 Question, Is change that bad? |
  |
| Guest_Crimsondude 2.0_* |
 May 11 2005, 01:15 AM
Post
#76
|
||
|
Guests  |
1 person =/= 2 million plus. If we're going to discuss whether this would be accepted though, look at Thomas' dissents in the internment cases, specifically Padilla, where he deferred completely to the Executive asserting its own authority to do whatever it wanted to (specifically in arresting a US citizen on US soil and "disappearing" him for 3 years now). Now consider that like I said all afternoon, SCOTUS in SR would be a majority of people to the hard right of him. In SR... I'd say it's possible, because it'd be legal. You know, like it was in Germany. Also, let's not forget that the Court said that the government had to charge him or release him a year ago. Nothing has happened. Anything is possible under the right circumstances. The Re-Education Camps are possible. Unlikely, unnecessary, and a tremendously awful plot device, but possible. As a political event and within the context of all of the other political events that occurred from 2000-09, it was likely done for many of the same reasons as was done to the Japanese--not for security, but for land. Remember that they had been in conflict with the government for years by 2009 over the Resource Rush and the sale of tribal lands to corps for exploitation. The Lone Eagle incident was a terrific opportunity to move them all off land that the US was gleefully selling off to the corps during the Resource Rush. For their own security and the security of the public, they were removed (like they were in the 1800s) because it would be a lot more difficult politically to abdicate the government's trust relationship with the tribes and the agreements to provide them reservations, but to "secure" them and to "re-educate" them... Yeah, it's possible. |
||
 |
 
|
||
|
May 11 2005, 01:23 AM
Post
#77
|
|
|
Target  Group: Members Posts: 12 Joined: 31-May 02 Member No.: 2,802 |
Remember people at this time (SR 2009-2010) were confused and scared shitless of the Native Americans. They had captured a missle silo and launched. The spin that the government could of put on all of this is endless. VITAS also hit that year, that right there would be enough to keep the public at bay saying that it was the NA's fault. If you think something liek this can't or won't happen again, think again. Public opinon is all spin.
Sorrry for getting upset before, just got irked. off topic again, ive typed this all on my PSP and it took forever =) |
|
|
|
| Guest_Crimsondude 2.0_* |
May 11 2005, 01:52 AM
Post
#78
|
|
Guests |
Oh, I forgot ... There's also a body of federal Indian law that could be used to further erode and eliminate rights such as the fact that the Bill of Rights does not apply in Indian Country (that's why there's a statute that provides individuals with some of those rights), and the US defines what, or rather, where IC is. It's all legally possible, and the entirety of the DOJ and Congressional committees could find justifications for just about anything they wanted to do to Indians that they couldn't do to anyone else.
I'd be stunned silent if the designers knew this, but weirder things are true. |
|
|
|
|
May 11 2005, 03:25 AM
Post
#79
|
|
|
Neophyte Runner Group: Members Posts: 2,078 Joined: 26-February 02 Member No.: 67 |
Yep.
Plus, not all Native Americans were relocated to the camps, the camps were not hellholes until public attention fell off (in fact, they probably started out with better conditions than the reservations--a real problem today that no one cares much about), and they were contracted out to corporations to run. If an extraterritorial corporation was given the Native American land by the U.S. government, then the extraterritorial corp comes in and relocates the population...well, guess what, that's not the United States government doing it. The relocation of the Native Americans was outsourced to a body that doesn't answer to American laws. Kinda like when we let nations with loose civil rights records "borrow" a suspected terrorist for a bit. |
|
|
|
|
May 11 2005, 03:36 AM
Post
#80
|
|||
|
Moving Target Group: Members Posts: 511 Joined: 19-August 02 Member No.: 3,139 |
*shivers* Yeah, its rough in those casinos ;) Just kidding there, I know that the reservation are bad in some areas today - but the 'Soverign nation' and gambling in states where it is illegal is crap and it irks me. Sorry for the derailment, back to the topic. Nothing to see here...... |
||
|
|
|
||
| Guest_Crimsondude 2.0_* |
May 11 2005, 05:12 AM
Post
#81
|
|
Guests |
....
Hmm... That reminds me of the time I nearly slapped someone for a similar comment. Anyway, it's not "borrowing," DE. We're rendering them back to countries where they're wanted, and if they happen to be in countries which boil people to death, then so be it. |
|
|
|
|
May 11 2005, 08:27 AM
Post
#82
|
|
|
Moving Target Group: Members Posts: 293 Joined: 27-January 03 From: Kentucky, USA Member No.: 3,958 |
Times like these, I really wish this place had an Ignore feature. Yeesh.
|
|
|
|
|
May 11 2005, 09:20 AM
Post
#83
|
|
|
Freelance Elf Group: Dumpshocked Posts: 7,324 Joined: 30-September 04 From: Texas Member No.: 6,714 |
It does have a Report, if something's bugging you that much.
|
|
|
|
|
May 11 2005, 11:59 AM
Post
#84
|
|
|
Shooting Target Group: Members Posts: 1,978 Joined: 26-February 02 From: New Jersey, USA Member No.: 500 |
That function's broken.
|
|
|
|
|
May 11 2005, 12:53 PM
Post
#85
|
|||
|
Neophyte Runner Group: Members Posts: 2,078 Joined: 26-February 02 Member No.: 67 |
Regardless of the semantics, given the current-day politics in this country, it's not hard for me to imagine an angry American public looking the other way to a few thousand Native Americans with suspected terrorist ties being kept in camps, especially if those camps are run by extraterritorial entities. EDIT: And on the casino comment, it's true that a handful of tribes live quite well off the gambling loophole (personally, I think they deserve the loophole, we Europeans screwed them pretty solid a couple centuries ago). But it's not the majority, not even close. And it's heavily divided the Native American community to the point where tribes hire lobbyists to make sure the states do not allow other tribes to open up a casino, because that would be competition. So one tribe lives in poverty while it's neighbor does well. |
||
|
|
|
||
|
May 11 2005, 01:22 PM
Post
#86
|
|
|
Freelance Elf Group: Dumpshocked Posts: 7,324 Joined: 30-September 04 From: Texas Member No.: 6,714 |
We taught 'em good.
|
|
|
|
|
May 11 2005, 01:31 PM
Post
#87
|
|||
|
Running Target Group: Members Posts: 1,070 Joined: 7-February 04 From: NYC Member No.: 6,058 |
...because as we all know, the tribes used to live in perfect harmony with the environment and each other before the white man came around. ;) |
||
|
|
|
||
|
May 11 2005, 01:52 PM
Post
#88
|
|
|
Freelance Elf Group: Dumpshocked Posts: 7,324 Joined: 30-September 04 From: Texas Member No.: 6,714 |
And they used every part of the buffalo, and never ever killed each other!
|
|
|
|
|
May 11 2005, 02:04 PM
Post
#89
|
|
|
Moving Target Group: Members Posts: 437 Joined: 11-April 05 Member No.: 7,318 |
Humans have been killing eachother in all cultures, all the time. The only difference was that the invading Europeans had more resources and better weapons than the locals.
The Indian tribes were not a match economically. A nearly similar scenario took place when medieval Europeans came to Japan and China. They conquered there aswell, but the structured local society was economically powerful enough to retaliate and retain their social integrity. Hong Kong was claimed, but most other western interests were kicked out again. The locals took western technology and adapted it for their own use. The indians would have done the same, but they didn't have the knowledge or economy to adapt. |
|
|
|
|
May 11 2005, 02:23 PM
Post
#90
|
|
|
Neophyte Runner Group: Members Posts: 2,078 Joined: 26-February 02 Member No.: 67 |
That's not an entirely accurate comparison. The Asian colonies (and even the African colonies) were very different than the colonialization of North America and South America. For one, the Asian colonies used a lot of local, indigenous labor, which allowed them to integrate faster. In North and South America, the colonists mostly killed the indigenous population and imported labor from elsewhere. Look at the Caribbean today. The island of Hispanola (Haiti and the Dominican Republic) is almost entirely peopled by descendents of African slave labor, whereas the indigenous Hispanolan Indians are nearly extinct.
Also, disease played an important role. The indigenous Asian populations were not as vulnerable to European diseases as the Native American population was, which was horribly decimated by it. Hell, in most cases, the Europeans proved susceptable to Asian diseases (Black Plague, anyone?). But the Native Americans had no previous exposure, and therefore no resistance to, smallpox, influenza, the plague, or even measles. Don't underestimate the impact that disease had on the Americas. Historians vary on this, but I doubt you'll find a historian who will say that the disease mortality rate of indigenous American populations was less than 60% (some say it's as high as 90-95%). Native Americans were overall doing quite well in adapting to western culture. They picked up on the gun and the horse very quickly. But faced with their adult populations being decimated by disease and a hostile population intent not on integrating them, but instead taking their territory and continually relocating them, they weren't dealt a very good hand. |
|
|
|
|
May 11 2005, 03:10 PM
Post
#91
|
|
|
Moving Target Group: Members Posts: 588 Joined: 26-February 02 Member No.: 227 |
I haven't had ANY involvement in SR4 development, and was surprised when I heard about it, but I can see the need. The market for games today is different, and SR3 was a difficult game system even 5 years ago. Given the hard competition from d20 systems and such, SR NEEDS a fast-to-lear, easy-to-remember game system to stay strong.
And I really don't think it needs to weaken the game. Change it, yes. Weaken it, no. Looking at the new WOTD system (which makes a similar level of change and simplification, involving many parallel mechanic changes) I'd say the new game looks to play better. I expect something similar for SR4. And, mind you, I was one of the SR4 playtesters / authors who tended to go for the most complex solutions to a given game issue.... but really, I think a simple basic rule set, will easily allow for optional complexity, either published or as house rules. |
|
|
|
|
May 11 2005, 04:08 PM
Post
#92
|
|
|
Incertum est quo loco te mors expectet; Group: Dumpshocked Posts: 6,548 Joined: 24-October 03 From: DeeCee, U.S. Member No.: 5,760 |
Weblife, I think you missed their sarcasm tags. No one was actually claiming that the white men are really white devils and the native Americans were without blame. We certainly did have better technology and economy. They would've done the same had positions been reversed.
As for your much earlier comment... I'm not sure how you're saying Shadowrun is less tactically oriented because your GM can't keep all the modifiers in mind, and so applies blanket modifiers for everyone. That's houseruling, it's not SR any more. |
|
|
|
|
May 11 2005, 04:55 PM
Post
#93
|
|||||
|
Target Group: Members Posts: 79 Joined: 8-October 02 Member No.: 3,425 |
I disagree there Veracusse, you are out of order. Ive roleplayed a lot of systems over the last 15 years, and SR is a hell of a lot more complicated than just "reading the rulebook". I expect you to flame into me for being stupid, if your responses to weblife are anything to go by :P As i see it the heart of weblifes comments is that a "streamlined" new rule set may not be a bad thing (if done well). Less time cross referencing rules and more roleplaying without losing a persons ability to be skillful/have options in combat etc. Now im saying all this with a reference to that :- 1) Yes SR is the best RPG ive ever played from story line to dice pools/rules 2) It is a very complicated system to learn fully 3) Some of the people on this forum who know the rules inside out may not see them as complicated anymore 4) In an ideal world i would not want a whole new system as i now know SR3 pretty well. And:- 1) Fanpro are not out to destroy the game or its fanbase. 2) Yes, they are streamlining the rules ( those of u who want to call it "dumbing down" without actually seeing what they produce, then fine), but in my mind if done well could be quite exciting. 3) SR4 is not just a new game. Im sure they are trying to make the rules easier, less bloated, and more consise, and at the same time continuing the whole history, feel and mythos of the world the same. 4) Staying with SR3 means the death of the world, as the number of players dwindle and its not worth them producing any more products. With SR4 they open up a whole new chance at new players, who can go cool i like the feel, setting and rules of this game... without having to a) find a copy of the handbook... let alone the other books (which in england even the best roleplaying shops have little or no copies) b) learn all the rules in their complicated state, or feel they have to have 10 or so other books just to feel that they are part of our complex world. In my mind they are trying to keep the worlds history, feel AND whilst changing the rules essentially, keep current players happy, and at the same time appeal to new players.... which i see is the only way SR will continue. Bashing the Developers or the playtesters is not helping anyone.... yes its impossible for them to make everyone happy (and believe me im not overjoyed at some of what LITTLE ive seen), but lets see what they produce. In my mind theres getting a little too much we are dumpshock, we are the game... its not broken why fix it.... fanpro are idiots out to ruin the game/rip us off and take our money... anyone who dares suggest the new edition may be ok must get trolled. I would suggest trying a bit more to look from the outside world and see that they are not trying to destroy SR, but doing there best to keep it going and improve it.... both for new players and old. |
||||
|
|
|
||||
|
May 11 2005, 05:06 PM
Post
#94
|
|||||||||
|
Manus Celer Dei Group: Dumpshocked Posts: 17,013 Joined: 30-December 02 From: Boston Member No.: 3,802 |
weblife walks in trolling with some feel-good "you people can't possibly have specific complaints, you must just be anti-change" bullshit, and suddenly everyone who calls him on it is out of line? :please:
Doesn't mean they won't. I think most people are willing to give them the benefit of the doubt that they're not malicious (I certainly don't think they are, there are people involved with FanPro that I respect greatly as people). If you think just not being out to destroy the game is enough to make a good new edition, well, I don't know what to say.
I agree that it could be. What you're missing is that a lot of the "dumbing down" comments come in direct response to what we have been shown about what they're producing.
And you think that SR3 didn't have the same design goals in mind?
Congratulations, you've just declared that one of the few successful RPGs is dying without anything to back your point up. Moreover, there are more than a few of us who are in favour of a 4th edition without necessarily being fans of this fourth edition. Take a look back at what people were saying when the news just came out. I think you'll find that a lot of naysayers now weren't naysayers then. ~J |
||||||||
|
|
|
||||||||
|
May 11 2005, 05:21 PM
Post
#95
|
|
|
Moving Target Group: Members Posts: 141 Joined: 26-February 02 From: Austin, TX CAS Member No.: 1,097 |
I really wish people would quit attacking posters here openly, its ridiculous.
First off, when someone says that they feel the changes are horrible and that they probably will not buy the game that tends to sound like they are "anti-change". Second, when someone says they don't see why some people are hessitant about the changes and they ask for specific reasons we are getting both useless posts (ala "your stupid and full of shit" posts) and actual responses (ala Critias and yourself and, FYI, we thank you for your opinions). However, the people posting the beforementioned useless posts aren't consider Trolls? Please. |
|
|
|
|
May 11 2005, 05:24 PM
Post
#96
|
|
|
Target Group: Members Posts: 79 Joined: 8-October 02 Member No.: 3,425 |
well u do say the dumbing down comments are about what they have shown.... well as far as i can see so far what they have shown is next to nothing.... a few lines does not say what the entire rules will be.
As to "didnt SR3 have that in mind"... do i care about that... will that effect what this edition does? And saying " one of the few successful RPGs is dying without anything to back up your point" Huh? thought i was saying SR4 is a possible way for SR to continue to grow... i suppose it depends on if you look at the rules or the world ( and either way im sure they are trying their best to make the new rules work just as much for us as a new potential players |
|
|
|
|
May 11 2005, 05:25 PM
Post
#97
|
|||
|
Freelance Elf Group: Dumpshocked Posts: 7,324 Joined: 30-September 04 From: Texas Member No.: 6,714 |
But most of us aren't "anti-change." We're "anti-these-changes-we've-heard-about-so-far." It's not like we were all sitting around waiting for anyone to propose any change, and then throwing poop at them like monkies. Quite a few of us were excited about the new edition right up until they started telling us what was changing. There's a difference -- a huge one! -- between being "anti-change" and "not liking these changes, specifically." |
||
|
|
|
||
|
May 11 2005, 05:29 PM
Post
#98
|
|
|
Moving Target Group: Members Posts: 141 Joined: 26-February 02 From: Austin, TX CAS Member No.: 1,097 |
Hence the "tends to sound like they are anti-change" in my sentence.
|
|
|
|
|
May 11 2005, 05:30 PM
Post
#99
|
|||
|
Tilting at Windmills Group: Members Posts: 1,636 Joined: 26-February 02 From: Amarillo, TX, CAS Member No.: 388 |
Do I have to? |
||
|
|
|
||
|
May 11 2005, 05:30 PM
Post
#100
|
|||
|
Manus Celer Dei Group: Dumpshocked Posts: 17,013 Joined: 30-December 02 From: Boston Member No.: 3,802 |
Maybe I'm just being blinded by anger over lines like
(and I'm saying that seriously, it's happened to me before), but I didn't actually see anything other than "resistance to change is close-minded" in his post, making it hard to see it as anything other than a troll. You're right, I'm probably overreacting and will try to tone it down, but it seems like at times there's an assumption that there can't possibly be a logical reason for negativity regarding SR4. I suppose there are also political considerations that I should probably weed out. I'm less likely to attack someone who is echoing my overall sentiment even if they're not being productive while doing so because, despite the fact that we have nothing to do with each other, it still looks like dissent within the ranks. This is not a positive tendency and I'll try to avoid it in the future. Critias covered my other point. While you're correct in that it may "seem" anti-change, being misrepresented is generally something that tweaks most people, and I suppose I'm overly sensitive to it. There have been a lot of straws lately, but I suppose it's time to drop some of them off somewhere. ~J |
||
|
|
|
||
|
|
Lo-Fi Version | Time is now: 29th September 2025 - 01:50 PM |
Topps, Inc has sole ownership of the names, logo, artwork, marks, photographs, sounds, audio, video and/or any proprietary material used in connection with the game Shadowrun. Topps, Inc has granted permission to the Dumpshock Forums to use such names, logos, artwork, marks and/or any proprietary materials for promotional and informational purposes on its website but does not endorse, and is not affiliated with the Dumpshock Forums in any official capacity whatsoever.