I think it’s one of the flaws with representative democracy. When faced with a choice between what’s good for the country/state vs. what’s popular (or just good for their district), what should an elected official pick? If they go with the former, they will eventually be replaced by someone who votes the other way, and we’ll end up with a government of elected officials who only vote selfishly (to get reelected by supporting public opinion, I mean).

Maybe proportional voting would help with legislatures to avoid that, but I don’t see a great fix for executives. And proportional voting can also have its own flaws by making parties more influential. The best is trying to elect people who can convince the public/their constituents that what’s good for the country (or state) is also good for the people, and change public opinion on the topic. Obama (preceded by VP Biden) coming out in favor of gay marriage worked pretty well on that front. So I guess we’re just back to trying to elect the best people, or at least the most influential. But that’s also why Trump has been successful politically and that sucks, so I don’t know.

Yes, it’s true. This man has no dick.

I did just hunt through my old CDs, and I’ve still got it! Along with Diablo 1 and some weird burned copy of Roller Coaster Tycoon 2 that has a black bottom, like it’s a PlayStation CD. Anyway, I’ll try to check it out; thanks for the recommendation!

I remember being very frustrated in that game, but I was also probably like 12 and dumb. So I can take your word for it. I’ll count it!

Has there even been a Civ release that was great at the start? I had the old Civ 2 “Multiplayer Gold Edition,” which my friend, who had the original, said had a much better AI. Give it a little while and see what they can do to make Civ 7 better, then it’ll sell well.

No, no, it was originally “Taking God’s name in vein,” as saying the name of God out loud would allow Him into your blood. If you say the name of God, you allow him to inhabit your blood, gain your power, and become even more mighty. The ancient Hebrews feared God gaining too much power, as He would be able to destroy the world. Then Christians figured out that if they took Communion and instead drank the blood of Christ, they could reverse the Hebrew God’s power and slowly increase their own until they could ascend to the heavens and do battle with the Almighty, empowered by His blood in their veins, rather than weakened by taking His name in vein. In this seventeen-part essay, I will describe how we can defeat God by

Interesting! Do you have a different word for the French " l’omelette", made with beaten eggs?

Handmade puzzles, i.e., puzzles crafted intentionally by a real person almost never require guessing. However, a lot of “extreme” difficulty puzzles (or similar difficulty terms) in apps, newspapers, puzzle books, etc. are not handmade by a real person, but computer generated. There’s probably a logic chain that’s like 15 steps long that humans couldn’t reasonably follow, but a guess is likely faster and more enjoyable.

Someone else recommended Cracking the Cryptic on YouTube, which is a great source - the daily puzzles are nice because you can follow along in the video if you’re stuck, but they also have lots of apps with Sudokus that never require guessing. Another good source is Logic Masters Germany, which has lots of handmade Sudoku and other puzzles: https://logic-masters.de/

We apologize for this inappropriate comment. Those responsible have been sacked.

I replied to the other thread before you, but it’s a good point that atrociously unjust laws are good targets for jury nullification. Bathroom laws are a good example, although I fear that we wouldn’t necessarily be on a jury where all other 11 members agree with us that it is an obvious violation of a trans person’s rights, sadly. Especially in the states where those laws exist. A hung jury, where not everybody agrees is better than a conviction, but a “not guilty” verdict can’t be re-tried (in almost all circumstances).

Okay, that’s fair. I was thinking more along the lines of when the law is questionable, not patently unjust , as you put it.

And Jim Crow laws are a good example, as are sodomy laws that essentially outlawed gay relationships for a long time in many states (struck down by Lawrence v. Texas, but not until 2003!). Usually when people think of jury nullification (outside of the more recent obvious case), they’re thinking along the lines of drug laws, which are often grey. Both of those examples probably DO warrant nullification.

That being said, I think it’s unlikely that a case which can get 9 12 jurors to oppose it based on an unjust law would occur in a state where that law exists. Those sodomy laws I referenced were mostly only present in conservative states by 2003. However, federal laws might be more susceptible, as a state that’s the opposite political ideology of the current US government could have a jury like that.

But I’ll concede the point that atrociously immoral or unjust laws could and should be targets for jury nullification. It’s a good addition.

This is really important. You can disagree with laws, but that feels like a terrible reason to nullify a legitimate guilty decision.

In addition, sentencing is (usually) separate from conviction and is the judge’s decision, although a jury can recommend a sentence. If someone is found guilty of theft for stealing a loaf of bread, they’re not going to get 20 years in jail except in musicals.

IMO, nullification should be used as an absolute last resort. Have a sympathetic defendant accused of second degree murder? Knock it down to a lower-level manslaughter and find them guilty. The sentencing of that might have a low maximum.

There are only a few rare problems that actually need nullification. It (generally) shouldn’t just be used for laws that you disagree with. One such problem is mandatory sentencing minimums. If someone steals that load of bread and they’ve already been convicted twice for theft or other crimes, they may be subject to things like 3-strike laws and get a sentence that is WAY more than they deserve, and the judge can’t do anything about it. The judge might feel that they deserve to give only 20 hours of community service as a sentence, but they legally have to sentence the convicted to 6 months in prison. Nullification is probably warranted there. Someone found with 1.25 ounces of marijuana in a state where only 1 ounce is legal, so they get charged with a drug distribution felony? And the judge/prosecutor refuses to lower the charge? Maybe find them not guilty. But it should be the last resort, not the first option.

Yeah, hopefully there was a control done with just water (no tea) at the same temperature also passed through the second filter. I can’t seem to get the whole paper without a subscription (or school/work/library account). Anyone have access and can confirm the details?

I would probably not rule this as an attack. Lighting a creature on fire? Sure. But lighting oil, which happens to catch a creature on fire? Nah. IMO, aggressive actions aren’t attacks unless they make contact with or directly (not indirectly) affect an enemy. At least, that’s how I’d rule.

That being said, keep in mind that invisible creatures aren’t undetectable , just unseen. Someone dumps out a flask of oil? As soon as that oil leaves the flask (so it’s not being worn or carried), it’s visible, and leaving a trail for any enemy to follow. Attacks against targets you can’t see are made with disadvantage, but can still be made. A bunch of goblins swinging axes at the air are eventually gonna hit something. Are you having invisible characters make stealth checks? They’d get advantage, but if they make noise (e.g., strike a tinderbox), every enemy in the area should get a chance to roll a Perception check against Stealth, not just use passive Perception.

All that being said, if your players come up with a cool idea, roll with it. I actually really like the idea of an invisible PC lighting a fire on their enemies. But (most) enemies aren’t dumb, and they’re not going to sit around doing nothing if a clumsy, noisy invisible thing dumps out oil all around them and then lights it on fire. Plus, sometimes a half-executed idea is more fun than a perfectly-executed one (oh shit, remember when we lit the thieves den on fire but then had to run away because they were so furious and nearly killed Gary?!?)

Don’t be afraid to change or define the rules as necessary. It’s your game. If every single time they infiltrate, they’re turning invisible and setting fire, then say, “it’s going to be an attack from now on, and you’ll lose invisibility.” FORCE them to be creative. Lastly, let the players know that they can always ask. A PC casting invisibility would know if an action is going to cancel it. So they can check with you in the moment, you make a ruling, and then they can decide what to do. If later you decide you were wrong, tell them that next time it’ll be different.

Hope that helps!

“Jacked up and good to go”

-Marines from StarCraft

I was so thrilled when he finally got the rights back to the Dune music and remastered and rereleased it. Sad news, rest in peace

One of the best! Emotion. Control.

“Suck, suck, suck!”

Celebrity gossip. I’m just not interested in who married who, who’s wearing what, who’s doing who.

And reality TV, but if ratings are any indication, I’m the weird one on that.

You’re absolutely right. I just signed up on .ml because I was a reddit refugee and it was one of the largest instances, and it got the fastest updates. Like a year later, suddenly everyone’s talking about me like I’m part of some crazy cult. I bet well over half of .ml users don’t even come close to the extreme stereotype, but are considering going to another instance just so we don’t get bullied any more. It’s likely going to be a self-fulfilling prophecy.