Mark Karlfeldt

Wear a fursuit,

Got my beta key, and installing now. 55%

Has Hasbro responded?

I watched Scarlet play this on Skype. He's not kidding. It actually looks like a playable game. And you know that it's something when I admit a game is anything other than shit.

This has nothing to do with "losing as a goal". This has to do with "winning becomes so important that it drowns out everything else". Also, "loosing" refers to something which is coming loose, e.g. a tied knot slipping free. Just wanted to point that out.

This thread has steadily derailed from my original point. Let me put it back on track. I have nothing against the number of members we use on defense or offence - SL combat should be fun, and being forced to sit on the sidelines with your thumb up your ass isn't fun. But when we have thirty defenders facing down five attackers, it becomes extremely difficult to justify elevating those thirty personnel to heavy weapons, armour or bombers, unless the attackers pull something out which gives them an extraordinarily unfair advantage - such as, yes, unkillable tanks (which are against our rules anyway and warrant a swift admin smackdown). However, if the attackers manage to make headway without resorting to such bullshit, that becomes our own onus, and I don't see any reason to smack down the big stick in response. That's essentially punishing them for our own mistakes. This same principle goes for offensive operations, even if the specific situations change. Numbers are often more equal, and combat frequently devolves rapidly into trading superweapons, or even enduring estate administrator abuse. There comes a line where the silently agreed-upon rules of combat are thrown out the window. I have nothing against the use of extreme force in these instances - where the opponent has proved that they don't care about combat, only for their bruised egos. But if this isn't happening, if they're fighting fair and still holding us back when we're on relatively equal footing - to escalate force to overwhelm them is to punish them for our own mistakes. That's our own bruised egos taking over. And really, if you're going to compare Second Life to real life in any way, you can stop trying. This isn't real life. This is a virtual simulation of something vaguely resembling real life. The same rules do not apply in any way. If you're going to compare combat in SL to combat in real life, why don't you feel any remorse when you shoot someone's avatar? Why don't you hesitate before you put a virtual bullet in them? Do you feel no guilt for your war crimes? You cold-blooded murderer.

I'll put on my human-suit.

Sure, I agree entirely. We certainly do have the resources to deal with an opponent who presents a threat which would validate the escalation of force if necessary. And we should meet force with an appropriate amount of counter-force. If we encounter a similarly sized and armed force, and they escalate to vehicles or planes, we should meet that threat in kind. It's just that nowhere in my post did I state anything against this concept. I'm not suggesting that we try to be supersoldiers. I'm trying to argue against the unnecessary escalation of force, something which does happen all too often. I've lost count of the times I've listened to a defence commander snap because of relatively insignificant occasions, like, three enemies are garrisoning the NE objective, and they demand an immediate escalation to heavy weapons and sometimes even tanks to camp the objective to prevent them from getting back in once they're cleared out. It's not uncommon for them to continue using heavy weapons even after the immediate threat has been eliminated. I've, more than once, been the one ordered to pilot a tank to camp an objective, and it makes me wonder why I'm there when I'm leisurely picking off the guys as they trickle towards me one by one. That's grossly unnecessary. It's simply forcing a victory. There are much better ways to manage that kind of situation that could be tried before immediately jumping to the big stick. There are various maneuvers available that we've constantly trained for. Hell, we could even leave them the hell alone. Sure, they took one objective, but they really have nowhere else to go from there - they'll get bored eventually and expose themselves, letting us fight them on more equal ground. This has nothing to do with the appropriate response of meeting force with appropriate force - this has to do with meeting force with an overreacting, overpowering force, something I don't think is warranted in anything but a very select few cases. When the enemy pulls out a tank that soaks up damage and is using it to tear up our forces, then yes, an appropriate response is warranted. When we're hammering at their door with multiple armour pieces, pinning them in their spawn and locking them up for minutes on end - that's gone too far. I don't agree that the entire point of battle is to win - that's half the issue I'm trying to contest. Winning is an objective, sure, but the point is to go out and have a good time, whether a victory is attained or not. So when the focus is on winning instead of the combat itself, the problem presents itself. The part about "throwing tantrums" was a metaphor, as was the "Call of Duty kid" comparison. Not an actuality. If it was the case, I would have never joined. My job includes the judgement of gear to categories which they belong, based on their potential to give us an advantage. That's why we have a classification system of light, medium, heavy, as well as specific categories for vehicles. But the act of putting them in these categories and imposing restrictions is becoming meaningless as I find them continuously being used in situations which do not warrant them, not by a long shot. I'd say that bringing this up is a pretty good use of my time. Firstly, thankyou for being civil in your response. But I don't think this is an issue of refusing to adapt to the times, on the contrary, Ordo is often on the leading edge of advances in technology and tactics. But it's the way we use this edge that concerns me. As for the "they don't deserve to win" line of thought, that's pretty much addressed in the OP - what other militaries act like and say shouldn't affect our judgement in combat. A column of tanks isn't an appropriate response to someone with a loud mouth and sand in their vag, because in the end, the fact that we're even aknowledging their whining is exactly what they want. Getting bored of a lonewolf isn't a reason at all to bang down the big stick. If lonewolves really are that disliked, then why don't we just outright ban lonewolf attackers like Sturmkorps do? When you're facing one guy with an assault rifle with tanks and bombers "because we're bored", then you're pretty much pissing on the idea of professionalism. And I don't really appreciate the implication that I should leave Ordo, if that is really what you're implying. Nor do I appreciate the comparison of Ordo to a real military - that's just downright insulting to the men and women who put their real lives on the line. This is a game. We risk next to nothing when we put our virtual avatars in the line of virtual bullets. Once again, and I'll keep stating this - we shouldn't pay a lick of attention to the bitching and moaning of others. I sure as hell don't. Everything I've written comes from my own experiences while on raids and defences. Maybe I'm just only online when this kind of shit is happening, but I'm surely not the only one who notices it. My problem isn't that three enemies keep running down the same path time and time again only to get mowed down. That's entirely their fault. But if we "get bored" and start hitting them with big sticks, then it becomes our fault. If enemies make it into an objective and manage to take it, without escalating their level of force - good on them. If we manage to take it back without escalating our level of force - good on us. But when our kneejerk response to an enemy making any headway is to up the ante unnecessarily, then shame on us. And this is something that happens, and I see it all the time. Maybe you're right, and my opinions come from a lack of information, but can you really blame me when my attempts at finding out why are stymied with a more eloquent version of "shut the Ffff up" every time? If the main issue here is that you're just not seeing any of this happen, then I'm going to start recording everything that does happen. I'm going to get proof, and I'll bring it to you. The truth is, there is no real set standard or treaty that everyone abides by. The few rules that are universal to most groups are unspoken laws, and generally borne of the idea that there is a line that shouldn't be crossed by anyone. I'll state once again, none of my opinion stems from the bellyaching of others. This is all my own experience. The picture that you paint is what I'd definitely like to see, and I'm sure it does happen. But apparently, it never does when I'm around. Perhaps I'm just a really unlucky cunt. This attitude of "total domination" is what is causing this issue. When you have tanks and aircraft parked outside enemy spawns, splattering them the moment they try to exit, is that really victory, or is that just being a bully? The main thing I bring away from reading these responses is that people think that I'm drawing my opinion based on the whinging we receive every time we do win. This isn't true, not by a long shot. I state time and time again that I don't care when other groups have their egos wounded, this entire thread was made only for Ordo's interest - if we continue the way we are, we could very well run out of groups to fight on good terms, or even groups to fight at all. I care and am loyal to Ordo immeasurably - I'm not about to leave, as people keep subtly suggesting that I do. I'm arguing this because I care about the future of Ordo. Can you really fault me for that? And since people are getting so inflamed about this all, here is a soothing video to calm your nerves. [media]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QFVratN53wc

> DISCLAIMER I'm not here trying to stir drama. I just want to start a meaningful debate on our stances on interacting with the rest of the community. Any shit that goes down in posts on this thread was not my intention, nor my fault. Have you ever been in a multiplayer game with someone who can't accept defeat? To whom, winning is the validation of their life? Do you recall them throwing a verbal tantrum when things don't go their way, when they get killed, or when their team loses? Do you remember just how annoying it is? We've probably all experienced it at one point or another. We all click our tongues and shake our heads at this obviously immature behaviour, wondering how someone could get so worked up over a videogame. It's ridiculous, right? Winning is nice, sure, but losing isn't the end of the world. That's how the game works - sometimes you win, sometimes you don't. No biggie. Which is why it confuses me so when so many members of the Second Life military community, both within Ordo and without, refuse to accept the idea of a defeat. And - frankly - it's easy to claim a victory whenever you want. This is Second Life, the only game balance we have is entirely voluntary and often discarded in a matter of minutes. If things don't go your way, just pull out a bigger gun. Bring in more people. There's no team autobalancing or the like. Simulator rules are often unenforced. Go nuts. Now imagine if you could do this in every other online game. Imagine playing Call of Duty where you could whip out a tank in the middle of an infantry battle the moment things tip against you, and there was no enforcement to stop you. To a lot of people, this might actually sound appealing at first - but let's look at the varied ramifications of doing so. Other players would be pissed off, and refuse to play with you, as they would always lose. You'd quickly get a disliked reputation in the game's community. Victory after victory would make victory itself hollow and worthless. You drive other players away from the game. These are just a few examples, but are probably the most prominent ones that come to mind in a scenario like this. In the end, the result is simply that everyone loses - everyone else loses the match, and you run out of other players to play against. And even the few matches you find become meaningless because you win every single time. You can probably see where this is going. Let's translate this back over to Second Life, specifically, back to Ordo. It's a cold day in hell when we accept a defeat. In fact, defeat is something reviled, failing is punished by revoking the privileges of being able to lead raids or hold OIC. You can say that it doesn't happen, but I know it does, and it concerns me deeply. When we begin to lose territory on a defence, we immediately jump to the biggest guns in our arsenal. It's not terribly uncommon to have a tank on both extremity objectives, taking out anyone who gets close, or a Thanatos strafe-bombing the roads leading to the objectives. We will often continue doing this even after the threat has been mitigated and we have things locked down again, parking the tanks or bombers there until the enemy simply gets tired of being stonewalled and leaves. And then we throw down the victory card, cheer about how skilled we are and how poor our opponents were. Even on raids, it's not uncommon for us to bend the enemy simulator's rules to secure a victory. And doing all this has the exact same consequences as it does in any other game: it pisses off everyone else, and makes the concept of victory a tired, beaten horse. It's complained that we rarely get anyone other than lonewolves coming to attack us - well, perhaps this is why. Perhaps because the only time an enemy raid has secured victory conditions was by rushing us during early morning hours when we're understaffed, an act which we counter with outright hostility and annoyance, even though it's not unheard of for us to do the exact same thing to others. Every time I've brought this up in the past, it's been met with derision and denial. Commonly, other members will flatly deny that any of this happens, or tell me to lead my own raids or be OIC more often, which is entirely missing the point. I think it's an issue that has been swept under the rug for too long, and needs to be put on the table for a serious, thoughtful discussion. 1. "We can't accept defeat, because if we do, other groups will jump on it as an opportunity to erode our reputation and standing." We're Ordo. We pride ourselves on following our own standard, and we often consider ourselves above and beyond the reach of other groups. It's easy to see why: we have an enormous member count, an intricate and complex rank and command structure, we have our own established protocols and divisions, and we've followed this formula to relative success for years now. Other groups will often spring up, stay around for six months and collapse again. Not us. We've held out for a long time. That's why we should be maintaining a standard above and independent from the rest of the community. Cheap name-calling and ego-inflating actions by others shouldn't affect our judgement and ethical guidelines. The hollering by other groups who oppose us vehemently never really bothered us before, so why should we start caring about that when it comes to offensive or defensive combat? I'm not going to outright say that we're solely at fault for the sheer amount of hate directed at us - those who direct it at us are just as much at fault for perpetrating it, and we are still a damn sight more fair than them. But there are some things we can be doing about it, things we should be doing about it, because we're the motherFfffing Ordo and we don't need to listen to a man-child cockwaving about how they defeated us. Let them have their circlejerk. It shouldn't faze us in the slightest. If we lose, we should lose graciously, rendering their boasts hollow and worthless. 2: "Other groups would do the exact same thing if they had the manpower or gear." We should be the forerunners of progress, not following the trend set by others. Once again, we're Ordo. We don't need to bow to pressure from others; we should be the ones who stand above the others in a sea of churning faeces and egotism. And if that means that sometimes we have to bow to a fair defeat, then it should be so. Be "the bigger man" and all that. Because in the end, if we're doing what they do, we're simply being no better than they are. 3: "We need to make our gear more powerful to meet the threats posed by other groups." Arms races are pointless and yield nothing but wasted effort. Having been in Munitorum for as long as I have, I've gradually witnessed concerns for balance and fairness crumble in the face of an enemy military that has the bigger stick. Trying to match the gear used by enemy groups has historically resulted in nothing but a race to see who can make the bigger booms the fastest. This just destroys the point of combat entirely, as instead of fighting our battles on the field; we're fighting war in the R&D departments instead. On top of this, we have the best training out of any military on the grid. And I say with confidence that nine times in ten, training will always trump gear. The reason why an enemy group resorts to such bullshit is because they can't accept defeat. They're the kid who yells on the mic and throws a tantrum when they get fragged in Call of Duty. And elevating our tech to match theirs is simply validating them, and encouraging them to make an even bigger stick. See where this is going? Straight to critical mass. There's a word for equipment that is overpowered and unfair. It's called "bullshit". And it's something we shouldn't be even entertaining the thought of doing, even for moment. Once again, we're Ordo. We have our own Ffffin' standard. Just because we have the ability to throw down the big stick, doesn't mean we should. 4: "It's demoralizing to accept defeat." Pulling out the stops to claim victory makes victory itself meaningless. I'll refer again to the introductory section of this thread - that in the end, being on the winning end every time inevitably causes a loss on a larger scale than just the match you're in. If we believe it's acceptable to think like this, then we're essentially becoming the ubiquitous Call of Duty kid. Let's theorize for a moment that we go on a raid, we play fair, and we're losing. At this point, almost every raid commander would yell for a bigger stick, whether or not it violates the enemy's rules. You can't really blame them - losing a raid is frowned upon immensely, and often punished both directly with the stripping of privileges, and indirectly with a loss of respect. Let's say that we lost because the enemy flew off the handle, they brought out every big stick they have and they rained every piece of bullshit down on our heads to maintain their superiority. Should we validate this "tactic" by meeting it in kind, or should we laugh it off and leave them to stew in their anger, knowing that we played by the rules, they didn't, and that's victory enough for us. Now let's say that we lost to an opponent who was playing fair, by the rules and generally being fairly reasonable. Do we really want to become the kid who throws a tantrum when we lose? Or should we accept a loss, and be mature adult men who can tolerate the concept of losing. After all, there's always a next time. So what do we do? There's several ways to approach this. One way is to lay out more comprehensive policy regarding Ordo conduct on defensive and offensive operations, ensuring that force is met with an appropriate response, avoiding overreactions, and that we maintain our standards wherever possible. Hold training and seminars focussed on addressing this issue. Be more lenient on people who bring home a loss instead of a victory sometimes. I'm not suggesting that we become anal about balance and fairness like our good friends the Merczateers. I'm not going to throw around terms like "game design" in a game where anyone can shoot a nuke out of their crotch and destroy several simulators. All I'm suggesting is that maybe, just maybe, we can avoid being the Call of Duty kid. Discuss.

More or less. A database that is managed by both Munitorum and Curia to keep track of item approvals would be pretty helpful though. Speaking of, I'm in the process of writing up a set of standards for Munitorum personnel to follow in the process of approving items, to keep things to a consistent level.

Is everyone forgetting to actually send him episodes of FiM? Maybe contact Hasbro and ask if they can provide?

Article posted in OP.

Most of you probably won't know (or care) about this man, but he was pretty much the founder of computing as we know it today, undoubtedly even more historically important than Steve Jobs. UNIX was the forerunner of all modern operating systems. Mac OSX is based on it. Windows uses many elements of it. Linux grew from it. This man pretty much started the personal computer, by himself. And then because he wasn't already enough of a badass, he invented C, the programming language still in use today by a significant amount of software. Shit, LSL is based on C.

I WISH I HAD NEVER BEEN OROD :(

:(

what is ordo

CAN I PWEASE GET OUT THIR I'M ALERGIC TO THA SMOEK :[

Altus just doesn't understand friendship.

You'd be suprised how laid back and accepting most soldiers are.

Hasbro has a history of being super awesome towards its dedicated fans. Quite a few people have gotten a lot of free MLP swag from Hasbro for things, like the guy who held a physics essay on MLP. I don't think it would be out of the question for them to mail the episodes to Priest or something.

Prebuilt PCs are fine for casual users. Just make sure that you reformat it the moment you plug it in, and install a fresh operating system. Prebuilt manufacturers are notorious for putting preinstalled software and spyware on their machines.

no.

I am a bit sad that one of the major players in the early PC industry is dead, but I am rather annoyed that every article paints what was essentially a rather ruthless businessman as a "visionary" whereas Steve Wozniak barely gets a mention (if he is mentioned at all), despite the fact he kind of built the foundation of Apple itself while Jobs was merely the one who sold it (and did a bit of a piss-poor job of it at first). When Wozniak dies, he will not be on the cover of every magazine on earth. This is sad.

A true TS3 story.