This is going to sound terrible, but.... (Kebir Blue)

The only thing I like about shoes is that they keep my feet relatively warm and dry when I walk to school after it's snowed. I hate you. If I was better at the war part of this game I would take control of every country you have. F*** you.

ha ha ha ha ha well bring it, BBJBS. lol I could beat you in a fight by just throwing my shoes at you. ha ha ha ha

lol. don't underestimate the power of Stilettos

I've learned 2 things

don't mess with shoes or her purses...

Or ull be killed and buried in the valley somewhere where no one will find u

Oh yeah, those stilettos will do a number on your back.

And to what experiences do we attribute this to, Laguna??? lol

I haven't read the entire thread yet - it's rather large - and in my view - mainly off topic.

Instead of arguing morality, I'd like to see what game effects are being proposed. If allowing someone to kill off the population of a country gets introduced into the game - what is going to happen to population exchanges, and the price of buying population from the game master or other players?

This could make it more difficult for other players - especially us new guys.

On the other hand, what would be the benefit of a player doing so? Besides a 'scorched earth' policy when abandoning the country? Or is it just a work around of the population exchange? You have too many low level workers - kill all the ones in slave country b - then move your suplus from main country 'a'in?

I think the original post was about playing a "genocide" scenario, but no one wanted to be seen as a closet Nazi (or Serb, or communist, or Hutu, for that matter). Economically, it wouldn't make sense, and you could always get the vicarious thrill of imagining of the population that you sell as going to some gruesome fate.

The scorched earth portion of it makes sense militarily - take over a country, decimate the population, and move out. Without population, there is going to be a dearth of W3C companies for a long time in that country. As well as very few reinforcements for the armies of others. Repeated often enough, it's going to strangle the world economy - except of course for those that are already prepared for it (ie. the ones decimating all the native sims) - most of the economic advice I've seen seems to rely on computer controlled companies making all the low profit products, like in the agricultural section - if you remove that prop there's going to be a lot of devastation. And those that do have control of corporations supplying needed commodities would make a fortune.

On the moral angle - I fail to see the difference, except in magnitude, between marching people in front of a firing squad, and carpet bombing a population center devoid of armed forces, or destroying corporations that have no direct link to the same. The game already encourages, if not mandates, the latter two. It's not a big stretch to allow the former.

It could also open up more scope for the Security Council, and allow others to participate in the same. - passing resolutions condemning crimes against simanity - and the use of boycotts, and even Security Council troops drawn from members of that august body (not just the ruling council.)

Indeed, the stigma of being seen as a closet Nazi, Serb, Communist, Hutu, or American could be repellent to some players.

I'm not sure what's meant by a "closet... American." No American I know (and I am one) is hiding in the closet because they're ashamed of their nationality.

I'll take it a step further; most Americans (including myself) don't give a dam* what other nationalities think of us.

I don't think it is in the best interest of the game for us to start slinging negative opinions or stereotypes of different nationalities around at each other.

It serves no (good) purpose.

If I am over-reacting, I apologize in advance.

Christopher Micheal is correct in his assertion. There are no closet Americans. I don't believe he is over-reacting... but I'm not a diplomatic character.

We just play to win. Nub countries wouldn't understand.

If I were American, I certainly would want to hide it.

Lulz

Oh Crafty ;-).......got to love the Brits! They're great!! Even Crafty.

Thanks for the back-up Scarlet.

+1, Christopher. No closet Americans. and I was not trying to seem to be slinging mud, just saying what previous posts were tiptoe-ing around without coming out and saying it. No offense intended.
I dig your avatar, btw.

We're good Maclean! And thanks for the avatar compliment. It's the old Gadsden Flag (you probably know the history of it).

I'm not a fan of the present group that picked it up as their symbol however.

Simply lumping together all the Genocidal regimes Christopher. No offense was intended to Americans, Hutus, Nazis, or Serbs. What I was trying to infer there is that most American's don't believe their country has committed crimes enough to be placed in the august company of the others. (as I'm sure the groups mentioned there would feel as well]. I do, but think it's irrelevant. Not due to the American "change of course" the government trumpets every few years - but because we have, in the words of Hunter S. Thompson, "all the money we need to buy guns, and no qualms about killing anyone else in the world that makes us uncomfortable."

Touching upon the reference to having the Security Council becoming more active if the topic under discussion was implemented, I don't think having a single country in the game recuse itself from part of the process would be in the best interests of the rest of us. If anyone one single country can over-ride the security council at whim, it brings us all down.

why the hell would you want to kill of the natives? that's just lunatic. isn't the purpose is to increase the population of your empire? trying to create a pure bred? then let's put in dieseases into the game, see what that will do? really, you need a varieties of people to enhance your empire.

i don't see your logic on killing the population.

The logic is killing off the population in computer controlled countries, to make your own population more valuable. The logic is in destroying all the needed workers for computer controlled companies, thereby limiting their production, making your own companies products' more valuable. The logic is in denying other players a possible source of reinforcements for their armies. The logic is in denying other players a labor source, thereby making your own more valuable. And I believe the topic under discussion was limited to genocide of computer controlled countries only. However, no reason not to extend that to another player's country. The former would be easier, as another player might not like what you are doing to his poor people. And players, unlike the computer, have the capacity to not only hit back, but to bring friends with them when they do.

Point taken on needing a variety of people to enhance your empire. I'm short of at least 1 category of them. But we're not discussing the variety needed, but their source. Increasing your population in relative value vice total. Which is more valuable? I think it depends on the circumstance.

Now if we can get past the morality issues, if any of the logical outcomes of the idea are worthwhile, can we think of ways to implement them?

@richard, sounds interesting.
what's stopping the GM to repopulated the destroyed C3? is there a rule that countries that are destroyed cannot be raised again?

i on the other side, would like to create an empire of at least a 1 billion soldiers, and to be able to create any weapons and ammo from my own empire. if anyone wants to declare war on me at that stage, i'll wipe them off the planet and every world they have countries/empires on (of course if the GM allows that ). i'm peaceful, if everyone be nice. i want to make sure the people of my empire survive, and wars are for killings and destroying.

I agree with Psycho Honey ITS A GAME PEOPLE GET A GRIP! But Billy bob does need a psycho hospital stay though and game or o game there are to many people in the Real World like him i think we should hunt them and make the world a little safer

Xyooj, The GM does repopulate the C3 - but eradicating population is going to affect the sale of GC's and the buying/selling of population.

I'm going to try and explore the idea of sitzkrieg when needed, and find a willing partner. Bit expensive, but should let me fine tune what I can't with catch and release - and avoid the negative migration factors associated with growing sheer population numbers.

<!-Quote-!>Quote:

Now if we can get past the morality issues, if any of the logical outcomes of the idea are worthwhile, can we think of ways to implement them?<!-/Quote-!>

Why are you so interested in finding practical justifications for committing genocide?

Jojo, you missed the entire point. Toss the word genocide in, and people all of a sudden get preachy - despite the fact that most nations have practiced it at some time in their history. The United States, Russia, Britain, Germany, China, Turkey, the list goes on and on...

I'm advocating getting rid of portions of your population. Whether by eradication, emigrant worker visas in addition to population transfer, or having a friendly war with a ally.

No, I'm not missing the point.

A) The topic of the thread is sim-genocide.

B) You revived the topic.

C) In every post you propose new ways in which wiping out populations...other players', c3s', now your own...would have possible practical game justification.

D) Half of your ideas you could carry out now, but there's no game benefit in doing so.

E) The other half would require rule changes that would take away some of the challenge and strategy of the game.

F) You have been getting very preachy yourself about blaming various countries for committing genocide.

G) You're a moron.

H) It will be highly enjoyable for me to see how preachy you get when someone decs on you and eliminates some of your population.