According to OECD data, Canadian teachers are among some of the best paid in the world: https://www.oecd-ilibrary.org/...cator/english_f689fb91-en

What grounds to they have for wanting an increase?

Herbie the Love Bug

Other things? Like sing karaoke and discuss who your favourite BTS member is?

This might be super simple or super stupid, but would having a dedicated phone app for EE help?

I try to play on my lappy most of the time but I only really use it when I’m working; so I’m either playing during my lunch break at work, or when I’m working from home.

I’ve done a destock on my phone and that sucks balls. I can run turns on my phone but it’s a bit clunky.

I've never met Chevs formally but I've been told by two hookers and a homeless man that his junk is always clean.

Nobody likes you when you're..

Double dutchies. It feels good, sir.

https://youtu.be/mfuLRwqpy-Q

Haha. Maybe just Make Up Dutch Rudders then?

You guys must have amazing make up sex.

Well, this has taken an unexpected turn.

Hong Kong has just confirmed the death of a 39-year old man who returned to the SAR from Mainland China recently. His elderly mother, who he lives with, has also been admitted to hospital as the 15th confirmed case of nCoV in Hong Kong.

Are Canadian public teachers striking at the moment?

What are the current reasons not to pay them more money?

Bone us.

I think I generally would love to know what would happen if we messed around with things, like:

- Making all Spy Ops cost no turns but you lose spies on every Op run
- Everyone starts with 5,000 labs but there's no tech market and the labs can't be destroyed
- Some bot countries start with like $100m NW and clans get bonuses for killing them during the reset
- A NW survival mode where all players under a certain NW each day get purple'd (and the NW requirement rises each day)
- A "Crown" that a country can take for themselves by successfully attacking the country currently holding it - the Crown gifts the country X% extra in terms of military and weapons tech until it's taken from them

Weird fluff, maybe. I dunno. Let's get crazy on it.

I 100% agree about the requirement of active moderators and responsiveness to constant player feedback due to the nature of the changing rulesets. If no one is driving it, it would turn to fluff quick.

I’m not married to the rulesets I proposed either, they’re not very well thought out but it’s the way they use the existing systems to create completely different styles of gameplay that I was aiming with.

Express is already a shorter version of Earth. Alliance is already a team version of Earth. For all of the servers, networth is the official measure of victory while warring is unofficial (victory measured by those warring).

I think the idea, although it might not sit well with the community, is to introduce variations that amount to things like “Team Deathmatch” or whatever crazy variant that can be thought of - where the way you build your country is the same but the game rules and official victory measures change to change the way we play the game.

I definitely think the community is where ruleset ideas need to come from, as well as being the last word on whether a ruleset is successful, needs tweaking, or is garbage. Maybe a good way to establish the ruleset rotation is to have a period where the community focuses on what could work as a TD ruleset, or a Spy War ruleset, or a cooperative ruleset where the server as a whole needs to generate an ANW of X or something, then those set the starting rotation to be played and deliberated on, then new proposals for rulesets are announced after.

It’s not to take away from what makes Earth Earth but, I dunno.. it might be a place for ideas on how to attract new players to the game who learn bits and pieces about traditional Earth via the variants, and can be a gateway into Alliance or FFA or Express etc.

And, of course, like you said - it would be a good place for the Mods/Devs to try out new formulas etc before committing them to the traditional servers.

A few disclaimers:

- I have very little skill at this game
- I'm not a significant player in the history of this game or community
- I don't even fully understand the rule differences between each of the existing servers
- I have very little understanding of what nerdy things people do to make things like this game happen

I just had a random, unoriginal thought about whether a "Fiesta"-type server could work to try and add some randomness to the game. I'm borrowing the word Fiesta from a Halo gametype where random weapons are used because I lack the originality to come up with something better.

Essentially, the server is a short-time reset (but maybe not Express short) that has changing rulesets announced in advance to keep things interesting. For example:

1. Mystery Teams: Players who create countries are randomly assigned to clan tags.
2. Mutually Assured Destruction: All players start with 20% Warfare tech and no SDI.
3. Guerrilla Tactics: The only military that can be bought or produced are Troops.
4. Tree Huggers: Attacks are disabled, explore rates don't reduce.
5. No Stock: No private markets.
6. Baby FFA: Each player can create up to five countries.

These might be fun or absolutely terrible. As I said, I really have no idea. I just wonder if it might be a way to tinker with the existing conditions of "victory" (war kills, netgaining, TNW, ANW, etc etc) by creating short, experimental type resets that could also test out new things before they're perhaps put into other servers.

Maybe the community could vote on certain rulesets to be kept and added to the rotation of rulesets, or we could all boo the crappy ones and demand they never be played again.

It's probably been suggested before. I dunno. Thoughts?

Ketchup On Ice Cream

Yeah, I should correct my statement to be that the Iranian state calls Soleimani a hero. Some Iranians might agree but definitely not all.

Marshal conducting foreign policy through brash and often antagonistic Twitter posts and hellrush threatening to go to war with anyone who he doesn't like...

.. I don't think there'd be much change to the way things are now.

Actually, that's a fair point. I suppose if you add up all of the MSNBC, CNN, etc viewers, they'd outnumber the total FOX viewers.

I'll leave you wherever it is you want to stand - it's not my place to tell you where you want to be. I don't see your dislike for the Clinton and Bush families as being relevant to your support for Trump, or vice versa. Nor does it impact that I think your statement about the "left [being] upset that a piece of fluff terrorist was taken out" ignores largely that condemnation of Trump's actions doesn't also imply sympathy and support for Soleimani - because you'd be hard pressed to find anyone outside of Iran and its allies that would speak highly of a man with the track record he had.

In fact, a lot of public criticism from politicians etc I saw came with an explicit admission that, while they don't agree with how Trump went about it, they won't be mourning the death of a man (allegedly?) responsible for the deaths of hundreds, maybe thousands, of US and allied servicemen and women. People, Left included, recognised that Soleimani was a dangerous man and a threat to peace and stability - but does that mean they have to then sit comfortably while the current US President green lights the assassination of this Iranian on Iraqi soil? Especially when it potentially comes with the consequences it might still have? No.

I'm with you until you get to the mainstream media part. If only anti-Trump media made money, Fox News would be out of business - but they're the leading cable news network in the country with approx. 1.5m viewers a day. MSNBC, who I see many anti-MSM people hate with a passion, come in second with only 1.1m viewers. ESPN is third.

I think you're confusing concern for the disregard of due process/international law in killing an Iranian national rather than a mourning of the death of the man that Soleimani was. Like Gerdler says, you call him a terrorist but Iran calls him a national hero. Trump is your hero, but Iran likely sees him a the Terrorist in Chief.

Imagine the Iranian Army assassinating whoever the leader of US forces is in Iraq (Gen. Lloyd J. Austin?). They'd paint him a terrorist and a casualty of war, you'd call it murder and demand justice be served upon Iran.

It's literally one of the least complex pieces of this whole puzzle to understand but politics is forcing people to bury their heads in the sand because you're either with Trump or against him.

In all seriousness, if the US and Iran were a tag here on EE - which ones would they be?

https://pbs.twimg.com/...ENyjnDFX0AYCDmQ.jpg:large

I absolutely have not watched the testimonies in full; I would have thought that obvious from the start.

Seeing as you guys have, and I have no reason to believe you'd lie to me, I'm happy to take your word for it that the full testimonies don't have any evidence to prove any form of bribery occurred.

So:

1. There has been no testimony or evidence to prove that Trump withheld aid for the purpose of forcing the Ukranian government to investigate the Bidens (though, the aid was withheld past the date it was intended to be given).

That correct?

Isn't it pretty solidly supported that the US did withhold the aid but released it eventually? As for no "first-hand" accounts of the phone call, I think that's a fair statement to make.



I don't think murder is the right comparison.

I imagine there are enough people sitting in prison for having threatened to do something illegal to someone else unless they did something for them in return.



I don't understand; why should the election have any impact on how long or how quickly the impeachment case is wrapped up?



If we're not supposed to get news from networks, that leaves... what? Twitter? Social media?

Or am I supposed to go and knock on Zelensky's door and ask him myself?

Is what Trump (and Biden) did illegal?

Edit: Or, another way, is what they did appropriate behaviour for a President?

So, just to sum up:

Trump and people close to him believe that there is some dodgy dealings in Ukraine regarding Hunter Biden and a criminal investigation that was eventually dropped, where they believe his father Joe had something to do with it.

And a whistleblower has made a complaint about Trump allegedly withholding aid from Ukraine until the Government moved to investigate the dodgy Hunter Biden stuff - which, according to the House Democrats, is illegal.

Trump has been impeached by the House but needs the Senate to also agree to remove him, but it's unlikely because the Senate is full of Republicans.

Is this right?

THE ROAD DOGG JESSE JAMES

THE BAD ASS BILLY GUN

God, the Attitude Era was legitimately outstanding. Especially if you consider what was going on at WCW too.

SEA CUCUMBER

So there are no actual grounds for impeachment and this whole thing is a farce?

Just showing support for those in LaF showing support for those continuing to fight for freedom in Hong Kong.

Has Trump really done something dodgy or is this all a Democrat conspiracy to remove him from office?

Will he even get impeached or is it unlikely?

Add oil, brothers. 光復香港 - 時代革命!

I’ve always hated FPTP. This is the first opportunity I’ve had on here to voice that opinion.

I’d feel the same way if Labour had won with the exact same %s.

First Past the Post is a trash voting system if the Conservatives can gain more than 50% of the seats in Parliament by winning only 43% of the vote. Then you’ve got the Green Party with 1 seat on 2.7%, the Brexit Party with 0 seats from 2%, while the DUP gets 8 seats from 0.8% and the SNP gets 48 from 3.9%.

If Labour and the Liberal Dems added their vote support together, they’d have a higher vote percentage than the Conservatives but still only 214 seats in Parliament.

Considering he has had three ex-wives, a number of lawsuits stemming from assault of women, and a handful of restraining orders.. I'd say "I can't wait for the next round" is probably something women don't say too often when it comes to Charlie Sheen.

You're going to make Marshal jealous the more you spend your infatuations on me.

Primary sets seem to take soooooooo looooooooong.

How long are they?

https://thumbs.gfycat.com/...micTangibleFlea-small.gif

He must be a pretty intelligent and handsome man then. I'm sure I don't know him but if he talks and acts like me, I doubt he'd be impressed with you either.

@gerdler & galleri: Ah, I understand. A solution definitely needs to be found, if not for the sake of Hellrush and Evo then at least for the benefit of everyone else not having to put up with this ongoing public spat playing out on the forums and on the server. Comms is the key; it’s simple but it’s where it starts, I agree. Hopefully there’ll be an end to things next set.

Not at all, I honestly wouldn’t presume to tell you what to do regarding your alliance and its relations with others. In fact, saying I’m impressed with your perspective in this post is hardly worth anything as I’m a nobody in this game. But, for whatever it might be worth, I don’t disagree with anything you’ve said and your rationale for the decisions you came to are more than fair and reasonable.

I’m literally asking hellrush about LaF as a way of trying to understand why he could get farmed and see his only way of compensation be suiciding and committing to attacking Evo until they decide to disband. I mean no disrespect to LaF by asking of them.

That doesn’t seem like bad policy at all. It encourages members to take responsibility for their actions and to not expect the team to shelter their poor behaviour. Sounds pretty sound to me.

My key takeaway here, however, is that hellrush seems to have decided not to seek the help of the tag he was in at the time (although untagged) to deal with Evo farming him.

So he was essentially acting as a lone wolf for the rest of the set he’d been farmed in, and then for the whole of the next set after deciding to hide as an untagged and then blindside Evo in retaliation for the set before.

Now he’s taken a set off to net under the protection of a proper tag again (whether that’s LaF or not doesn’t matter, what’s clear is that he didn’t want to risk being an untagged again). With that out of his system, he wants to start up again next set with an issue three sets behind.

There’s definitely a baby crying somewhere out here but it doesn’t sound like it’s Evo.

How is it that a tag like LaF, with six times the players of Evo, can seek reps for the farming of your untagged country and come away with nothing?

Either they’re scared of a bunch of netters or they literally didn’t see your farming as being worthy of threatening the tinier tag over.

Evo not engaging FAs or paying reps is what caused Post Script to kill a bunch of their countries last reset. They’re a bunch of netters too and Evo never even put up a fight. That “war” was over and done with before most knew it was even happening.

So why did LaF drop the ball in seeking fair compensation for your untags lost land? Did they not care? Do they have an internal policy that states that untags don’t get protection from their tag?

Why are they not technically following this up for you even now, especially if Evo have supposedly “screwed up” as you claim?

There’s no need to be defensive - why didn’t LaF intervene on your behalf?

So ignoring the fact that your restart country came out of protection untagged (seems careless as you’re very likely aware you probably wouldn’t have been farmed had you been tagged up)...


... You were a LaF restart and was hit by an Evo member - did LaF intervene on your behalf? Was there any discussion regarding the farming of your restart between LaF and Evo? If not, why not?

Not really. They’re inconvenient questions for you because the answers don’t work out in your favour.

You say that Evo farmed your war restart. What war were you fighting and which tag were you in at the time?