In the end, using your idea will only work if you really know your players. With an arbitrary random group, I figure the result would be either 100% success rate (they all agree with each other and coordinate perfectly) or a close to 0% success rate (they rarely cooperate). Neither situation is what you want.
Luckily, when you want a certain percentage of success, that’s exactly what dice are for! Now, my group tends to be one of those “cooperators” so I’d tend to want to balance it assuming the party will always agree on what they want the godling to do. Then, maybe use a combination of religion, arcana, and diplomacy checks across the party to determine whether their characters are able to successfully pull off coordinating themselves to control the nigh-uncontrollable thing. I’d still use the “they have to agree on the action it will take” thing but then use the dice to add uncertainty.
If, on the other hand, you expect a lot less agreement amongst your players, you can still use dice, but this time, make the skill check determine whose commands get followed, with close results or consistently low results across the whole party leading to no one’s commands being obeyed and it doing something random and chaotic instead.
In the case of a cooperative party, we’re using dice to lower the success rate. In the bickering party, we’re using dice to increase the success rate. But in both cases, we have in mind a certain target success rate, and it is dice that will get us there.
Likewise, the crime wave of the 70s in the US has been directly linked to leaded gasoline putting lead in the air, and leaded paint. You can map the crime wave literally block-by-block to correspond with areas that have not done lead mitigation efforts or those that have.
Also makes you think about the pathologically evil governmental policies the older generation have enacted, and how those people have also been influenced by lead in the air.
I’m of the understanding that lead poisoning effects the ability to engage in theory of mind (thinking about what someone else is thinking— also, empathy) and future planning, consideration of consequences, first before influencing other mental faculties. Which is why it can be linked to crime so easily.
Ah, I see what you are saying now. Basically, the thing I was hung up on was that I figured they would get what they could and leave it at that. But basically, they aren’t satisfied with getting what they could and simply want to get it all, court order be damned. And there’s no way to comply with the court order AND get it all, so violating the court order was the only option.
Expect that now, with an independent organization drawing the next map, they might lose even more than the paltry two majority congressional districts. Good.
A map can almost assuredly be constructed that gives those two districts, even with democrat representatives, and yet maintains overwhelming republican power in the state regardless. Two districts against however many others.
Again, I’m not advocating for this. Gerrymandering is a disgusting practice. But it’s still something I’m pretty sure they could have done.
What I don’t get is why they don’t just hire a mathematician to make a map that looks fair, meets all court requirements, but still wins them the elections? Alphaphoenix did a pretty clear video showing how it’s basically always possible: https://youtu.be/Lq-Y7crQo44?si=8Y6b7xblWm6FhcFc
I mean, I’m happy they aren’t getting away with it. I prefer my enemies to be stupid and incompetent. It just befuddles me that they are.
I want to add that the convenience factor they give to non-disabled people really helps the life-necessity factor for disabled people. Economy of scale helps a lot. Someone who needs straws to live can go to any grocery or convenience store and buy dozens or hundreds of the things for dirt cheap because the disabled people aren’t the only ones buying them, and that’s a good thing.
Let’s say they were organizing using telephones instead. Would you want the telephone providers to proactively listen in on their conversations and cut them off based on content? No. You get the police or FBI to investigate and hunt down the people, possibly with warrants obtaining information from the telephone companies, and target the people doing the crimes.
I feel it should be exactly the same with ISPs. The ISP shouldn’t be doing the policing, the police should be doing the policing. The ISP’s job should be passing bits from MAC address A to MAC address B, nothing more.
Want to say that my personal experience nearly matches yours. I was allowed in the birthing room and held my wife’s hand as she gave birth. I was allowed to hold my son for approximately 30 seconds. Then I was kicked out of the hospital and not allowed to return for over a week. I was also expected to be back at work pretty much immediately.
Finding changing rooms I can use is definitely a trial. I typically assume I won’t be able to find one, and if my wife isn’t with me I plan to use the backseat of my car or similar arrangement.
The hoikuen workers (approximately translates to daycare, if you don’t know) don’t talk to me when I pick up my son, which is nearly every day. On the rare opportunity that my wife’s schedule allows her to get him, they won’t stop talking about every detail.
Yeah, gender roles are pretty fixed, and challenging said roles is hard.
The sun high up in the sky produces light that has to go through a thin layer of air to reach you, and is really powerful. It’s so much light that it can burn your retinas. The sun near the horizon produces light that goes through hundreds of miles of atmosphere, scattering a lot of the light, and the remaining light is safe to view.
Other mammals are sentient, but not sapient so far as we know, with the possible exception of some species of dolphins and whales, but this has yet to be proven. (It is pretty much proven that apes, monkeys, etc are not sapient)
What’s they key distinguisher of sapience? There are different measures, but “theory of mind” is the one that seems most relevant. The ability to think about what someone else is thinking. This seems to correlate also with the ability to ask questions and tell stories, and we currently know of no other being besides humans that can do either— again, research into dolphins and whales continues, and there might be potential there, but we’re pretty darn certain nothing on land has it.
Socialism works, people. Particularly (though not limited to) for things with a vertical demand curve— necessities. Food, water, and now electricity and internet.
His is less gambling. In starfox, it’s purely random. In his game, you strategically select the symbols that can appear on the machine to make combos more or less likely.
It’s not difficult if you have a multi-thousand dollar freeze drying machine. It is difficult if you have less money than that and try to build your own…
In the end, using your idea will only work if you really know your players. With an arbitrary random group, I figure the result would be either 100% success rate (they all agree with each other and coordinate perfectly) or a close to 0% success rate (they rarely cooperate). Neither situation is what you want.
Luckily, when you want a certain percentage of success, that’s exactly what dice are for! Now, my group tends to be one of those “cooperators” so I’d tend to want to balance it assuming the party will always agree on what they want the godling to do. Then, maybe use a combination of religion, arcana, and diplomacy checks across the party to determine whether their characters are able to successfully pull off coordinating themselves to control the nigh-uncontrollable thing. I’d still use the “they have to agree on the action it will take” thing but then use the dice to add uncertainty.
If, on the other hand, you expect a lot less agreement amongst your players, you can still use dice, but this time, make the skill check determine whose commands get followed, with close results or consistently low results across the whole party leading to no one’s commands being obeyed and it doing something random and chaotic instead.
In the case of a cooperative party, we’re using dice to lower the success rate. In the bickering party, we’re using dice to increase the success rate. But in both cases, we have in mind a certain target success rate, and it is dice that will get us there.