Conquer Club

Jafnhár wrote:Is not "Fundamentalist" supposed to be "Fundamentalism"? Fundamentalist is one that holds that philosophy, but fundamentalism is the philosophy as a whole.

You almost have a point there.
Fundamentalism is not a philosophy but more of an attitude adopted in conjunction to any held conviction.

Though one must keep in mind that there are many kinds of fundamentalism.
The type I am referring to is definatly one that is held, in this case, by a group.
Thus fundamentalist.
The context of the map's theme further rarefies the possible holders of any philosophy (attitude) to the point that anyone with a slightly decent insight into the political atmosphere of the USA will know what is implied.

Fitz69 wrote:

yeti_c wrote:

Fitz69 wrote:

Gilligan wrote:It says Pete can border Mary. I didn't have a path connecting them, but I could still fortify there. Then I checked the XML, and it says you can attack Pete to Mary. They clearly do not border.

Game Number: 351049
I have Mary and Pete.
Rynn has Lola.
Sean21us has Tim.
Last Stand has ABC.
Sean21us has Jane.

So how could I have fortified there if Pete is surrounded by opponents?

Sharp eye there!
Your'e quite correct. Thanks for spotting it.

Heres the new code:

http://upload2.net/page/download/fU4Khh ... l.zip.html

http://upload2.net/page/download/nVp5yq ... l.txt.html

Andy, let me know witch of the above links work best.


Thanks everyone for the support and encouragement in developing this map!

If you've got an uploaded map and xml you can run it through the border checker thingy...

C.

Hmm.. tried that but I couldn't get it to work.
Is there a kind soul here that can check the code for me?

You should be able to do it from the http://www.conquerclub.com/maps/U_S__Senate.xml (or whatever) file - obviously you will have to assume you know you've got the one that is wrong... the rest you can use... It's a cool utility... can be useful for checking maps to see where borders are!!!

C.

EDIT : Ran it through the checker and apart from Pete and Mary all looks good...

It only checks big maps though so if you've got your co-ords wrong in small it might not work!!

C.

Thanks!
The coord's should be ok, it was the links that I missed.

Andy? I'm ok with this. The xml seems to be ok now. Anythin you want to add?

Fitz69 wrote:

Jafnhár wrote:Is not "Fundamentalist" supposed to be "Fundamentalism"? Fundamentalist is one that holds that philosophy, but fundamentalism is the philosophy as a whole.

You almost have a point there.
Fundamentalism is not a philosophy but more of an attitude adopted in conjunction to any held conviction.

Though one must keep in mind that there are many kinds of fundamentalism.
The type I am referring to is definatly one that is held, in this case, by a group.
Thus fundamentalist.
The context of the map's theme further rarefies the possible holders of any philosophy (attitude) to the point that anyone with a slightly decent insight into the political atmosphere of the USA will know what is implied.

I'm afraid we have a misunderstanding.

Fundamentalist is one who reduces religion to strict interpretation of core or original texts (along with other definitions, but still talking about a person).

Fundamentalism is reducing religion to strict interpretation of core or original texts (along with other definitions, but still talking about an attitude, not a person).

Now, it looks like there's some guy that holds fundamentalism opinions on this territory. Talking about a person instead of it as an attitude doesn't narrow the term, there are just as many definitions for it in a dictionary, but the difference between them is as stated above.

Gilligan wrote:It says Pete can border Mary. I didn't have a path connecting them, but I could still fortify there. Then I checked the XML, and it says you can attack Pete to Mary. They clearly do not border.

Game Number: 351049
I have Mary and Pete.
Rynn has Lola.
Sean21us has Tim.
Last Stand has ABC.
Sean21us has Jane.

So how could I have fortified there if Pete is surrounded by opponents?

Still hasn't been fixed...

Jafnhár wrote:

Fitz69 wrote:

Jafnhár wrote:Is not "Fundamentalist" supposed to be "Fundamentalism"? Fundamentalist is one that holds that philosophy, but fundamentalism is the philosophy as a whole.

You almost have a point there.
Fundamentalism is not a philosophy but more of an attitude adopted in conjunction to any held conviction.

Though one must keep in mind that there are many kinds of fundamentalism.
The type I am referring to is definatly one that is held, in this case, by a group.
Thus fundamentalist.
The context of the map's theme further rarefies the possible holders of any philosophy (attitude) to the point that anyone with a slightly decent insight into the political atmosphere of the USA will know what is implied.

I'm afraid we have a misunderstanding.

Fundamentalist is one who reduces religion to strict interpretation of core or original texts (along with other definitions, but still talking about a person).

Fundamentalism is reducing religion to strict interpretation of core or original texts (along with other definitions, but still talking about an attitude, not a person).

Now, it looks like there's some guy that holds fundamentalism opinions on this territory. Talking about a person instead of it as an attitude doesn't narrow the term, there are just as many definitions for it in a dictionary, but the difference between them is as stated above.

Still hasn't been answered ...

Jafnhár wrote:

Jafnhár wrote:

Fitz69 wrote:

Jafnhár wrote:Is not "Fundamentalist" supposed to be "Fundamentalism"? Fundamentalist is one that holds that philosophy, but fundamentalism is the philosophy as a whole.

You almost have a point there.
Fundamentalism is not a philosophy but more of an attitude adopted in conjunction to any held conviction.

Though one must keep in mind that there are many kinds of fundamentalism.
The type I am referring to is definatly one that is held, in this case, by a group.
Thus fundamentalist.
The context of the map's theme further rarefies the possible holders of any philosophy (attitude) to the point that anyone with a slightly decent insight into the political atmosphere of the USA will know what is implied.

I'm afraid we have a misunderstanding.

Fundamentalist is one who reduces religion to strict interpretation of core or original texts (along with other definitions, but still talking about a person).

Fundamentalism is reducing religion to strict interpretation of core or original texts (along with other definitions, but still talking about an attitude, not a person).

Now, it looks like there's some guy that holds fundamentalism opinions on this territory. Talking about a person instead of it as an attitude doesn't narrow the term, there are just as many definitions for it in a dictionary, but the difference between them is as stated above.

Still hasn't been answered ...

Come on guys this is the foundry. Its a forum for map making. Take this debate to the social lounge or flame wars.

Guiscard wrote:

Jafnhár wrote:

Jafnhár wrote:

Fitz69 wrote:

Jafnhár wrote:Is not "Fundamentalist" supposed to be "Fundamentalism"? Fundamentalist is one that holds that philosophy, but fundamentalism is the philosophy as a whole.

You almost have a point there.
Fundamentalism is not a philosophy but more of an attitude adopted in conjunction to any held conviction.

Though one must keep in mind that there are many kinds of fundamentalism.
The type I am referring to is definatly one that is held, in this case, by a group.
Thus fundamentalist.
The context of the map's theme further rarefies the possible holders of any philosophy (attitude) to the point that anyone with a slightly decent insight into the political atmosphere of the USA will know what is implied.

I'm afraid we have a misunderstanding.

Fundamentalist is one who reduces religion to strict interpretation of core or original texts (along with other definitions, but still talking about a person).

Fundamentalism is reducing religion to strict interpretation of core or original texts (along with other definitions, but still talking about an attitude, not a person).

Now, it looks like there's some guy that holds fundamentalism opinions on this territory. Talking about a person instead of it as an attitude doesn't narrow the term, there are just as many definitions for it in a dictionary, but the difference between them is as stated above.

Still hasn't been answered ...

Come on guys this is the foundry. Its a forum for map making. Take this debate to the social lounge or flame wars.

This is a barely a debate, he has only answered once and it does directly affect the map.

wrong forum for a debate on scemantics.

Look, I am doing you a favour by pointing out your mistakes in your map. I have done everything I can to point it out, but if you disagree, there is nothing more that I can do. I can't say that I care.

And saying that this is the wrong forum to discuss it because it affects scemantics (whatever that means) is like saying that this forum is wrong to discuss colours in maps, because they affect arts.

Fitz69 wrote:wrong forum for a debate on scemantics.

Hmmm - Semantics spelt wrong... is that Irony or just funny?

C.

I put in your latest XML with Pete & Mary fix. Sorry for the delay.

No problem.

Not to be a spelling Nazi again here, but "Halliburton" is spelled incorrectly on this map. The name should have two letter L's.

Apply Godwin's law as necessary.

Re:#3226703

I am in the lamest game ever on this board.

Nobody is taking anybody out. 17 rounds. There have been tons of times when players should have been killed and the other players have just let them go and stacking armies shit.

Love the map as a gamer, but having spent the last ten years in DC and 20 years in political advocacy, I'd suggest that the labels on the territories could use some tweaking. As the political winds shift so will these, but here's my take as of December 2008:

Liberal:
Unions
Trial Lawyers
Environmentalists
Civil Rights
GLBT
Antiwar
Feminists
Seniors

Conservative:
Big Oil
Insurance and Banking
Wall Street
Religious Right
NeoCons
NRA
Defense Industry
Big Agriculture

Print Media:
New York Times
Wall St. Journal
Washington Post
AP
Magazines
Tabloids

Electronic Media:
Blogs
YouTube
CNN
Fox
(Old) Networks
Talk Radio

Again, this is a great concept but the names of the territories could get fine-tuned a bit. And not to get too carried away with reality, but interest groups have a lot more influence over the Senate than the media does. And in my opinion, the ratio of conservative to liberal interest groups in Washington runs about 5 to 1.

I was always wanting to say this but always forgot to come here … was the XML made wrongly, a time before spaces were allowed, or are the tert names on the map just split up? Because in the dropdown menu the tert:
"Big Oil"
is listed as:
"BigOil"

Any reason for this?

Obviously a liberal wrote the names for the lobbying groups. Haliburton v. Sierra Club, Environment v. Big Oil, Education v. Moral Majority, Affirmative Action v. Defense Industry......yeah nice perspective there designer

How about changing it to this.

Big Abortion v. Right to life
Public Unions v. Taxpayers
Genetic Engineering v. Unborn children with downsyndrome
Police State v. NRA
Nanny State v. Liberty

Thats about the same perspective, just from a different political point of view.

The cartographer of the map, Fitz69, is from Sweden.


--Andy

jacklee08 wrote:Obviously a liberal wrote the names for the lobbying groups. Haliburton v. Sierra Club, Environment v. Big Oil, Education v. Moral Majority, Affirmative Action v. Defense Industry......yeah nice perspective there designer

How about changing it to this.

Big Abortion v. Right to life
Public Unions v. Taxpayers
Genetic Engineering v. Unborn children with downsyndrome
Police State v. NRA
Nanny State v. Liberty

Thats about the same perspective, just from a different political point of view.

Who, exactly, is lobbying for "Unborn children with downsyndrome", or "Nanny State"?

The map does read as if it has been made by a leftist, and with the Swedish being one of the more left nations, Fitz may have uninentionally made the map more left leaning. The lobbies on the right are mostly negative, while the ones on the left are mostly positive. While I dont know about the US, in Australia the Unions are the major lobbyist for the left by quite a margin, yet they dont get a mention on this map, while corporations are the big lobbyists on the right.

If Fitz is still here, I'd like to see Haliburton replaced with 'Corportations' and Unions replace something on the Democrat side.

I think Fitz's original intentions were to make a mildly humorous map, not a strictly factual or politically correct map---and it seems he accomplished that goal.


--Andy

Fair enough. It is humerous in that sense I must admit. Although I could think of some better examples to really get the point across, rather than a mild attempt that many would assume is a factual representation of the two sides.

BTW, replying to a previous post. Pro-Life conservatives/republicans would be the lobbiests for unborn babies with down syndrome, while Pro=Choice liberals/democrats would be the lobiests for Genetic engineering to create 'perfect' babies (obviously a gross exageration, but one I made to get the point across of the current one sided bias). Many times they are aborted because a doctor tells the parents-to-be that there is a good chance of the child having down syndrome. Nanny state would refer to big government liberal lobbiests that want us to all have government run healthcare, car insurance, pensions, etc.

I'm no right winger, but given this is the only political map I've seen I felt the need to point out the bias I saw.

Perhaps you can get behind another political map and get one going? It's a niche that has been rather untouched and waiting.


--Andy

Well...shouldn't names be changed??? the people in the senate has changed...therefore there are another names