Will quality of most games improve if more GMs and players will follow pic related?

>to be proactive means you have to use violence

...are you in Syria?

Prison officer here.
You always think carefully before grtting physical. Fantastic colleague of mine broke up a fight, downed the aggressor in a flash; only problem was that she slipped on a burger while doing so. They both came down on her leg, she spent the next 45 mins howling with her foot pointed the wrong way until an ambulance arrived.

Redirection into verbals is always good; if you can make the guy's mates laugh at him, he'll likely back down. Even if he wins a verbal spar, he'll lock up while feeling satisfied that he "won that round". If a guy's received some drugs, you want to separate him from them as quickly as possible; he'll run and fight like a bastard while he's holding them, but once staff have them he'll likely give up. Redirection's a good tip.

As far as I can tell, fa/tg/uys aren’t interested in avoiding violence. Posters here seem to like the idea of hacking people up, blowing them to pieces, or filling them with lead— to say nothing of the various horrible fates that become possible when characters have access to spells or advanced technology. So the stuff in the OP is sort of orthogonal to what most of Veeky Forums wants out of a roleplaying game.

>dodge until he is out of bullets
Teach me to be as powerful as fuhrer Bradley.

It depends heavily on the nature and theme of the game. That works for grittier games but would be rather out of place in high fantasy or pulp a lot of the time.

It's not bad but you've got to work with the tone of the game rather than assuming it would automatically improve it.

Violence is the supreme authority from which all other authorities are derived. There isn't a single nation on Earth that doesn't ultimately get it's power from the threat of violence both against it's citizens and other nations. Why do you pay your taxes? What happens if you don't?

>Why do you pay your taxes?

Because my taxes help pave roads, care for the elderly, educate children. What? Is that not what your taxes do?

>What happens if you don't?

All the stuff above will be entirely up to if some corp finds it profitable to do it, and how far they estimate they can squeeze us doing it.

>All the stuff above will be entirely up to if some corp finds it profitable to do it, and how far they estimate they can squeeze us doing it.
And you'll be charged with not paying your taxes.

You do it because the state threatens you with violence if you don't and the penalty of not paying taxes is incarceration user. Taxes are not a voluntary thing, you're not paying them out of the goodness of your heart because you're just that socially aware, you're doing it because if you don't you will get fined and ultimately get your ass thrown in prison if you continue to not pay.

You are light that there are legal ramifications for not paying taxes. But that doesn't mean it is why I pay my taxes. It's like saying I only don't kill people because I'd get jailed.

Anyway, if I didn't want to pay taxes, I'd just move away to some place where there aren't any. It'd only be fair to not benefit from the things that have been built by other people's tax money.

>Being this retarded
Paying taxes is something I do as a citizen of my country. I exist as I am today because other people paid theirs, and I'll continue to collaborate on the future of my country so the people that come after me can enjoy the same. If I believe my government is misusing the funds, I will campaign against it. I won't find excuses to gripe and try to convince other people to not collaborate to justify my own inability to see the benefits of it.

If you can't understand the network of incentives and deterrents beyond "muh violence", you're not just a retard, you're a tool for moronic ideologues, who need a curtain of retards to mask their own extreme actions and beliefs.

I don't really care what you, personally would do user. I'm making the point that the rules of the game are the same as they've ever been, the person with the biggest stick makes the rules. You're ruled over and controlled by the threat of violence, like every other time in history.

You are a very good goy.

I genuinely enjoy killing people in games, because I'd never do something like that in real life.

This.

It's nice to see you do what you think is right.
Is it right to threaten other people to do what you think is right too? Government you fund by your taxes threatens others to pay them as well. Is that all right?

>virgin coward vs chad murderhobo

>Opponent with a gun? Dodge until he's out of bullets

I find it funny you post that when well...they don't kill a single person in that movie. The only guy they fight who dies is the guy who landed on the mine and that was his own damn fault.

More to the point, the belief that public services are a net social good assumes that everyone believes all people deserve to benefit from them.

I do not.

Could you elaborate? I am somewhat confused.

They need to go back to /pol/.

>muh boogyman

its a good lil thing, too bad it's probably just there because UA's combat section is garbage

Well, they are literally talking politics. Even if they are not from the board itself, they should go to it for such conversations. So yeah, go to /pol/

fuck off idiot

It doesn't matter whether or not you think taxes are ethical or not. What matters is that ultimately they're coerced through the threat of violence if you don't comply like every other law. The state is a big man with a stick and the fact I think it's morally justified to beat a thief with a sack of doorknobs has no relevance to whether thievery is being disincentivised with the threat of violence, whether or not any individuals think taxes are morally justified has no relevance to the fact that it is the threat of violence that ultimately compels people to pay them

I'm sad I had to cut through such thick autism to get my point through

>commie believes that everyone who disagrees with him needs to be censored
wow people of color me surprsied

>Why do you pay your taxes?
Personally I've always thought of it the other way around user.
Taxes aren't an enforcement of violence by the state.
Taxes are an insurance paid by rich people to protect themselves from the resentment of the poor.

They're basically revolution insurance.
Taxes don't result in violence, they stop it.

You're the thick layer of autism in these discussions, user. The "threat of violence" is a deterrent for the sake of coordination, not an attempt at forced compliance. If you can't see all the carrots they lay out next to the stick that's your problem. Governments require taxation to function and while I abhor violence I prefer its threats be there to having to deal with muppets like you who would create more coordination problems in the long run.

Censored? Is a square peg not fitting in a round hole censored too?

Even if I agreed with you, this still isn't the place for it.
Fuck off.

nice digits, taxation is still theft though you retarded piece of shit

That's an erroneous way of thinking.
>Taxes don't result in violence, they stop it.
Threatening violence is still violence user.

Does this same logic apply to say, Putin assassinating political opponents? It's a deterrence for the sake of cohesion, governments require unity to function and while he abhors violence Putin prefers the threat of assassination to avoid having to deal with muppets who would create more co-ordination problems in the long run

If we're just going to take every premise to its extreme, your existence is a monumental waste of life. If you can't humble yourself in the knowledge that countless people died to get you to here and now, you don't deserve the brain that lets you go "taxation is theft".

You see how this isn't actually the way to a coherent argument?

Cohesion is not the same thing as coordination.

Terrible thing that monopoly on violence. Terrible thing that civilization. Terrible, terrible thing that rule of law. Terrible, terrible, terrible things.

>Violence is the supreme authority from which all other authorities are derived.
Authority may come from different sources, such as tradition, personal qualities or bureaucracy. Authority is different from power, as authority has legitimacy build on consent of subordinates. As such, you can have a power based on violence, but it doesn't mean you have an authority to use it.

>autistic screeching

Doesn't matter. Door is open for groups or individuals to threaten violence if they perceive it for the greater good. Threatening violence against people who do not comply is the same whether that power is wielded by the bureaucratic apparatus of a first world democracy or a dictator of a third world shithole.

Yes, you seem to be doing a lot of that.

>The "threat of violence" is a deterrent for the sake of coordination, not an attempt at forced compliance.
Really? What will happen if you don't pay them?
Violence.

>Governments require taxation to function
tautology

>and while I abhor violence I prefer its threats be there to having to deal with muppets like you who would create more coordination problems in the long run
You think people can't coordinate without having guns pointed at them?
And not only that, but they would be so horrible without the guns pointed at them, that they would be even more violent than all the governments of the world combined?
Is that also your solution to rape then?
"Rape is bad, so lets give a select group of people a monopoly on rape to keep everyone else in line."

Why don't the both of you take ten minutes to actually think your arguments through to their conclusions instead of flailing at some anonymous internet poster?

Not an argument

>"Rape is bad, so lets give a select group of people a monopoly on rape to keep everyone else in line."
Looking at whats going on in Hollywood at the moment it seems like that is exactly what happened

>The "threat of violence" is a deterrent for the sake of coordination, not an attempt at forced compliance.
OK, but if i don't want to coordinate my efforts with you? Will you force my compliance?

Interesting point.

Not an argument.

Can this just be an Unknown armies thread instead.

>know this symbol? of course you do, it was all over your school, no one really knows what it means, but mages know the power of symbols and several cabals are fighting a magikal war for control of this innocuous little S and the power that comes from such a widespread yet untapped symbol.

>using violence as anything but a measured response to those who have already made it their primary language
ishygddt

>coming home from work late at night
>Proud Kang of Color comes at me with a gun for being an evil cracker oppressor
>dodge his bullets until he's out of ammo
>challenge him to a dance off to resolve our conflict

TAKE THAT BLONALB GRUMBPH

The logical conclusion is irrelevant to my argument though. The one and only point I'm making is that the laws of society are enforced through the threat of violence. I used taxation as a 'victimless' crime as an easy example since most reasonable people would understand the Police being sent after you for crimes like assault or murder, tax evasion is a more muddy one because it's pretty much the Lord of the land sending his goons after you for not paying tribute.

I'm not a libertarian and I think taxes are good and necessary, they're still coerced by the threat of violence against those who do not comply which is my ultimate point. Violence still is the ultimate authority when push comes to shove the only thing that matters is who has the biggest stick. Colelctively deciding to give the state the stick and changing who has power over the stick every 3-4 years doesn't change the fact that the threat of the stick is what keeps people in line

Never understood why people seem to think violence is the end all be all. Money makes the world go round. Sure you can use the violence to get money, but then someone with more money may buy violence to be used against you.
Nowadays, violence isn't power, it's a commodity. The United States of America isn't the most powerful nation on earth because it's overly violent (though in comparison to many countries it may seem so) but because it's filthy stinking rich.
We can rule you wholesale, et cetera.

to be fair, dodging bullets and challenging people to dance offs is not to strange in the Unknown Armies setting.

Money doesn't save you when enough people decide to bypass the system

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/French_Revolution

>implying the Danceomancer is not a perfectly viable Adept career

And what happens to other sovereign nations that refuse to be ruled by the petrodollar and western banks?

>pic related

Too right. Power has many stand-ins. But at the end of the day, money, political clout, information, authority all ammounts to the same thing. No one thing is Power. Power is Power, the kind of power is secondary, is only relevant in terms of situational effectiveness.

But if you are in a situation where your physical might, authority or money is useless... Well, then that's more you being bad at utilizing your choice of power choice.

As to the OP.

It depends on the game. Infantile power fullfilment fantasy through killing versus realistic drama.
In the case of the latter a lot of points of mature storytelling goes out the window if violence is portrayed as psychologically inconsequential or even pleasant.

This.
Communist revolution is another good example.

the """"""""""""communist revolution"""""""""""" was just jews using human cattle to murder their political opponents and seize power, not even remotely similar to the french revolution

It's hardly violence however. You are informed of the tax law. You are given ample time to pay your taxes. You are trialed in a court of your peers. You will not be physically harmed if you don't resist. You have the political rights to try to change the law to your own needs. If you do not like the law, you have the right to leave the country and it's tax policy.

Public services are predictated on the belief it is a net social good for the able and wealthy to subsidise the idle.

Your worked-for money pays for those who will not work to benefit from things they do not deserve.

"Money is not a thing, it is not even a process. It is a kind of shared dream. We dream that a small disc of common metal is worth the price of a substantial meal. Once you wake up from that dream, you can swim in a sea of money."

You completely missed the point then.
In both the rich people's wealth meant nothing, was stripped from them, and they were slaughtered.

>Your worked-for money pays for those who will not work to benefit from things they do not deserve.

Damn those children and sick people! Where are the workhouses these days?

Actually, public services are mostly predicated on the idea that it's cheaper for the able and wealthy to fund the idle to some extent than to deal with the plagues and dissidents removing them would bring.

Step 1: move before they pull the trigger
Step 2: keep moving
Step 3: ???
Step 4: don't get shot

People already generally follow such, it's just that not every situation can be talked down, it really depends on the individuals involved.

Well, to a degree you're right. Social services to the the people who are a net negative in the budget are is an ehtical luxury.

The same way that not having the death penalty, vegetarianism and not having to kill your kids during harsh famines are an ethical luxury.

On the other hand, building a business based on the labor force, infrastructure amd consumer base provided for by a state is just a material luxury.

How material and ethical luxuries lie on your personal spectrum of values is up to you i guess.

>Stuck on an island with 9 other people
>They decide everyone should pitch in a coconut and those who don't get the shit beaten out of them
>They say this is a fair and civilized system because you have the opportunity to change their minds on this policy
>You make your case, they disagree and tell you to hand over the coconut, nerd
It's nice that you think the tyranny of the majority is just, but you do know there are persecuted minorities out there and no amount of campaigning against unjust policy can win them? Nor is it fair they need to campaign against discrimination just because they can theoretically get voted into power and change the system. "Well if you don't like it, go and change it" is not really a realistic solution if you're say a Christian living in Pakistan and really want to toughen the laws against discriminating against people of your faith

That's not a monopoly, that is someone using power and influence to get what they want.
It works because in the short/long term, submitting to that power theoretically offers potential benefits in the long run.

Don't be stupid, it's violence.
>you are informed of the tax law
which is why I have to pay a tax specialist to do my small business taxes
>given ample time to pay taxes
They're withheld from your paycheck before you even see them, or I pay my business taxes monthly
>trialed in a court of your peers
so are murderers and rapists
>won't be harmed if you don't resist
that's what I tell women I rape
also fucking implying locking me in a cage for the rest of my life isn't harming me
>right to change the law
my whitehouse.gov petition has 3500 signatures! The government is gonna listen to me!
>right to leave
and go to another country that will also coerce tax money out of you with violence

batting a straight 0.000 there friendo

Wasting your time mate. Any point that's not "muh jews" isn't something he has the attention span to debate.

Using your retarded example the analogy for the alternative would be to leave the people who fall sick from malaria to shit themselves to death on the beach, because they're sick useless leeches on your mini society. Untill you're the last one left who get's to die painfully and alone from shitting your bowels out you humongous mongoloid.

>It's hardly violence however.
Ancaps keep using word 'violence' but it is threat of violence, as you illustrated in
>You will not be physically harmed if you don't resist
> If you do not like the law, you have the right to leave the country and it's tax policy.

>Damn those children and sick people!
The fact, that someone can't take care of himself isn't justifying threats of violence against others, unrelated parties.
That said, i do believe those unrelated people have moral duty to help, but it is something that should be done voluntarily.

And how should the laws of society be enforced then Mr an cap?

Bit of (actually) useful advice. Read Leviathan before you continue making your country worse.
It's kinda outdated but it nails the core concepts you fail to grasp.

>it's a philosophy/ideology thread

Whether or not you think it's correct or ethical is completely irrelevant though. You're making a case for why taxes are a good thing, not why it's a good thing that X arbitrary law holds people at literal gunpoint to comply of be detained. Ok so you like taxes, what if an anti-gay law was passed and homosexual behavior was punishable by life imprisonment? It's tiresome arguing with someone who keeps dodging the issue by saying "Yeah they have a gun to your head saying comply or be punished because I AGREE with the rule!". Lots of people agree with lots of abhorrent things, it's all good until you're the one being told you need to comply with a rule you DISAGREE with under threat of violence.

>Ancaps keep using word 'violence' but it is threat of violence, as you illustrated in
Sticking up a bank without actually shooting anyone isn't violence then?

>If you do not like the law, you have the right to leave the country and it's tax policy.
Oh I do?
Where do I sign up for that service then?
I would like to be shipped out of the country.
Surely I don't need a passport, plane ticket, money, or even a place to go though.
Since its my right and all.

Why not just leave then? The planet is big. Like, there's plenty of countries you could squat in without paying taxes. Mostly third world shitholes, but hey, at least they got the right idea of not threatening you with violence to steal your money.

What about an uninhabited tropical island? One way ticket, boom, set up a coconut farm or whatever, live that sweet an cap life. Sell the coconuts to fishermen or something and pray they dont just blast you with their kalashnikovs and take them.

You tell me. My argument is that violence is the ultimate and supreme authority. If you disagree it's your argument that hinges on the idea laws can be enforced with anything other than violence, not mine

>pay your taxes,
>or else you'll have to go to a third world shithole where you will either die of malaria immediately, or be killed for any number of reasons
>or else you'll have to be banished to pure wilderness and die of exposure
>"lmao if u dont like it just leave!"

>It's nice that you think the tyranny of the majority is just

Nice strawman there. Democracies have to be effective, but of course they have to follow the law and protects the rights of the citizens as well.

>Nor is it fair they need to campaign against discrimination just because they can theoretically get voted into power and change the system. "Well if you don't like it, go and change it" is not really a realistic solution if you're say a Christian living in Pakistan and really want to toughen the laws against discriminating against people of your faith

I wouldn't call it very unrealistic to campaign for less taxes in any country. Hell, tax cuts are the goals of many parties in almost every democratic country, and I'm willing to bet even non-democratic countries.

>Surrender
I'm no coward. He's the one that need to surrender, if he doesn't it's his problem.
>Disarm
Dodging fucking bullets shouldn't be easy.
>Rechannel
Not really possible unless the prize is something cheap.
>Pass the buck
Really depends on the setting
>Call the Cops
It's likely going to take years and I'll either be humiliated or dead until them.
>Run away
Only if he's much more powerful than me

>which is why I have to pay a tax specialist to do my small business taxes

Which is your choice. I don't have to pay a tax specialist.

>They're withheld from your paycheck before you even see them, or I pay my business taxes monthly

Your tax plan has a calculation on it how big a percentage of taxes you will be paying. Even then you can just fill out a smaller number and pay back-taxes later on.

>so are murderers and rapists

I believe this is called a "justice system". If you have another ideas on how to commit justice, please do tell.

>that's what I tell women I rape

Believe or not, rape is legal somewhere. I suggest you go there, as women there at least know their legal position. I bet those places even have less taxation.

>also fucking implying locking me in a cage for the rest of my life isn't harming me

Breaking the law does require a punishment, otherwise it's just going to be broken constantly.

>my whitehouse.gov petition has 3500 signatures! The government is gonna listen to me!

There are political parties and movements with the intention of lowering taxes. If the government isn't listening to you, you do not have the public support for your petition.

>and go to another country that will also coerce tax money out of you with violence

Maybe go to one which will not coerce tax money out of you then, or form your own country? There's room aplenty in Antarctica, or just fuck off to a tax haven. They're called that for a reason.

Would you have this same attitude to say a person who was legitimately persecuted? Like is your response to the Rohingya in Burma just "lol, how is genocide real, just move country lol"

Again, I need to emphasize that my argument is NOT about taxes, I'm using them as a convenient example. My argument is about threat of violence being used to enforce the rules of every nation. Arguing about whether or not taxes are fine because you can move country is a non-sequitur because my argument works just as well if we're talking about a law you personally would find unpalatable like a law persecuting homosexuals. "Lol just move out of Saudi Arabia dude, lol"

>My argument is that violence is the ultimate and supreme authority
Yet it's not the sole authority, and an orderly society is not predicated on the threat of violence to it's community while lasting long.
I think you are missing the point, user. They are alternatives, depending on the situation, to avoid open violence that can carry a multitude of consequences depending on the game. Modern games especially it is foolish to resort to violence as a primary means.

>Oh I do?

Yeah.

>Where do I sign up for that service then?

There's no such public service, but those would cost taxpayers money.

>I would like to be shipped out of the country.

Just arrenge it yourself.

>Surely I don't need a passport, plane ticket, money, or even a place to go though.

You can leave without any of those things.

>Since its my right and all.

Yes, you can literally walk to another country. Notice that refugees don't usually have any of those things.

/pol/ pls go and stay go

Societal evolution mate, quite simply. The nations that didn't have a way to effectively and decisively enforce their policies fractured and got cannibalized by other nations. That means violence. The ethics of the laws in a democracy should ideally align with the ones of the electorate. In the case of something morally abominable to a large segment of the population, well you have a revolution on your hands. Violence to answer violence, as historically evidenced.

But taxes aren't the fucking example you wanna be using for that you imbecile. It's literally people with more time and more information on their hands deciding (often suboptimally) what they should be used for.

But it's still a hell of a lot better than some voulentary shit show like fucking somalia or afghanistan, take it from someone with firsthand experience.
Voulentary social services are ultimately a way to virtue-signal, feel generous or fulfill a -local- societal obligation. They are shit at actually helping in any effective logistical way.