Recent content by Яowan

Weaver said:

I don't know, man. This does not sound plausible to me. All Reps think covid is not a real threat while all Dems think it is? How is this even realistic?
Regardless, always best to just check.

Click to expand...

Not the wording I used, but unfortunately Covid has been heavily politicised - and I'm assuming now that you don't live in the US, which is why you may not realise the degree to which it has been politicised.

In short the president has underplayed the severity of Covid. See Fauci vs Trump vs the CDC during the spring and summer, and the attempts by the Republican party to prevent publication of case numbers, and sadly even to stall provisioning of medical supplies and Covid tests to hospitals in need across the whole country.

Because of how political the virus is, the US has not been United on virus mandates - and whilst some states have gone into lockdowns, enforced use of masks and social distancing, many of the states have only done some of these, and often for a very short period of time. St Louis County (Blue) in Missouri has had lockdowns and has ongoing enforcement of mask use and social distancing, but the state itself (Red) has no such policies in place (or at least, enforced), nor have counties neighbouring STL - leading to outbreaks caused by people traveling from STL country or Illinois (or visa-versa) to these neighbour counties. There have also been massive outbreaks when people flooded to Midwestern holiday locations, such as the Ozarks, ignoring CDC recommendations.

There has also been a lot of confusion about the virus because Trump stated: “Now the Democrats are politicizing the coronavirus,” Trump said. “They have no clue, they can't even count their votes in Iowa.” “This is their new hoax”

And whilst he was not literally calling the virus a hoax, it has unfortunately fed fires on both the left and right. There have been many outbreaks in the Midwest (such as at Churches) attributed to people ignoring CDC recommendations because of belief that the virus isn't a real deal, belief that hasn't been extensively contradicted by Rep. leadership. Then you've got Fox News, Breitbart, QAnon & Facebook - and the misinformation regarding the virus spread on those platforms, which has very much not helped.

I could keep on going, but unfortunately there is a lot more to this. Like a lot, lot more. But such a discussion would be better placed in the Coronavirus thread. But the TL;DR is that because of how divided the US is on Covid, it has played a direct role in the elections, voter turnout and the methods in which voters voted (Republicans in person, Democrats via mail-in).

eddiemccandless said:

Alarm grows over Trump administration acting 'more akin to a dictatorship' as he denies election defeat

President Donald Trump's administration is taking on the characteristics of a tottering regime -- with its loyalty tests, destabilizing attacks on the military chain of command, a deepening bunker mentality and increasingly delusional claims of political victory.

edition.cnn.com

I believe that this is the source that Brutus is thinking about.

Click to expand...

Unfortunately it doesn't make any mentions about troop movements, let alone 15,000 being brought home.

Lord Brutus said:

CNN reported what they got firsthand from Pentagon officials. Their words were "may be plotting a coup." Fact: 15,000 troops are being sent home from Germany. Right wing militia like Proud Boys, Boogaloo Boys say they are ready to support Trump.
When late votes come from Philadelphia and Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania and 85 % are for Biden, there is no reason to be suspicious.

Click to expand...

Mind providing a source on this? I'm not seeing anything at a glance on google regarding this subject - moving 15,000 troops would be an absolute nightmare logistically.

Bringing home 12,000 troops or so was discussed this last summer - but doesn't at all seem related to what you are talking about.

Weaver said:

The issue here was that Trump was consistently ahead in both states until the last hours when at some point almost all incoming votes were blue. At least that's what google election widget showed. And that's how election frauds usually work. At least in my experience as a veteran election observer in a third world country.
Not saying its definitely a fraud. It does look suspicious and should be looked into. That's normal procedure.
If you're slapping awful labels on people without substantiating them in very definitive terms you're the one spreading misinformation and dehumanizing people. Which is actually what nazi propaganda was all about.

Click to expand...

This is my understanding:

• Trump was ahead in votes in certain states when counting in-person ballots. These, I believe, are counted first. Rural regions in many states were also counted before the cities. Rural regions tend to be predominately Republican, whilst urban areas are Democrat.
• Swing states that saw a flip saw such when mail-in ballots started to be counted. In some cases a very small number of mail-in ballots were non-Democrat votes. I think this is probably because Biden and the Democrats were telling their voters to vote early via mail-in ballots due to Covid concerns whilst on the otherhand, Trump and the Republicans were telling their voters to not vote early via mail-in ballots, and to instead vote in person.
• Republicans as a whole understate and throw doubt on Covid (anecdotally I have experienced this first-hand living in a red Midwestern state). Politically it was dubbed as a hoax, and conservative media has devalued the scope and extent of the pandemic since that drama at the beginning of the year - some outlets and individuals have even claimed it that it would go away on the 5th of November (it didn't). This will probably have influenced the perceived importance of in-person voting versus mail-in for voters of the two parties.

Weaver said:

You spare them so little sympathy you even suggest they should have undergone surgical sterilization if they didn't want to deal with unwanted kids.
At the same time you treat women in the exact same situation completely differently. You do not suggest they should have used contraception or even sterilized themselves if they wished to stay safe but instead seek ways to provide them with options to make their situation easier or even alleviate any responsibility for a mistake if they wish to.

Click to expand...

A vasectomy is a reversible procedure - and it isn't a bad idea if you have fair certainty that you don't want any children down the line. There isn't any grounds for comparison between it and female sterilization...

Regardless a gent can always wrap himself - and should, if he doesn't want to bear responsibility for a child - regardless of what contraceptives a woman is using (or not using).

rektasaurus said:

Sometimes I do let out more personal feelings than I should. I don’t mean to lash out but I’m not railing against women, I’m criticizing a movement and talking about my experiences.

-snip-

Click to expand...

Out of curiosity, how many groups built around spreading awareness and educating issues handled by the concept feminism are you a member of - be it in your local community, or just at work? And how many lectures have you watched from your local community college or university on the subject. And beyond that, how deeply have you delved into the voluminous literature available on the subject?

rektasaurus said:

Sadly, I believe if feminism had a different name, the movement would’ve been far more successful by now. Making that simple point has for sure attracted a ton of hostility as if I personally were the mentally damaged enemy stopping equality from being a reality and in need of psychological help. But I’m just a person trying my best to do good. How couldn’t I feel frustrated or cynical?

Click to expand...

And yet the movement has been very successful. The fact people discuss it to any degree on a daily basis demonstrates it's success, no matter how uneducated some parties choose to make themselves on the topic. Policy makers all over the west, both corporate and political, push through and maintain policies all the time (despite attempts for reactionaries to push back said efforts).

CdJrcxx said:

I know it's hard to accept we did it and are continuing to do it better than you but I will remind you that we are the Official RCC

Click to expand...

What if I choose to never accept, to never give up? Choose to dwell in my own deep, dark corner of despair? Burning nostalgia consuming my soul - memories of a bygone age dwindling in the dying light?

CdJrcxx said:

I also wish to advise you, with respect, that Valarr owns the domain of

Click to expand...

SHOOKETH. Well played sir.

Valarr said:

Yea I know, but he just comes into the thread to bait us into a response and it's toxic behavior and annoying

Click to expand...

It's cool, wasn't meant to come off as serious. It's good to know some of you have a sense of humour though.

Honestly if Edwards hadn't been funky with me when I asked about it, I would've given an """official""" blessing years ago (yes - absolutely and utterly pointless). So instead I threw my hands and said "whatever" and left it.

It's just that I occasionally get people asking me if I revived RCC proper for Bannerlord, and then have them direct me this this thread - I then have to explain that it is a different group entirely - a spiritual successor, but with none of the original core lads or lasses. And the clan was huge (too big honestly), so it's been a fair number in total now. Most of the RCC was actually NA, but until Nexus PW, the server and community was EU based.

Anyway I admit that whilst it was some low quality bait, the only person I was immediately expecting to bite was Edwards (if he is even still around!), largely because of history. Plus I hadn't actually given him any **** for it yet. I was also legitimately surprised it was still a thing, so I thought that was neat.

CdJrcxx said:

-okay boomer-

Click to expand...

Thanks for the giggles, you blathering buffoon.

You are aware that I, the almighty founder of El RCC, am a US resident - and that the concept of an 'NA' branch was a short-lived spin off called the RRC back in 2010? We only stopped recruiting (and I stopped paying for our forum software, though I still own the domain) only after Nexus faded into obscurity after what, 2016? How bizarre that someone take the name of another group! And how incredibly, utterly, astonishingly unoriginal of a concept. Sheesh. Such indignation!

How curious! Stumbling across this thread was certainly a surprise! Might I ask where the need to use the name "Roaming Cavalry Company"/RCC came from, given a lack of affiliation with the real group/community? Indeed Edwards had once been a member at some point (for a short period), but he vanished long ago!

Or rather outright removed me from steam when I questioned his intent: that of a hermit crab, or that of a cuckoo?

And sheesh! Not even an honourable mention to the original group, it's founders and members? Edwards wasn't even the founder of the NA branch (or involved in leadership in any way)! So whilst a number of us from 2010/2011 have admittedly gotten a kick from this unofficial resurgence, I've had people ping me on both Steam and Discord with a grain of confusion.

tl;dr

I assume this is permitted on Taleworlds - and it's cool the legacy is being continued in a more public fashion, given that the group isn't too public anymore and doesn't actively recruit. But seriously guys, the RCC has been around for just over ten years (we just had our anniversary on the 17th). Here's the original thread. So if you're going to use the name, continue the legacy and so on, at least be kind as to give credit where it's due?

kurczak said:

He did, multiple times.

Click to expand...

Framing is the issue. Yes, questions were asked, but it did not come across (as a bystander) as if they were listening to the other side - perhaps it is a language barrier, that much is unclear - but the questions struck me as if they were making statements, or framing statements in a fashion that wouldn't be far removed from a case of "how do I say x, but actually it's y".

It appeared to be less about understanding what the other parties feel the appropriate approach is, and understanding what sort of adjustments to their communication and approach could best be made, but instead more about defending the use of mis-gendering.

This may not have been the intention at all, but I think the approach in regards to communication needs some tweaking

I think @Adorno's comments do come off as intolerant, or at least lacking in empathy, to trans-rights. And the "I'm actually left wing (member of a socialist party) and support policies that protect the rights of transgender/-sexual people" statement does seem to bear similarities to the "-but I've got a black friend/partner/family member!" statements made by some to downplay the severity of racist remarks.

If you do indeed support trans-rights, start by listening to people - even if they are, or you think they are, being hyperbolic - and ask questions on how to better communicate to avoid this situation in the future.

Hyperbolic scare-mongering at this point doesn't really equate to anything either, though. The governments in question are engaged in talks, and so far we haven't seen further escalation - so it can be presumed, based on the information we have at hand, that as of now things aren't going to escalate.

Really doesn't seem to be much on it on mainstream media outlets, which to me is likely a good sign.

A very brief read of news 12+ hours old (from the BBC, first few results when googling "bbc news china india") indicates that both nations are de-escalating the situation, so doesn't seem too hot at the moment. That border has been a bit of a flashpoint for a long time, I recall reading previously, so I'm assuming there is nothing unique enough about this incident as to allow for it to evolve into a significant conflict.

One thing that will also be influencing that drop-off though is the lifting of stay-at-home orders and the resulting return of many to the international workforce.

A comparison against other games released during the pandemic would likely give a more relevant comparison, as there is much more "going on" right now that will impact the number of players at release versus now (compared to the Witcher or Skyrim).

Not to say the game doesn't have serious issues with longevity at the moment, however. I've hardly touched it recently, so a die off-like that doesn't surprise me.

Mastigos said:

And here we have the curious case of the Medieval Armchair Weaponmaster, who seems to have a deep and refined understanding of weaponry and the history of warfare.

Instead of internet lads, take for example George Silver (google him), an actual Medieval weapons instructor with some degree of clout, who literally ranks weapons according to overall usefulness. (http://myarmoury.com/talk/viewtopic.11319.html)

As you can see, in actual battle scenarios, the 2h sword and 2h axe are included in the list of legit weapons. He also states that 1h weapon + buckler (sword and board) gets dominated by the heavier 2h axe and 2h sword.

What's more, I think Musashi definitively proved that with enough skill, the use of two swords/sword and shortshort is an extremely potent 1v1 setup. Considering he fought every kind of weaponmaster and never lost a duel, nor felt that switching weapons would benefit him.

What needs to be understood,both in-game and IRL, is that swords in general have a high skill cap, and require more baseline skill, than say a spear or axe. I know some people out there don't like hearing that, but the truth is that swords can perform a variety of thrusts/blows and has a number of defensive options that certain other weapons cannot do. They're a balanced weapon, and best used when one can exploit all they have to offer to the fullest.

Click to expand...

Mkay, no need for the high horse act. Attacking people over a passing statement that was said in brief (without any significant detail, mind) is not a good method of proper discourse, and discourages me from engaging with you on this topic (and it was an unusual cling to only a single point! disregarding the actual topic at hand).

There is reasoning for my statement, and had you asked me to divulge I would've been happy to elaborate & cite sources for my reasoning, at least in regards to the early middle ages. At the same time I would have also been more than eager to read anything you might provide, especially that which contradicts my current understanding.

I will state this last tidbit, and shan't engage more with you on this point, but there is a significant difference between duels (1v1, or small group) and real-life combat on a battlefield (and indeed the type and availability of equipment also impacts the composition of troops and tactics deployed).

Considering in 1.3.1 you could attain an insane income within a few hours of play (following investment first into Caravans, then once maxed, Workshops). This was largely because some cities never had any of the resources their Workshops needed (hardwood was a biggy here). So rectifying this is likely a good idea in the long run, as it will also have a positive impact on weapon/equipment stocks in towns.

You can still make a decent income, but the initial capital required is a lot higher (you need a greater volume per run to make a good profit for the time spent, which means you need more gold to not only buy the higher initial quantity of goods, but also more pack animals).

Downside is that hostile clans and bandits now have a real risk on your ability to make a profit.