Recent posts by petesahooligan on Kongregate

Flag Post

Topic: The Arts / Midnight Run

Critique? Or just sharing?

 
Flag Post

Topic: The Arts / Solusi Obat Aborsi Aman & Terpercaya Hub : 085759060913

Aro… pemakaian sama obat?

 
Flag Post

Topic: The Arts / National Novel Writing Month

Yeah, it’s easy to run out of steam right around 30,000. That’s the point where you begin struggling but aren’t far enough into it that you feel comfortable pushing through to the end.

 
Flag Post

Topic: Pool Live Pro / A way to report player

So… you want to report a player because they’re rocking an ISIS flag?

That just seems so wrong on all kinds of levels.

 
Flag Post

Topic: Pool Live Pro / How To Play Snooker

Snooker is played quite a bit differently than 8-ball. There are two sets of object balls on the table:

Red Balls
Numbered (colored) balls.

The game is won by accumulating more points than your opponent. Sinking the last ball in Snooker simply means the game ends and the points are compared to find the winner. The person making the last shot can still lose the game.

SCORING

Red Balls (15) = 1 point
Numbered Balls (6) = the number on the ball

YELLOW = 2
GREEN = 3
BROWN = 4
BLUE = 5
PINK = 6
BLACK = 7

GAMEPLAY

At the start of the game, the 15 red balls are arranged in a traditional rack with the numbered balls arranged on their specific spots around the table. Throughout the course of the game these balls will be pocketed and spotted (or returned) to their “starting point.”

When it is your turn you must always hit one of the red balls FIRST. If you pocket that ball, you may take another turn. If you miss, your turn is ended. Your opponent will then need to pocket a red ball.

If you pocket a red ball on the first shot of your turn, you are immediately awarded 1 point (and your turn continues).

On the SECOND shot of your turn, (because you had just sunk a red ball), you must take aim at one of the [b]numbered balls[/b] that have been knocked about the table. These are called object balls, meaning that you must declare which of the numbered balls you will be hitting first (and hopefully pocketing).

If you pocket your object [b]numbered ball[/b] on your second shot, you are immediately awarded the number of points equal to that ball-number. That ball is returned to the table. There are 6 numbered balls.

Notice: The numbered balls are returned to the table while the red ones are not. Eventually this will mean that there are fewer red balls to hit in first yet the 8 numbered balls are all always on the table.

When the last red ball is pocketed the next ball must be the smallest ball on the table. If you miss the object ball (or hit another ball first), your turn is forfeited and your opponent then aims for the same ball until there are no balls left.

The scoring during the last stage of the game is like before; the point value of the ball.

Scratches and ball-in-hand must be placed in the half-circle area (the kitchen). Points are awarded to the opponent in fouls. If you foul (miss your object ball or hit another ball first), your opponent is awarded points AND your opponent may then decide if they would continue the game or to have you take the shot again.

If you must take the same shot again, the game will automatically return all of the balls to exactly as before. Your opponent is hoping you will miss again so that they may receive even more points from your foul.

The value of the bonus is equal to the object ball for that shot.

If your opponent fouls and you believe they would do better with a second try, you should continue the game (with your bonus points) and begin your turn. There is no sense in giving them a second shot unless you are confident they will miss again.

STRATEGY

Snooker is basically about leaving your opponent is a bad situation. It is common to find that your best shot is to leave your opponent poorly. (That is much easier in “real life” snooker than on this game version.)

In the first part of the game, while there are still red balls on the table, you may aim at ANY of the numbered balls on your second shot. Because they are worth their face value, you should be always hunting for your black 7 ball.

Traditional snooker is often played with a soft break. The cue ball barely nudges the rack. This is not your opponent being a dick. It’s a common strategic option.

Play a bunch of games and intuition will start to emerge.

 
Flag Post

Topic: The Arts / National Novel Writing Month

Attention Writers!

This is a fun free annual event with thousands of participants that is designed to help you write fast and in massive quantities. The basic goal is to—in November—produce 50,000 words of unedited text.

Sounds easy, right? It’s not. If you’re like me you’ll run into lots of barriers and burnouts… but it can be done. At the end of November you should have a great pile of words that you can then arrange and edit into something worth reading. (Producing something worth reading is NOT the goal of NaNoWriMo… it is only about writing a LOT.)

First, sign up at http://nanowrimo.org

Second, get ready to write your ass off.

If anyone else from Kong participates, we can share our progress… accomplishments and challenges (or whatever) right here.

 
Flag Post

Topic: Off-topic / Should we ban all art and entertainment?

Absolutely!

In Goya’s Execution of the Defenders of Madrid above it’s pretty clear that depictions like this will only lead to more bloodshed. It’s probably the painting that has inspired the beheadings we see on the news today.

Let’s not forget literature! Take Shakespeare, for example. Tons of violence! People getting murdered all over the place… and what has it given us? A bunch more murder! Crazy.

Or movies like Saving Private Ryan. What happens after that? We go to war. I blame Spielberg.

 
Flag Post

Topic: The Arts / Some more cyberpunk rpg

Also, hopefully in the future female characters won’t need to have ginormous breasts and stroll around in bikinis while their male counterparts where armor and such.

 
Flag Post

Topic: The Arts / Some more cyberpunk rpg

I think your tile floor is overpowering the obstacles and avatars. It’s a bit of the same challenge I saw in your other pieces. It should always be clear to the player where they can and cannot move, and what they can and cannot interact with. This is the primary purpose of the level illustrations. Introducing flavor and setting is secondary. Start by clearly accomplishing the first goal then slowly introduce flavor until the right balance is achieved.

 
Flag Post

Topic: The Arts / Rate my photoshop skills

Rate your Photoshop skills?

Well, there’s some good stuff going on here and some stuff that isn’t so good.

Your depth-of-field is a bit messed up. The “ground” would suggest that the subject is laying down yet there’s no shadow.

The background is more in-focus than the foreground. Blurring the background will help this. Also, desaturate it to create a sense of atmospheric perspective. I’d choose a different background.

The clipping path around his head is too sharp. Blur it.

The light source on his hair is different than elsewhere in the composition. Also, his hair lacks definition.

His skin tone, I think, looks too healthy for the nature of the piece. Make it more ashy and gray.

The composition is a bit awkward with his chin being cut off yet lots of room above his head. Good composition will improve the overall quality of the piece.

Try using some of the toothier brushes instead of the fuzziest ones. The small amounts of added noise will help grub the whole thing up. (He looks rather “clean.”)

Finally, the good. You have great cloning and patching skills. That’s useful for deep retouching and should come in handy in lots of applications.

 
Flag Post

Topic: The Arts / Writing Advice.

What is the story about?

The answer to that question should help you determine how to handle the issue of homosexuality.

 
Flag Post

Topic: The Arts / Aldartha Criticism

If you want constructive criticism, you should make it as easy for people to access specifically what you want critiqued. The link you provide points to about a dozen documents. The easier you make it, the more feedback you’ll get.

 
Flag Post

Topic: The Arts / [Request] Img to Vector

Bravo, GraphicDesign!

 
Flag Post

Topic: The Arts / [Request] Img to Vector

Vectorizing raster images is not easy if you want it done right. It’s best to start with the largest possible raster file. Wait, strike that. It’s best to start with the original artist as they probably have vector source material used to create it in the first place.

 
Flag Post

Topic: Serious Discussion / Corporal Punishment

I’m happy to yield this awesome forum to Karma. Have fun, y’all.

 

Topic: Serious Discussion / Corporal Punishment

This post has been removed by an administrator or moderator
 
Flag Post

Topic: Serious Discussion / Corporal Punishment

Although I maintain my personal dislike for KarmaKoolKid’s hyperbolic assault on ideas he doesn’t agree with, I fully support his position in this matter.

It’s surprising to me that a violent physical response to an inter-personal problem might be appropriate. The threat of physical pain is certainly a powerful negative reinforcement… a microcosmic reflection of death and our desire to avoid it… but corporal punishment can have the effect of associating physical violence to the solution to behavioral conflicts exhibited by the people around you.

There are lots of countries where it is illegal to spank your child, (much less allowing someone else to spank your child, like a teacher). There are even a few surprises in that list… countries with a history of brutal violence; Republic of Congo, Germany, Bolivia, Honduras, Albania, Israel, and Croatia (among others). Not spanking children is normalized in lots of these places.

Spanking is also shown to be more common in lower socio-economic classes. Tulane did a study and concluded that spanking was ultimately detrimental to a child’s long-term well-being. However, some research shows that spanking and increase short-term compliance in a child. So… the kid may clean their room at the expense of alcoholism later (for example).

 
Flag Post

Topic: Serious Discussion / Is it right to kill one person to save the lives of many?

You equate pacifism with weakness.

When you’ve killed, how many lives did you save as a result? When and if you kill again, Captain America, how many lives will you save then?

You have demonstrated a pattern of telling the people around you that are trying to discuss things rationally exactly how you see the world in massive, rambling manifestos. Then you insult them when they disagree with you. Your tone is dismissive and dripping with contempt.

I like nearly everyone I meet, and in my lifetime I’ve been blessed to encounter the most incredible people making profound positive change in the world and around the world. I’ve traveled the world and seen places that are incredible and awful. It’s very rare to find people that I simply don’t like, and I don’t like you.

You know why? Because you’re an asshole. You deserve to live with violence… you reap what you sow.

 
Flag Post

Topic: Serious Discussion / Is it right to kill one person to save the lives of many?

It’s a good point, Implosion of Doom. Whether society considers an act bad or good is often irrelevant to how the individual responsible for those acts consider them. People do “socially” bad things all the time under the pretense that the ends justify the means.

This moral relativism is exactly what Karma is relying on to define his willingness to kill as “pacifism.” He did it before and he’d consider doing it again, if he “had” to.

It’s an odd position because on one hand he accepts a greater degree of responsibility. Now he is in a position where he is not just protecting himself but those around him, and making life-or-death value judgments on the situations that those people may find themselves in. This accepts more responsibility than an ordinary, untrained person should probably have.

On the other hand he excuses those possible situations as “last resorts.” In other words, he had no other choice… he HAD to kill someone in order to prevent someone else from being killed. Not only is there a fundamental dichotomy at work, “I murder to prevent murder,” but by claiming there is “no other option” it removes any personal responsibility from the equation. “I had no choice.” It is highly irresponsible and, dare I say, dangerously reckless. A person ALWAYS has a choice to kill or not to kill… and by NOT killing it does not necessarily mean that you “allow” something else to happen. It merely means that you are not intervening using that particular option.

I’m through talking to you, Karma. You’re an idiot.

 
Flag Post

Topic: Serious Discussion / Is it right to kill one person to save the lives of many?

Karma
First, I’m not super keen on your definition of essential parenting. “…the very essence of being a parent is to place the welfare of the child above all else.”

I don’t know if you have kids but I kind of doubt it. I have two grown sons, both raised under the tenets of pacifism and neither of them have ever been in a fight, and both of them are brilliant and well-liked by the people that meet them. That’s not to brag but rather to illustrate that I didn’t exactly fuck them up as a bad parent.

There are a LOT of things I would NOT do “above all else” on behalf of their welfare. I would not kill someone to feed them. I would not kill someone to house them. And, among other things, I would not kill to reduce their exposure to risk. Under your ill-thought definition, a person would be morally justified in eradicating a whole race of people or country if it improved their child’s welfare. Oh, but wait… you probably meant something a little more nuanced. I’m sure you’ll clarify.

I know you’re very fond of your “degrees of pacifism” typology. I’ll entertain that idea for a moment (even though I think it’s dumb).

If I am to assume that there are varying degrees of pacifism. If you can use a looser definition that permits some forms of lethal intervention, you can use the same logic to permit lethal aggression. This is more central objection to anything but the strictest definition of nonviolence.

Some “choices” are extremely clear.
You are in the middle of the ocean.
You are the only person on the boat.
The boat is the only flotation device.
The boat loses it floatability…is gone.
It is just you and the sea.
Your “choices” are swim or drown.
Do you have so little love of life for yourself that you will just roll over and sink?

Do you have so little love for your child that you would allow it to be killed right before your eyes when you could have ensured its life by simply ending that of the would be killer’s?

That’s NOT pacifism to me.

I think you’re drunk. This story doesn’t even make sense. Is the boat a metaphor for something? I’m sorry I’m so dense. It’s not pacifism to me either… it’s like weird hipster poetry or something.

Kasic
I’m stoked you brought up causation. I didn’t want to try to introduce any more layers to this clusterfuck of a conversation, but since you started it!

Anticipating causation depends on the veracity of the rules being applied and the number of factors at stake. That’s not new… but rapidly anticipating a highly complex and interpretive model is very difficult. We know this because people have accidents all the time. They were not able to anticipate the event in spite of the fact that they were right in the middle of it.

Now, ratchet up the scale of the impact you intend to intervene with. You are essentially banking on someone else’s life that your ability to rapidly assess the complex situation and interpret it in a way that will either suggest that lethal force is an option or that it’s not an option.

We’re still on the same page, right?

If you are wrong and that there were other non-lethal options still available, what actually occurred in that situation? In my mind, you just killed someone that you may not have needed to kill. That’s not cool, dude.

Or, maybe you killed someone that you needed to kill and there were no other options. But I kinda find that hard to believe. And, you know, that’s not cool, dude.

Paint me a moron for saying it again, but the sanctity of life is so simple that I just won’t kill. You’ve heard me say it a zillion times and you have called it naive and immature, but it has worked for a couple of influential leaders you may have heard of… and it certainly reflects an ideal that is arguably more valuable than the antithesis; that person that believes the world can be made better by adding MORE lethal violence. I believe that this is an ideal WORTH following the strictest definition of. Anything less and you get into the land of “shades of gray.”

If you’re cool with shades of gray when it comes to killing, cool for you. Enjoy. It’s not for me.

 
Flag Post

Topic: Serious Discussion / Is it right to kill one person to save the lives of many?

That I opt to use violence to achieve that peace doesn’t make that peace any less important to me…

This is the most idiotic thing I’ve read all month.

 
Flag Post

Topic: Serious Discussion / Is it right to kill one person to save the lives of many?

Kasic
I don’t understand how you can disagree that these situations would require precognition then to follow that up with the caveat that there exists a “high degree of certainty” that a certain outcome will occur.

Can you provide an example of what you mean? What is a situation where there is a “high degree of certainty” that would preclude all but lethal interventions?

sigh

This is the same simple question I’ve been asking for way too long. It certainly reinforces my position that the situation simply does not exist.

How is it morally ethical to let someone be a victim of another’s violence when you have the ability to stop them?

There are lots of ways to intervene in a situation that do not require lethal actions. I’ll leave that up to your capable imagination.

Understand this: The determination NOT to use lethal force is not synonymous with doing nothing or “letting” an assailant conduct acts of carnage unchecked. C’mon.

Incidentally, people point loaded weapons at other people all the time and do not kill them, and sometimes even AFTER they say they are going to do exactly that. I do not see how that example reinforces an idea that lethal intervention is required.

People also don’t stop at red lights sometimes. Again, precognition fail.

You are absolutely correct, Kasic, that I would (as you obtusely put it) “let” an innocent person die while non-lethal interventions were conducted. As a matter of fact that happens ALL THE TIME.

As much as I appreciate the tactful way that you claim my views are stupid unrealistic, I would like to counter that making decisions where life and death hang on the balance by using conjecture is not only unrealistic but very dangerous.

The only time where the use of lethal violence would be appropriate is in the case of suicide. That is the only way that a person can be sure of an outcome. For example, “I am going to kill an innocent person tomorrow, so in order to prevent that from happening I am going to kill myself today.”

 
Flag Post

Topic: Serious Discussion / Is it right to kill one person to save the lives of many?

Yeah, I wouldn’t shoot the assailant in a hostage situation. That would be against my personal ethics. I would not train to be a sniper because it would conflict with my unwillingness to kill.

I would not think that it is right for a person to shoot an assailant in a hostage situation due to the unknown factors.

Namely, killing someone in order to “save” someone else requires precognition. The situation described does not account for the other options available… it simply presumes that this is the only available option. I don’t believe that it is morally ethical to justify killing in situations at all… but particularly when other options are available. By your story, kasic, I see a clear opportunity to kill but not a situation where that is the ONLY available option. As in most situations, snipers are used as an expedient and practical option.

I can imagine scenarios where non-lethal options are expended and yet I still cannot reasonably conclude that killing the assailant is simply the only available option remaining.

I appreciate the attempt, Kasic. I sincerely do. However, you say things like “the criminal… is about to kill one of (the hostages).” You are relying on an overlay of precognition. It projects the story into the realm of fantasy, kind of like the “go back in time to kill Hitler” scenario.

 
Flag Post

Topic: Serious Discussion / Is it right to kill one person to save the lives of many?

Okay, suit yourself.

You are a fervent pacifist except when you choose to kill.

Bravo.

I don’t know what you mean by “trance.” I take full responsibility for my actions. I recognize that I am never “forced” to do anything. Maybe that’s where you and I differ.

 
Flag Post

Topic: Serious Discussion / Is it right to kill one person to save the lives of many?

Kasic I guess I missed it. The noise-to-signal ratio in this joint is off the charts.

What was your example of a “last resort” situation?