Jump to content



  • Posts

  • Joined

  • Last visited

Everything posted by SilentScope001

  1. Returning from exile to say that I'm glad that Chris Avellone finally spilt the beans. Yeah, I'm disappointed, but I rather be disappointed than wait for the end of KOTOR III to find out they reused the same plotline of KOTOR II. Anyway, it does make Bioware's plotline more interesting. Remember, in TOR, the "True Sith Empire" (or at least what is likely to be the True Sith Empire) won. Not only that, but the True Sith, at its moment of trimpuh, decided, instead of extermination, to sign a a peace treaty. I have a hard time thinking that Kreia, or Obisidan's True Sith would even consider something like that. These are not your regular Sith here. They're still very generic, but at least they got some heretical ideas going on here. You could spend, what, ten minutes, examining their motives carefully. Going back into exile. Good job Palvos.
  2. Hello. I am planning on hosting an "alternate reality game", which will be played somewhat similar to a BoardWar, where you fight in the "Cold War" over an island dictatorship. You will control a character fighting in a war and be randomly assigned to 4 different factions (each faction being controlled by a real player, but not on this forum), but from there, it is up to you what you want to do. This will span different boards, and you will be playing against other people who may reside on different boards. So, it is sorta-mulitplayer. Please post if you are interested in playing. I am planning on sending emails to people who are interested in playing, and allowing them to email me back telling me what they want to do as a character...
  3. I guess that's true too. The fact that it's still "Sith" doesn't help the Republic any. Oh well. I'll apologize for this thread.
  4. No, I'm not trying to incite an discussion. If I did, I would have it be in the title. I'm okay with what Bioware has done. I'm sure most people are, after all. I mean, it's their game now, and they got good reason to do it. And, it doesn't really matter what our views are, Bioware did it. So, really no discussion. I made a mistake, and I should have seen any consquences. You see, I had no reason at the time to believe that the True Sith would win, but that's the thing, I should have thought that way. I should have somehow thought that Obisidan or Bioware would have been creative enough to do that, to let the plotline continue, rather than to terminate it. I didn't. It was an honest mistake...but it was a mistake. That was it. I might have been hard on myself for calling it "stupid", but...I really should have known better. Especially with me cluttering the forum with nonsense like "why play the game if we know the ending", when it turns out I didn't know the ending. Meh.
  5. This thread is not me coming back. I'm not coming back. But I made a mistake. I need to take responsiblity for said mistake, rather than leave it unresolved. If I made a dumb prediction, I need to apologize for it. Time and time again, I repeated a dumb prediction about the True Sith: That they would be destroyed at the end of KOTOR3 and the galaxy would be saved. I was wrong. I was so wrong. That is because, as the KOTOR MMO showed, a new Sith Empire trimpuhed and acheived parity with the Old Republic. In fact, the Jedi had to relocate due to the power of this new Sith Empire. Players can ally with the Sith Empire or the Old Republic, and accept quests from both factions. It stands to reason that the new Sith Empire is likely backed by the True Sith...or maybe are the True Sith themselves. And since it is unlikely that this MMO would truly end, the Sith Empire will still exist for a long time, meaning that the True Sith won. I never, honestly, in a million years expected that. Never. Not even from Obisidan. Say what you will about The Old Republic MMO...but at least Bioware got guts to showcase the bad guys WINNING. So there we go. I made a dumb prediction, and I was proven wrong. I'm sorry.
  6. (Alright, I know, I know, I said I would leave, but, um... I have been worried over a Russia-Georgia war for quite some time. To see it actually happen just begs me to come over here to say, "Told ya so." That's it. Now back to exile...) Ask the Russian government themselves. The Russians has granted citizenship to anyone living in South Oesstia, as well as the right to use Russian passports. This was the main reason the Russians used for why they sent troops to SO, because they were protecting their own 'citizens'. And overwhealmingly, the majority in SO are Oesstians. The Georgian governments were the ones who started the attack. And I have no sympathy for their leader. However, the current US Strategy (call for a return to the status quo, an ending to the fighting) seems to be the only good one at the moment. This is going to be an important war: If Georgia wins, Russia's power will diminsh heavily. If Russia wins, America's power will diminish heavily. Georgia's military looks very weak on paper, but it did get arms and training from NATO, and it is betting on NATO intervention, so who knows? My money's on Russia though.
  7. Alright. It's offical that the KOTOR MMO is coming out. There are few details, but it is rather unlikely I am going to buy it... Let me explain. A few weeks after I bought the KOTOR series (or is it a few weeks before, I am not certain), I checked up on wikipedia to learn more, and I found out about the TSLRP. Then I got linked from TSLRP over to LF, which I stayed for quite some time. I stayed mostly because I wanted to learn more about TSL. And I did. I learnt more than I ever thought possible. And then I stopped learning. And then I stayed more because of the "Ethics" thread that lead to the creation of the Kavar's Corner, for good or bad. But now that we know KOTOR MMO is coming. And there's no denying it. EA's guy is telling the truth. KOTOR MMO does not exist in my 'canonical KOTOR universe', and will never exist in my eyes, so I am not so concerned about it as most other people. We all can easily conclude what is going to happen anyway with the True Sith (their eventual genocide)...and after the death of the True Sith, I don't honestly care about Revan, the Exile, the Republic, everything else. The story ends, I don't have to see useless exposition. But what it does mean that this forum may eventually be a battleground between those who support the "KOTOR MMO" project made by Bioware and those who support the regular hypotethical "KOTOR SP", made by Obisidan. Not to mention that, the MMO component will bring in a flux of brand new accounts, leading to a conflict between the New KOTOR Fans and the Old KOTOR Fans. Not to mention the New KOTOR Fans battling amongst each other in the form of Clans and Balance Issues. Eventually, this board can, and likely will, splinter into two sections that hate each other relentlessly, without good moderation, which I am quite certain already exist with Kavar's Corner as a good proving grounds. As it stands though, this forum will enter into interesting times. And frankly, well, I don't really want to witness this conflict. So, that's it. I haven't been active in Kavar's Corner anyway, so until I post in 6 months after the embers die down, assume that I left this KOTOR forum forever. Yes, I know, most 'goodbye' threads are intended to be just that, 'goodbye', but I am sure that I won't say 'goodbye' forever (too much of the 'old guard' here to leave forever, you know). But I am pretty certain that I won't post 6 months.
  8. The CEO should learn to keep his mouth shut instead of boasting. But at least now we got full confirmation that the Old Republic MMO is set in the KOTOR universe, therefore the KOTOR series will in fact be ruined. I guess the last thing is how exactly the MMORPG "element" of the game will dominate. It could very well be possible that there is a 'tutorial' SP game, where you battle the True Sith with Revan and Exile, and the 'aftermath' MMORPG game where you reconstruct the Jedi Order after battling the True Sith. Following in the tradition of Age of Conan...so it might be an innovation Bioware is willing to steal. Hey, it could work. Or it could be me grasping at straws. But yes. KOTOR MMO is dead to me. So I should start writing that "KOTOR3" storyline thread sooner or later.
  9. I'm going to go and ask the mods very nicely if they can lock this thread, considering the fact that, while it isn't any flaming or such, it is somewhat going off-topic, due to the actual 'party' being canceled...as well as the fact that this topic is going far more serious than I anticipated. Any discussion about communism, political parties, etc. could be held in Kavar's Corner in a separate topic. So, um, mods. Er. Please?
  10. ... Great. By making this topic, I helped unite the anti-Democrats...As a general response thread: 1) The Democratic Party is the correct name of the Democratic Party. So, no I won't call them the Democrat Party. I will grant each political party the decency to name themselves, understand? 2) What's all this hate about parties? People get together and enjoy themselves while talking about stuff. I thought that how most parties are, you know. You eat, you talk among friends, you leave. The only difference is that the Democratic Party is sponsoring it, but then it's just the same as the fund-raisers that both political parties usually hold. 3) The Democratic Party and the Republican Party are actually both very good parties. While I understand the partisans try to scream at each other, both represent two ideologies I support: the idea of economic liberty (Republican) and individual liberty (Democrats), the idea of personal responsibility (Republican) and collective responsibility (Democrats). The left and the right. Two separate strands of thought. Some solutions from the right will work, some solutions from the left will work. So, I don't share this utter disgust and hatred for the two-party system. 4) If you want a successful third party, then don't start aiming for the Presidency. Try to learn how politics work, and then win some local stuff first by gathering a dedicated core. Don't complain and whine about how the system is broken. Do something. And overall, aim to win, not aim to demonstrate an ideology. A third-party might do more damage in a system where the electoral college is abolished, due to the possibility of votes being lost, but I'd focus on results. And whatever you do, come up with a coherent ideology for what you plan to do. And make sure your ideology works. Why throw the rascals out when we just replace it with a clueless idiot who will end up hurting the territory that they rule? You will be held responsible for every error you make, so you better make sure you think wisely. 5) There has been cases where a Third Party can very well "transform" a major party...or, more cynically, "hijack" it. This is because this third party usually showcase a huge amount of supporters, so one of the two major political parties decide to embrace the agenda of the Third Party so much so as to bring those supporters into their camp. The Populists who later influenced the Democratic Party, as well as Eugene's Socialist Party, comes into mind here. Don't rely on it though. 6) There are so many arguments over what is and is not communism, with Troskyists and Stalinists and Maoists all pounding over what is and is not 'true communism'. Might be fun to watch, but frankly, I'm not going to wade into that.
  11. Really now? Surely, a game in the developing country does not in fact cost $3,000 USD. Total income may be lower, but I am sure that a local and legal copy would cost the same in USD, or maybe even cheaper, as a way to try and undermine pirates. Not to mention, of course, that there are more games out there than this costly generation.
  12. There are. Also I did some research on the underground market I have went to. Seems that in 1992, Pakistan has begin overhauling its copyright laws, but enforcement of the copyright laws has been spotty at best. The worst news however, is that they're still in need of overhauling its copyright laws, and the United States still views Pakistan as a violator of international copyright law. Here's an article from 2000 that discusses how entrenched piracy is, and explains some of the arguments used against reforming Pakistani copyright laws.
  13. Just because I want something that is expensive does not mean that I should automatically get it for cheap. Games are a luxury, not an necessity. To have fun. Don't tell me that people buy games for other reasons except for entertainment. And if you state that there is no incentive to buy it rather than get it somewhere else, then I ask you why should I be willing to compensate someone for their hard work when I could just leech from them anyway? I'm sorry, but I actually bought games from this underground market (though I prefer the term "black market"), and people in this underground market told me that they are able to do so because of the lack of copyright laws. In fact, they stated that since in their nation, there is no copyright laws, they can pirate whatever they want and not get punished...in that nation. So, I do consider myself informed. At least when discussing my "underground market". Ah, but you forget the fact that you can buy games that are in fact low budget. Gaming is a luxury, and there are differing degrees of luxury. You don't need an X360. A Super Nintendo is actually quite fine. Or...gasp...you could go on the Internet and download "FREEWARE" applications. In fact, I can safely say that I had more fun with the various (possibly illegal) modifications of Super Mario Brothers than I did playing...well...many of the generic top-of-the-line 3d FPS. Had a person bought the Super Mario Brothers legally...well...I'd still have the same amount of fun. The only reason I believe this may not have happened at all is, well, Super Mario Brothers isn't released in this third-world country at all, hence having to rely on this. Yeah, I'm a firm believer in abandonware, but I also recognize it is totally illegal, and people should realize that. And not everyone in a third-world nation is poor. They have lower income, and they need help, but they can also survive on their own.
  14. Amen. And besides, it costs lot of time and money to actually produce a game. It's really, really dumb if I go out and produce a game, and then find out later that nobody is actually buying said game because they are downloading off the Internet for free. It cost time and money to produce a game, you know. And if you take away the incentive to make a game, then why should I make one? Though, to be honest, a major reason why developing countries seem to have lots of piracy is because, well, they don't respect copyright laws and property rights. Which hurts their economic growth in the long term due to a lack of incentive to actually create something over there (why should they? Somebody would just copy their idea and sell it cheaper!). This is why it is a good idea for the governments to start protecting copyright laws, to protect their own, overground legal industries (though, more likely, protect copyright laws for other things that are more important than games...).
  15. Um. The actual Party has been cancelled due to such short notice, the fact that I got stressed out, the fact that I didn't prepare this fully, and the fact that I just offended a bunch of people in the process of inviting people for said party. Sorry.
  16. Remember the good old days? Remember Thomas Jefferson, who bought the Lousiana territory? Ooh, oh, what about Woodrow Wilson, the President who created the League of Nations? And surely, isn't FDR one of the greatest Democratic President in the 21st Century, right? Right! So, it's time! It's time to prove your partisanship loyalty! (...Oh *beep*. I clicked on Enter when I didn't mean to. Listen, just wait, I'll edit in the details later.) EDIT: Alright. Yesterday, the US Democratic Party has just emailed me telling me to go and hold a party. Their goal is that, if they hold enough parties, they'll persuade the Youth vote to go and vote for Democrats for the next election. Now, I haven't donated any money to the Democratic Party for a long, long time, so I realize that I owe it to them to actually hold a party. But I don't want to, you know, waste any money. So here's what I am planning. On July 25th, there will be some sort of "virtual party". Possibly in a chatroom, or maybe in this very topic. That's it. A party. Party ends July 27th. BIG NOTES: *You do not have to support Obama to attend this party. This party is for supporting people who are running under the Democratic Party ticket, not just Obama. You can still attend this party, promise to vote downticket all Democrat, all the time, and still vote for McCain as President. *You do not need be a Democrat at all. Just anyone who might vote straight ticket all Democrat. If you see a "(D)", make sure to vote for him. *It is strongly encouraged, but not required that you vote in the General Election. If you cannot attend the Polling places, then please contact your state government on how to gain mail-in ballots. Activities: *Um. I don't actually quite know. I do not, do not want to hold any political activities in this party because of fear that this will make the party wrong, and also for fear of getting this party locked by the Moderators. *But if you got any good activity, please state so. Remember, the Democratic Party wants this party. Why the Topic Title is Called "Summer For Change!": The US Democratic Party is calling this summer the "Summer For Change". (Don't ask.) They want me to hold the party here, rather than, say, in the "Fall For Change", due to the fact that the youth vote are usually out having fun in the Summer, and not during the Fall. [woot: 2,222th post.]
  17. Awesome logo. ...Oh wait? The trailer? Where's the dragons? That's the whole point of Dragon Age! You can't have Dragon Age without dragons! That's just insane.
  18. Well, call me netural on that. It's pretty "McGuffiny" but it does drive the storyline of TSL alright, and it at least fleshed out Revan's character, so that there is a reason for people to be fanboyish towards him (not that they ever grasped for one, but still...) . I am however slightly against resolving that cliffhanger though, because by revealing who the True Sith actually are, you destroy their mysteriousness and make them, well, not that 'scary'. Since good always trimpuh over evil in Star Wars, it is rather unlikely that the True Sith will actually succed in their goals (to be perfectly honest, we don't quite know what they are, other than take revenge on the Republic). And I do refer to the fact that the destruction of the True Sith would be genocidical, because if the True Sith is a seperate species, then the destruction of that species could easily be considered 'genocidial'. If it has to be resolved, then resolve it in a singleplayer K3 with the same style of TSL, but I'd be fine if the LA people just came out and said, "Listen, we're abandoning the True Sith arc. Just assume Revan and Exile won."
  19. Really now? Actually, I'm cheering at this news prospect. The term "Old Republic" already takes away a major argument against the whole KOTOR MMORPG thing. It imples that the setting can be moved to wherever. We can have it during the Hutt-Republic Wars, the Mandalorian Wars, the Great Hyperspace War, the even during the aftermath of the eventual True Sith genocide. The Old Republic timeline is very broad, you know? If Bioware sets "The Old Republic" outside of the KOTOR timeline (which looks rather likely considering that they don't add in the very important "Knights of The" title, it cannot seriously be called the KOTOR MMO, can it? Sure, it'd still be full of lame, but at least we can be certain that the KOTOR series is smothered rather than released as an MMO with the "Exileians" and the "Revanics" factions. Okay, "Daughters of Exileians" and "Sons of Revanics" will arrive instead, but hey, it doesn't hurt to have your ego be glorified. ...We'll miss you True Sith. Exit is on the right.
  20. http://www.iht.com/articles/2008/07/08/europe/serbia.php I don't know what igmay would say (he'd probably be against this), but I think this is the best of all possible worlds for the Western powers [not stating if I am pro-western or not, you can determine that via my postings]. Although I am sure not everyone will be happy that the main reason Serbia is now leaning pro-EU rather than pro-Russia is because the Socialist Party chosen the liberal-democrats rather than the hard-right nationalists. The reason? The Socialist Party is actually pretty supportive of the late Serbian dictator Slobodan Milosevic. Make of that what you will.
  21. US, Czech Republic sign defense agreement Just talking about the new Czech Republic-US deal that was signed that paves the way for the Missle Defense System to be installed over there (it has to be ratified first though), the new protests that are being waged in the capital against the deal (the article claims only 30% of the Czech Republic supports the deal), the Presidental candinates' views towards the deal (McCain: Yes, Obama: Maybe), and new attempts by America in order to get a Polish deal down. Of course, being me, I only focused on this part of the article:
  22. In which case, you can just click on the Wikipedia links to learn of all mainland assaults during World War 2 by Germany...and Japan. As for the topic at hand...well, I personally feel sorry for all the stabbings that have occured.
  23. http://www.iht.com/articles/2008/07/01/america/01imposter.php ... Alright fine, so the guy didn't wear a skull or killed anybody (yet). And Sergant Bill is a liar, something I'm sure The Punisher would never do. But there we go. Real life vigliante.
  24. Inyri: Because I need to deal with this situation that presents itself by Pew, I'm going to reply to your post, with the following premise in mind: 1) We'll assume that we share the same Judeo-Christianity-Islamic religious traditions (divine belief in one God, for instance). You said this in your post, but I want to restate this just to ensure. Or, they are listening to the media, and not thinking for themselves either. Or maybe they are intellectually lazy, willing to accept whatever they want just to please themselves, and not out of any logical reason. All that we know from the data is that people's beliefs are not in step with that of what their religion actually states. We cannot access wheter people are actually thinking...yet. We should have a poll on that though. Plus, Priests/Pastors can also be liberal, and their liberal view of their religion can in fact sway people to be liberal themselves. Yes it can, assuming we following Judeo-Christian-Islamic religion here. (Please, realize, I'm going to be using my understanding of the religious scriptures here, so if you have an different view of what the scriptures state, well, alright then, I accept that. I know you are a Christian, while I am a Muslim, so these things may be a tad different. I think many Christians might rely on the 'God forgives all' theory, while I take a somewhat harder line on that...there are 'core issues' that matter, for instance...) In that sort of religion, there is a God-figure, who we will term God. God has seperated people from those who accept his message and those that do not accept his message. Those who accept his message will be accepted into Heaven. Those who do not accept his message will go into Hell. God has already told people what his message is, and he will be the sole person who will determine who followed his message and who does not. Now, then, accepting that message means accepting ALL of that message, because if you do not, then you are only picking and choosing whatever God, who is accepted as the creator of Judeo-Chrisitan-Islamic religion, has said. You can declare that priests are totally, completely wrong, and I'll accept that. But when you start denying parts of the message that is in fact transmitted by God himself, or by the messengers of God, then that's where it crosses the line. If God himself desired that [[iNSERT DESIRED POLITICAL POSITION]] is something that should supported or gone against, God would have made that clear inside of his message. Otherwise, by going against a portion of the message of God, you have shown a insult to God himself. You have put your judgment of right and wrong over that of God himself, an act of pride that would most likely lead to God declaring that you will go to Hell, and disowning you from his religion. Now, it can be debated what is in fact God's message. The way I try to determine it is by reading the scriptures, and listening to scholars who have studied this issue more closely. But if you instead 'pick and choose' what message of God to follow or not, then it is obvious that you are putting your view of the world over that of God's view. And in which case, if you go against God, then you go against his religion, egro, you are outside of the religion. I think it most likely does matter. Without having a background, how would you know if you are following the message that God has sent down rather than what you personally believe? You are not dealing with the issue of what type of clothing to wear today, you are dealing with issues of eternal salvation and damnation here. It's a bit too dangerous to let your fate hang in the balance, and hope luck comes in to save the day. People can think for themselves, but that does not mean that they actually do, and this huge disparity in religion does not indicate that it is a good thing. To prove that people are in fact thinking for themselves, they must show some reasonable effort to showcase that they are thinking, instead of engaging in intellectual laziness. For example, 21% of Atheists believe in God. I want to know how a person can believe in God and yet not believe in God. It may be likely that most of them are Deists, instead of Atheists, in which they believe God exist, but is an impersonal force, and does not interfere in the affairs of Man. These Atheists just do not know that the term 'Deist' exist. But then you got the remaining 6% of Atheists who believe in God as a personal God (therefore not being Deist), and the 3% of Atheists who believe in God, but are unsure as to the nature of this God. But, an Atheist, as commonly accepted, is someone who does not believe in God. So, again, I want to know...why are these Atheists still 'atheists'? And again, I shall point to the 1% Catholic who do not believe in God, the 4% Othrodox who do not believe in God, and the 5% Muslim who do not believe in God. Last time I checked, belief in God is one of the core tenants in each of these three religions, and the failure to believe in God basically means you are not really a part of that religion. So, I would be interested in hearing a Catholic speak about why God does not exist, and yet he still listens to the Pope, or to a Muslim why he believes in Mohammed and the Quran but not in God. Until I listen to the God-fearing Atheist and the God-denying Catholic, I cannot ascertain their logic, so I cannot claim they are in fact "thinking for themselves". I do however believe that such logic must be internally consistent, and from what I am viewing, it does not appear to be internally consistent, because a God-fearing Atheist cannot exist, and so can a God-denying Catholic, at least according to the definitions of the term. These denominations might matter. Each denomination has their own view of what the Bible states. If you change your denomination on a whim, you may not be able to understand what is in fact the correct view of the Bible. Now a person can claim that different views of the Scripture may be equally valid. However, if this is so, then it leads to the question of which 'different views' that God endorse? Will God endorse either the views of a radical black church, a radical white church, or the view of a moderate church, all of whom have different views about race relations? Will God endorse equally the pro-life and pro-choice camp, stating that it is okay for a person to kill a child and it is equally okay to prohibit people from using their constitutional right to choose? Does God endorse both gay-marriage and non-gay-marriage? Alright, that's all politics, and I understand full well that your political views may be separate from your religious views, as do most people in that survey. But keep in mind that these are moral issues as well as political issues. Is it morally acceptable to engage in gay marriage yourself? Is it morally acceptable to abort? Morally acceptable to engage in affirmative action? What you believe the government should do is far different from what you should actually do in such a situation, and then what? If God is equally willing to adopt both positions at once, that, say, abortion is both morally acceptable and not morally acceptable, then God displays a lot of moral relativism, which would be upsetting to both pro-lifers and pro-choicers, who believe that their respective position is the only true and correct one. And to see both a KKK member and Mr. Wright both in Heaven too...well...er... Assuming, however, that God has, in fact, taken a position, we need to know what position is, and ensure that we follow that same position, otherwise, we will be putting our view of right and wrong over that of God, which is a insult, as I said before. Once we begin to accept that God has a position, the amount of different views of the Scripture that are acceptable begin to diminish, until it likely enough stops at only a few, or even one, correct readings of the Scripture, that is in line with God's view. Maybe. Or maybe not. It could make an equal argument that you can state "I disagree with you on one or two points, but I'll follow those points anyway because I believe in this religion." More likely however, the church has considered that you have already left it, if your point of disagreement becomes rather critical and key to the whole religion itself. (For example, I'd consider the denial of the existence of God by a Catholic to be an example that the so-called Catholic is not actually an Catholic) And if the Church itself disowns you, then what is it to claim that you are still a member of that Church? They already exist, Iyri. If God rejects those who do not believe in his approved message(s), then it is obvious that they are not really following the message of God, but rather they are believing what they want to believe. They are outside of the fold of that religion. Silentism, Jaeism, Inyriism, InSidiousism, etc. can and likely do exist. What matters ultimately is what God himself believes, not what we ourselves want to say.
  25. This is completely terrible. It's like hearing the stat that 10% of Americans don't even know where America is located. At first, I thought that the Newsweek poll that stated that 40% of Agnoistcs and Atheists believe in God was just dumb, but this poll just takes the cake. People don't know what religion they are following. Some call this tolerance, but I just call it, well, um, bad. Here's an AP article with statistics and quotes about this new poll, straight from religious experts:
  • Create New...