If you don't want to, I can work on something, but I will probably use your last suggestion as a guide anyway :)

If you have something you're just excited to share, share it here!

My wife and I are expecting!  We're nine weeks in.  Only two days of puking and very bad nausea, and we're wondering if it's just a stomach bug that has been going around.  If that was it, then so far this is the mildest pregnancy thus far.  Way to go, honey!

TV's Frink said:

Lol olie2

Ender, if you aren't looking for arguments, I sincerely believe you are in the wrong thread, even though it's your thread.  The subject is too divisive to expect otherwise.

 What I mean was, in the past I'd been avoiding arguments.  At this point, the topic is much fresher in my mind, and I feel far more emotionally ready for an argument.  So bring it on! ;)

And I thought I'd make an announcement out of it.  But I see your point and won't belabor it any longer.  Perhaps I'll put it somewhere else as well, where others avoiding divisive topics will actually see it.

Yes indeed he did.  Thanks Moth3r.

RicOlie_2 said:

 Frink has linked to the post telling his story a few times so I'm not quite sure why you only remember references, etc., but maybe you haven't followed the link in a while. Anyhow, it's there with about as much detail as Frink has ever given as of yet.

TV's Frink said:

Either way, this (and the one before it) is not the norm.  If he is guilty, he should be locked up for a very long time.  Incidentally, I have told my story before, but ours was done in a completely professional and humane manner (at a regular hospital, by the way).  This was over seven years ago now, but thanks to changes in the law, a regular hospital can no longer accommodate needy people like us.

 I was typing and looking while you posted this response, but that is the post I followed to provide my above link.  In any case, as I just mentioned, I've not been reading this thread as thoroughly out of a desire to avoid arguments, and though I'm pretty sure I'd read Frink's link, I hadn't given the whole topic much thought and it escaped my mind.  My apologies to him.  Only now has it become more salient to me, as my wife is pregnant.

Having scanned through the last few pages, I found this link:

http://theshizz.org/forum/index.php/topic/36039-abortion/page-3#entry1055871

I believe I had read this, but I'd forgotten the specifics.  Such is enough for me, and no further details need be shared.  And I as mentioned only minutes ago, Frink's situation does not make me "want to throw up" or anything of that sort.  I definitely understand his situation.

I simply wanted to share my happy news here, and again share why such news fills me with a love of all life.  My personal anecdotes are just as good as anyone else's.  I love my unborn child and hope I never have to make a decision as difficult as yours, TV's.

...Further scanning has led me to Bingo's story.  Sadly, when I first posted I had misunderstood, then realized my mistake and committed to give a better response, and ultimately forgot about it.  In part, my negligence with both of these stories came from exasperation with arguing so much about the topic, as I often found such arguments exhausting and painful.  Therefore most of the time I would only glance at this thread rather than really read it for the past year.  Now I look back with better understanding, and a slightly more firm opinion of the acceptability of abortion in the case of such defects.  Again, I hope I am never so tortured.  I really am sorry for you, Frink, and for your sister, Bingo. 

All I can seem to recall is references I could piece together, not the actual story.  I understand that he and his wife chose to have an abortion.  I believe in context, the child had some health issue, the specifics of which I'm not sure.  I don't know if the child was going to die shortly after birth or if it would simply have a disability.  I don't know how late in the pregnancy the abortion took place.  I don't know how hard Frink and his wife labored over the decision, though it appears to me that it was agonizing for them both.

I want to be clear on my views, which match those of my church  Abortion is wrong in all circumstances except: 1) health of the mother is in jeopardy; 2) forcible rape/incest; 3) the child will almost certainly die shortly after birth.  It sounds to me like Frink's case might match the latter, though I'm not certain.  If that is the case, he will never again need to make reference to how I think less of him when I make generalized statements, because he will know that there is no reservation in my heart for his situation.  If the child would have problems but might have lived, I will still disagree with his decision, but will understand why he did what he did and have no less respect for him.  In either case, I harbor no judgment.

In the case of, "Gosh, I only wanted one kid and it looks like we're pregnant again, honey," I am far more disappointed.  In the case of, "Rats!  I just wanted to have sex without the natural consequences that follow, and now I don't want to take responsibility for my having fun," I am also displeased with this.  But I don't consider such people murderers per se, as I don't feel they know better in general.  Those that know better (i.e. other Christians, Mormons especially) disappoint me most of all.  Frink falls into none of these categories, so he need not feel judged.

RicOlie_2 said:

darth_ender said:

I saw my most recent sub-person bunch of cells today for the first time!  It was neat to see this genetically unique, but altogether unimportant (yet) lifeform.  I watched its tiny little appendages moving against my wife's full bladder, its heart beating, stimulated by its own pacemaker cells, propelling minuscule amounts of blood through its 9 week-old bloodstream.  This non-viable organism will no doubt further alter my wife's body, making her less likely to ever pose for the cover of Cosmopolitan.  My limited financial resources will certainly be further strained.  There will be one more mouth in this world to consume its finite resources.

It was the most beautiful thing I've ever seen...except for my other children and my not-as-skinny-as-she-used-to-be, stretch-mark-covered wife :)

 Congratulations! :) How many do you have now?

 It's my thread, and I say this is okay to ask here.  I have three born and one unborn.  Thanks for asking :)