PaRa$iTe

For those of you who haven't noticed, the past few months have seen a drastic increase in squad activity in Devastation - the current pace is at well over one squadmatch a week. Obsidian and Ball have been the most active so far, but with other squads joining in that may well change soon. Information about squads and matches can be found using Ahmad~'s bots, for example in bdb or the dedicated squadmatch arena bdleague. The !match command lists previously played games (13 listed as I'm typing this), with !match id# showing more detailed info about the results of the corresponding game. There is also a !schedule command, which displays the date and time for the next squadmatch in line. If you haven't already, feel free to join in on the fun! More information about the squad bot can be found by clicking this link. If you're unsure what this is all about and want to see more, !schedule tells me the next match is Ball vs. Impedance on Sunday at 11PM EST, so come take a look! - Devastated PS. A huge thanks to Ahmad~, who has provided us with the squad roster and squadmatch plugins, making all of this possible with minimum effort.

Rules for public flagging: Drop all flags to win, last flag to be dropped must have had its timer reset once inside that base. No antiwarp in center, etc etc. As for the BD module, while a league ratio stat would be nice to have (who doesn't like stats? ), it wouldn't be mandatory; presumably, all league games would be recorded somewhere (forum topic, for example, if nothing else can be done) and one could thus calculate squad standings manually. -Devastated EDIT: Talked to Hydrange, Swarovski would likely have a team for the league.

We've had some discussion about leagues, particularly with moose, but nothing tangible has been done so far. Still, I think that at this point, a league wouldn't hurt - it would be a welcome contrast to the current decline of SS. We probably have the squads: Obsidian, Impedance, Ball (if you guys are up for it, which I presume based on our earlier conversation) makes three. Bombullet and Swarovski have both had multiple players frequenting the zone since the SSC crash, including the leaders of those squads (Lacoste and Hydrange, respectively), so quite possibly we'd have at least five squads. I do think that a large portion of the veteran players of the zone would consider a flagging league the obvious default, if a league is to be had. I'd agree, in principle, but I'm not all that sure the squads we have can put up rosters large enough for proper flag games; a baseduel league works fine as 4v4, but for flagging one would probably want around 7v7 at least, and by that point you're looking at a roster requirement of 15ish people unless you're fine with a scheduling nightmare. Conclusion: I believe that a baseduel league would be both positive for the zone and possible to arrange, as well as being more plausible than a traditional flagging league. Main problems include: 1) Rules 2) Map 3) Scheduling Rules would probably not be an unsurmountable obstacle, and most could probably be agreed on easily, although I suggest appointing a league coordinator who'd have the last say on the rules - preferably one not too involved with any of the competing squads. As for the map, if we actually decide to go through with the league, I can make one - either by stealing popular bases from the old maps, or by making new ones, though not too many in that case. Scheduling could very well be the biggest problem, as Devastation unfortunately tends to focus its activity on times which are impractical both for Europeans and Americans (about 8AM GMT, or 3AM EST, usually). Zone veterans will, again, be used to this, but it could present a major problem for squads looking to bring in players from other zones; conversely, holding the matches at times more in line with those other zones use may clash with the schedules of those who actually do like the zone standards. My only proposed solution for this would be TW-style auto-host games, where you'd have a bot or ASSS module that'd let two squads have their game whenever both have a suitable lineup online - this would likely require specific rules to determine what games are counted as official. It would, of course, also require actually having such a bot or module. All views expressed above are my own and do not necessarily represent the official stance of the zone's staff. -Devastated

Can't help you with the flag dropping problem (if you mean that when the timer runs out, they don't drop close to whoever carried them), but as for the Mervbot plugin: http://www.mervbot.com/plugins.php Search for Flag Mover and Ball Mover (they're in alphabetical order). I don't know about checking for flag carriers, though; the closest that I can think of right now is setting the bot to warp EVERYONE who is outside the map (there are numerous bots that could do that). Better yet, design the map so that no one gets outside the borders without staff powers.

I'd like a normal flagging league. While I do enjoy BD, IMO flagging gains more from a league than BD does. Elim league would be cool though -Devastated

I was wondering how to start this topic. But oh well, I doubt the format is important, and I guess there's no need to try to act all professional when I'm being a drama queen by posting a topic like this at all. Anyhoo, getting to the point.. I hereby announce my quitting of Subspace. There, I've said it. The reasons for this are mostly vague, although a main one would be me accidentally deleting most of my development files - hundreds of hours of work, if not more. I'm simply too tired to create it all anew, and since during the last few years random development work has been such a large part of my enjoyment of the game, I just feel I've lost a large part of the game. Anyway, for those who think I should stay - I'm sorry to disappoint you like this. I know that a lot of people would like to, and probably will, tell me that I can just pop in to enjoy the game and ignore all that extra work (possible almost as many as will tell me to "stfu it's just a game"). I guess I could, but it's just not that appealing to me right now. Continuum hasn't, to me, been something to "just play" in a long time now - it's been a major investment. Perhaps even too big; it won't be hard to find use for the 5-10 or so hours I put into this game each week. At any rate, by the time you read this, I will most probably have uninstalled the game. It's kind of funny how this feels like an awfully big step to me, even though it, frankly, IS just a game. But so it may be - I wouldn't be myself if I didn't feel slightly sentimental leaving something behind that I've spent thousands of hours on. I'm fairly sure I'll regret the decision in the near future, and you'll all make fun of me when I come back crying about how I miss everyone. On that topic - thanks for all these years, it's been great. The game might be fun, but while I came for the gameplay, I stayed for the community. And if I purely look at time spent doing stuff with people, I'm sure there are many of you who'd rank higher than most of the people I know in real life. Which is kinda sad But still - I don't feel those hours were wasted. And sad as it may be, I do feel that I have grown as a person playing this 2d spaceship game. If nothing else, I've gotten plenty of examples on how not to act.. so yeah. Thanks I'd put personal greetings here, but since that would include half the zone, I'd just forget someone and feel bad about it afterwards and in any case, I'm sure that those of you who'd I'd consider "online friends" - if such a term means anything - know who you are, and if you feel I didn't show it clearly enough ingame, I'm sorry - I'd put some witty ending remark here, if I were witty enough. But I'm not, so I guess I'll come up with something else. Which I don't, but oh well. At least I got my BD2 bases finished and uploaded before everything was deleted. I hope at some point they'll be of use Well, I guess that's all. I suppose I'll quit the game in-character - most of you might not recognize the speech pattern, since it's specific to my "main" name on Continuum, but nostalgia demands it. Saphir> anyway im off Saphir> cya all Saphir> gl hf 1:Saphir> ciao Saphir left arena TL;DR: Devastated quits. Boo hoo.

Am I the only one who thinks it could be ethically questionable to clone human beings to be used as tools of science rather than to be human? Even if there wouldn't be any real reasons NOT to clone, I honestly wonder if you can come up with good enough reasons for it. I suspect that in order to perfect human cloning, you'd need a lot of money, plus the work of half of the world's most proficient researchers during decades. If the whole thing would be in order to make more of these said scientists, whose lives would be wasted on finding out how to do it... sounds pointless, huh? Even if it actually worked, we wouldn't get ahead in a few centuries, which seems like a pretty long-time investment considering the tendency of the human race to eliminate other countries and their scientific work in wars and suchlike. On a side note, for example Einstein didn't make many important discoveries after publishing his General Theory of Relativity. So maybe Dr Brain's argument isn't all that flawed. On the whole, I don't think it'd be worth the trouble. As for the problems with cloning in order to get organs - giving new organs to people wouldn't be ethically troublesome as such, but what people generally mean with this is that raising clones in order to kill them and steal their vital organs could be considered unfair.

I've thought a lot about this, and, even though this may seem to be the case, given certain premices, we can deduce some moral rules - which is what I tried to do in my first post. That is, a LOGICAL reason why murder can't be right, which is in no way related to any moral codes I've learned Although I must admit that I've done decisions based on this, I cannot say I consider that an ethical base for any decision. As is, I make no ethical decisions based on my own survival - I have yet to find a logical explanation why it would be worth any more than anyone else's, which is one reason why I'm a left-wing wuss. Depending on what you mean here, you might be absolutely correct or dead wrong. The fact that murder, theft and rape have been justified does mean that moral RULES have been relative; it does not, however, in any way supply evidence that moral relativity, as a philosophical term, is correct. About our morals coming from a will to survive, that is very possibly the original origin; however, I, for example - and probably half of the world with me - have found other sources for the morals I currently follow. Although I see what you mean here, the choice of words is inaccurate. Given moral relativity is true, then things that threaten our survival are not in fact WRONG. I'm sure you agree with this, though, but I still must make it clear; even if every single moral code we have was created to ensure our survival, it doesn't mean that threatening it is wrong, but only that evolution, in fact, works. Being born with something might make it more fundamental than learning it; however, that doesn't mean it's more important. Heck, I was born with a long string coming out of my stomach, and look what happened to that =) I, for one, place much less value on built-in rules than rules that actually make sense. As for "That which threatens our personal survival or the survival of [insert species] is wrong.", it's a rule which is possible to follow, but which I do not regard as any kind of ultimate moral rule. It is only a sort of "law of life" which comes as a byproduct of evolution; any species not following such a rule would be at a disadvantage, but there is no definite rule saying the extinction of our species is wrong. Or if it is, we must ask ourselves why; simply put, there are two cases. Either there IS a universal ethical code (which, in my opinion, cannot then be decided upon simply by analyzing species that because of evolution will be bound to have certain characteristics) which would say extinction is wrong; or, there is no rule which would make our survival a good thing, and thus we have no reason at all to follow our instincts to do so.

You still don't quite get my point, though =) even if murder had a definitely negative impact on the survival of a species in every situation, that would still only explain why we do not murder, not why murder is wrong. That is, science cannot result in a universalist ethical theory. I'd argue that from a relativist point of view, the whole debate is futile, since relativism implies that nothing is wrong as such. What I'm looking for is, then, something which would actually be able to define murder as WRONG, as opposed to RIGHT, not why "people are programmed not to murder". About survival of the species being our goal.. well, in a sense, just like earning money is a goal for some people; however, that's a relativistic goal, and it simplifies the issue. If we accept the theory of evolution, and do not accept any kind of intelligent design theory, we can conclude that the fight for survival is a result of, not a factor in, evolution. Simply put, it's basically the equivalent of a working digestion or our limbs. There's something in us that makes us fight for our survival, just as there's something which supplies us with energy; both are RESULTS of natural selection, and should not be confused with the theory of evolution as such or with any kind of ethics. (Also, the reason why I reply so irregularly is that these forums rarely actually work for me, for some reason)

Noooo, SeVer. You're doing it too =( This is true. True as well. Here is where you go wrong. We don't have a goal. Nature doesn't have a goal. Or if that is the case, then scientists have yet failed to discover it. True, there's natural selection - but it occurs NOT because it's the goal of each species to survive, BUT because those who attempt to survive tend to do so more than those who don't, and thus hang around still while those who preferred to feed themselves voluntarily to predators don't. Sure, we might perceive survival as a goal - but that does in no way imply it is one. Whether survival of a species is a value or not is something which we can decide for ourself; however, science can never help us with this. (If you intended "goal" to mean "what we aim for", then you are correct. Here I was arguing against the notion that it would be our goal as such - which it is no mora than, say, increased entropy)

My point about evolution was that natural selection can explain why a moral value exists only from a historical point of view, that is, if it somehow promoted survival of the species. I was using the "do not kill" as an example; killing the members of your own tribe would put you at disadvantage, and because of that, those who have that rule now dominate. However, that fact does in no way help us ETHICALLY analyze murder, unless you assume that natural selection is a goal in and of itself - which is in no way implied by the scientific theory. Hope this helped make my point clearer, I'm aware that I'm bad at explaining.

Hm, I'll actually have to agree with NBV on most of the points here. Mainly because I'm an agnostic. Since it's impossible to find evidence that God doesn't exist, there's no reason to view someone's point as invalid just because they cite the Bible as one source of their point of view; I'd like to see the relation between Bible and society brought up to debate more here, rather than the Bible in and of itself (as that would actually be relevant. WHY would you want a Christian president? I've yet to find a Bible passage saying this would be mandatory). Also: There is no evolution-based reason for ethics that I can accept without strong further evaluation. Evolution is a scientific theory, which should in no way be confused with or applied as ethic principles. Sure, "Though shalt not kill" might EXIST because of evolution - as in, the people who had this rule would be more succesful - but that does in no way even imply that this would be ethically desirable. Saying that would be like basing ethics on creating as much entropy as possible. I don't know why everyone still cites Darwin in ethical debates. True, but there are other religions with practically equal morals, some older than Christianity. For example, Hinduism: "This is the core of morals: do not do anything towards others which you find repulsive on yourself" (loosely translated from a book; the wording might not be correct, but that is not the relevant point). Logic was allowed, so I'll give it a try. !@#$%^&*uming person A wants to kill person B, and person B wants to survive. What we see here is a conflict of interests. !@#$%^&*uming there is nothing that differentiates the values of the people, both options are as valid. If person A kills person B, then person B's goal is made impossible; this could only be seen as ethically correct if there was any reason why person A's goal was more valuable, which, so far, hasn't been proved. However, if person B survives, A's option still remains, meaning that the value balance wasn't upset. So logically temporarily extending B's lifeline means that we still haven't made anything wrong, as long as we do not intend to do so forever (that would make A's option impossible). However, this is valid for any point on the timeline, until the point where either one dies, which then determines whoever "won". So A's option will never actually be achieved, ever, even though it is never immoral. This goes for any people A and B, unless people are differently valued. Because if A killed B, A's goal would be selected over B's with no intention of ever letting it be the other way around - which is "unfair" given that there is no reason to let A do this. Ergo, even though murder here is viewed as "right", actually doing it is "wrong" as long as a) the victim doesn't want it and both people are of equal value. Not perfect, I know, but hey, I'm not a philosopher.

Incorrect. Divorce was first legalized in England by King Henry VIII. Many Protestant movements allowed divorce prior to this. Also, the situation in Switzerland was fairly interesting. I believe there was SOME democracy in its cantons in the Middle Ages; however, during the Reformation the Church took more control over things, particularly during the Counter-Reformation. This is understandable, since a war would be fought, but nevertheless.

Time to accept communism then, or we'll all drift into economic cannibalism![/joke] No, really, if they start selling Ubermensch status to the highest bidder, while everyone else suffers from it, I support disbanding the company that did it and sending the executives to the Gulag.

I don't think we learn that much astronomy here until the 10th grade or so, apart from the names of the planets. But as far as I know, everyone on my class new about black holes around 4th grade already. Nevertheless, banning a term because it might be a racial slur without first asking what it means is the most re!@#$%^&*ed thing ever.