Demigod Forums
I noticed the post I made last night has been deleted. When that happens you know you've hit close to home.
^oh my god you and your ridiculous theories.
I think you should stick to selling houses. I'll do the diagnosing.
You are absolutely right 
Nothing to add here.
Now, can anybody from Stardock please answer to irek1988? 
all im waiting for now is an update thread in the journals section just to let everyone know what's going on and what WILL happen in the near future.
It's really not that hard unless they have nothing to say.
I'm pretty sure they don't really want to because regardless of what it is (even they have been secretly designing 10 new demigods and fixing all the bugs and just dropped $10mil into Demigod and it's all free and it's coming out next week) they really don't feel like the community is going to handle it the way they would like.
Nice dream, mate! 
Freedom of speech is worthless if no one listens.
Supreme court blocks ban on corporate spending: http://www.nytimes.com/2010/01/22/us/politics/22scotus.html
US elections as a sham - they are primarily decided by money and the propaganda the candidates can buy with it. And prior to the supreme court decision, that system at least loosely resemble something like a democratic process, because small contributions by many people mattered.
But now, on the basis of free speech for legal entities, corporations can spend limitless amounts of money on candidates they like. And if you think that doesn't matter then you're delusional.
Americans finally gave away democracy. And google can't save you from this.
That's not entirely true Aroddo. I am not a fan of the decision and it does fly in the face of a century of law; but, the Supreme Court has the ability to do that. Here's the thing, that decision was actually protecting the freedom of speech.
A corporation is an entity given the rights and powers of an individual (to a certain extent). The prior law limited the rights of these entities to express their political views by donating to the representatives campaigns that they saw as their best potential candidate to represent their interests. In the end, it is a limitation on free speech to limit how much money a person can spend in support of their representative of choice.
And though I think campaign finance plays a major role in the election of certain individuals, please remember that it is not the final straw. Just look at John Kerry. He had 120% of the campaign financing that Bush had, and he still lost.
A corporation is not a human being and thus is not entitled to any rights human beings have.
Corporations can have all the rights the law is prepared to grant them, but just argueing that since persons have free speech and corporations are legal persons and thus also have free speech is complete nonsense.
And just imagine how high campaign contributions for McCain would have been if the health industry was allowed to spend money as they wished back then. Plus the military industrial complex contributions that hope for war against iran (and venezuela and anyone else).
More like 500% campaign financing than Obama.
And since roughly half of america wouldn't mind Obama having lost it's not too far fetched to assume that many americans see this as an opportunity as opposed to a danger to democracy.
I think we are getting way off topic. But you really need to think about some of the things you're saying. If corporations were not afforded any rights that human beings have, particularly the protection of the bill of rights, then our democracy would fail per se. Capitalism relies on the functions of a market sustained by the market itself. Business minded people will not invest if there is not a protection from personal liability. Thus the corporate form was created. Liability only to the extent of your direct decisions and for the investment in that entity.
As for McCain, his biggest weakness was that he was not supported by the largest corporations. He was not "conservative" enough. When he finally achieved the "Bush endorsement" and could obtain such funding, the public opinion of Bush was so low that it was a coup de gras to his presidential run.
Remember what I said first, I don't like the decision. But it is probably the correct one according to our laws as they stand.
Businesses don't typically want wars with industrial countries. They want wars with nontrading partners like Afghanistan. If we go to war with a country like Venezuela, then all contracts between United States citizens (including corporations) and the country like Venezuela are invalid and unenforceable. That means that any income streams created prior to a declaration of war are defunct. This is way more costly than any perceived profit off of increased sales or war profits.
Finally, the tax consequences of war are phenomenal and ruin a true corporate motivation. You cannot fire a soldier while he is deployed. You must continue to keep him as an insurance liability. The workforce becomes under populated and you must pay more to keep the qualified personnel. Additionally, whenever war is instituted, corporations tend to have to carry the weight of the foreign costs as they pay 72% of the taxes (and therefore fund our government).
The way to achieve what you originally posted is to institute stricter limits on the maximum amount of campaign funding per entity (be they individual or corporate or otherwise). This achieves directly what the old law was attempting to achieve indirectly and allows a free application of rights to the legal fictions that are corporations.
Feel free to move this to a nongaming section of the forum.
Does it matter? Polititians are just a face on the TV, just a picture in the campaign posters. They dont have a voice. They dont have a vision.
Wait...so you are saying that USA needs to always be at war with some country?
Thats lame 
Opposite actually. I'm saying that corporations don't want the USA to be at war. As for politicians being figureheads...there is argument that supports that, but ultimately, they do have appointed powers that make them, well, "powerful".
Corporation don't need any rights that human beings have. Corporations can have their own rights, which might as well grant them the same rights that humans have.
The point is: It's wrong to argue that corporations should be allowed to do one thing just because humans can.
Or in this case: It's wrong to argue that corporations should have the right to unlimited campaign contributions because humans have free speech.
In the same line of reasoning you can argue that corporations can be granted the right to adopt children and raise them like they seem fit, including child labor masked as education in preparation for a future work life.
And as for corporations not wanting war ... it depends on the corporations. And the largest ones are definetly war profiteurs.
Technically something being private property does not mean it isnt bound by law
u cannot, for instance, proliferate child porn
depending on what country you are in, being a private property doesnt guarantee the owners discretion todo whatever he feels like, u cannot deny someones civil or human rights for the sole reason of being on your property. That is a ridiculous statement.
In the store example; imagine a hamburger joint that doesnt serve afro americans.u would need to fabricate a solid legal structure to make that stick (ie make a club with membership requirements etc). It being open to passers by is indeed relevant.
I havent read the legal notices of this forum (i dont need to because i behave like a mature person), but it is striking to see a corporation (stardock in this case) dismiss the law and civil rights this easy, while they jump in all directions when someone 'steals' their 'intellectual property'.
Alittle bit more respect would be in place imo
All this doesnt mean u cant delete posts, but doing so should be bound by clear rules stated in agreement of use and those should be applicable to all using this forum.And these rules can never involve violating someones civil rights or human rights nor can they be against the law of the country the website is hosted in, no matter what agreement of use is being set up.
As I said, you can choose to allow or disallow legal behaviors on your property, and remove or bar those who violate said choice. It's quite a stretch to interpret my comment as saying individuals can permit illegal behaviors on their property. That this isn't the case should go without saying.
Your civil or human rights don't have anything to do with it. Forum moderation is based on behavior; if you make an ass of yourself, we can send you out, as is the right of any property owner.
No one is obliged to take abuse (or tolerate abuse of others) in their own home or business.
Not sure where this tangent came from. This discussion had nothing to do with piracy.
sadly it doesnt
consumer rights in gaming industry are non existent
Both of you are just close enough to argue intelligently, but just wrong enough to be dangerous. I think you are confusing some definitions, but I'm only guessing where. I think you should delineate your analysis of private property from personal property. For instance, the discussion of pornography is usually in regard to personal property being used to proliferate the same. The fact that it's private only means that it is not government or public property. There can be arguments that certain forums have become public places of display because of lack of moderation.
In order to prevent this from happening, most constitutional lawyers will suggest that a forum moderator lock and ban comments willy nilly. This may seem odd to you, but I was recently on a council that discussed a University incident where a wall was graffittied as a form a free expression for the students.
There was a sign that posted the rules for the free expression, and the property was real (not personal) and private (not public). But, because the rules were never enforced, and no administrator for the school ever removed any of the graffiti, the wall had become public. And the school lost its ability to moderate the use of the tunnel. The same can be true for forums. So it becomes necessary for moderators to be vigilant in closing posts that they think are disalligned with their views.
Anyway, this was not the case in this instance, as your post was deleted for different reasons. See the post immediately following your creation of this thread.
ok again im not on about one post getting deleted or not
what disturbed me was the utter lack of respect in which the case was argued
If u are from russia and buy a (faulty) digital product in the usa, u have virtually no means of appeal.
When u get banned from a forum and your emails get ignored, what are u supposed todo? sue em?
For me a forum is part of a multiplayer game, its where i solve problems and resolve other issues
Likewise developers should be able to benefit from user input.
That was my point in this thread, it is necessary to have moderation but it should always be with respect
and guided by strict rules which are clear and applicable to all (no matter how disrespectful some poster gets)
Not some totalitarian attitude like; its my property and i do whatever i want with it, which is disrespectful to all users, not just one offender.
With the glaring exception of Island Dog, who has a more disgusting personality than even some of the neo-nazis in my (remote) neighbourhood.
i partener, i´d like to know how i report or how we get critical error, i wn´t my stat like the man ho make that be cause i think stardock like that.
and i like to get a great % to.
Welcome Guest! Please take the time to register with us.
Stardock Forums