The Ur-Quan Masters Discussion Forum

I'm sure this question was asked before, but it has been the subject of some heated debate recently.

A friend of mine and I regularly hold melee challenges to hone our skills in anticipation of a real StarControl II sequel. Our last battle ended with each team's armada being destroyed except for one heavily damaged Kor-Ah and a Shofixti scout.

So, during the last round of this melee, the Shofixti captain (named Tanaka, I believe) activated his StarGlory device effectively destroying the Kor-Ah ship and ending the melee.

Now, the question is: Is this considered a tie or a victory for the player ending the game with the Shofixti suicide? Keep in mind that the Shofixti's winning theme is played at the end of this round.

What do you guys think?

Should we put this to a vote?

To the Shofixti, it is victory.

I've had this happen in tournaments. Although the game plays the Shofixti victory song and it treats the Shofixti player as though their ship were not destroyed in the final score, we count these as a tie and that is how I see it. Yes, it is probably worth putting to a vote.

It's a tie

I count it as a Shofixti victory tbh because it successfully used its glory device (secondary power) to deliver the deathblow.

Oh for heaven’s sake people.

It successfully used its glory device to destroy both parties. Just because that’s what it intended to do doesn’t mean it won the battle. If you’re trailing by 3 points in a rugby game and choose to kick a fieldgoal to TIE, and are successful, that doesn’t mean you win – it means you tie

You do not win by blowing yourself up.

Just because the shofixti is small and cute doesn’t mean it wins. At the end of the melee noone is left. So it’s a tie – no question. It plays the shofixti ditty because it might as well.

This is why I think victory shouldn't depend on whose ships were all destroyed, but who lost the most points. Then we don't have little disputes like this.

Thaks for all the replies!

We decided to put an end to the debate by loading up StarControl 1. At the end of the melee, the game declares a "draw" with a question mark displayed on the screen.

Thus, it is a tie.

So by that logic that means if an Arilou kills an enemy ship, uses its teleport during the ditty and explodes in the planet/asteroid that's also a tie even though you "did" kill the enemy ship by beaming it to death.

I don't see why the Shofixti should be penalised for using its kamikaze successfully, you didn't stop a 5 point ship from using its glory device (special) so you should take the loss, otherwise why bother with a defective ship when you might as well get an Umgah Drone or ZFP for 1/2 points more as these ships can "win" battles. Granted the Shofixti has its uses like forcing first pick, Chmmr bombing or blowing up an Arilou but that's about it as players are forced to not use the Shofixti until last because it costs them victory.

This.

There's always asking PR3 or Fred Ford if we can get clarification on who wins, then its Word of God on this in SC2 which will end debates :P

Yes. everyone from both sides is eliminated in the melee. Likewise if the last two ships destroy each other at the same time.

And if PR3 and FF said Shofixti wins I'd STILL disagree  :O

(http://i211.photobucket.com/albums/bb278/SunBloom/end_of_thread2.gif)

Seriously, I don't think that makes sense. If for example this happened with a 40 point team and a 300 point team, does that not sound like a victory for the 40 point team? Likewise with a 178 point team and a 184 point team, you'd have to agree that the 178 point team accomplished more than the 184 point team.

That's like saying that a squad of 50 soldiers wiping out a squad of 200 soldiers, but being wiped out themselves, is a victory. That's only a victory for the armchair generals, the soldiers are all DEAD.

What I really like about Star Control melee is that the ships are so different, and there so many exceptions (like Arilou not having inertia or Slylandro not having a living crew). So I vote for Shofixti win, because that makes the ship more unique.


:o Sacrilege!

Heh, I can't remember more than one topic since 2003 where UQMites have stopped talking about something once a clear resolution to the original topic was presented.


It depends on what you accomplish by doing so. If the death of 50 soldiers buys you some advantage that can be prized higher than their lives, it's your duty as an armchair general (or starfleet commander) to get those soldiers wiped out. For the greater glory.


While I generally think your idea is good, wouldn't this kind of ruin the aforementioned 40 to 300 point battle? I mean, wouldn't the battle be over as soon as the 300 point fleet had lost 41 points of ships? Still, I assume this kind of battle is hardly common. In your other example it makes more sense, but the fundamental issue remains. If the 184 point team has lost 179 points worth of ships and has a 5 point Shofixti left, there's not really any point in continuing the fight, is there?

But what do I know, I'm not a melee player. Maybe you have some sort of ranking system to make it worthwhile the whittle the other person down to a total loss.

If those are your last 50 soldiers, then what have you accomplished? Aside from getting them killed, of course.

You've killed the last 200 enemy soldiers, ensuring that they can no longer threaten your civilian population, your civil infrastructure or your way of life. You've also bought yourself some time to train new soldiers while they do the same, and ensured that the next time they send soldiers their morale will be much lower, as they are expecting to encounter a superior force. Furthermore you've hampered our overpopulation problem by removing 250 potential fathers from the word population. Economically speaking, you won't have to hold a lot of parades for the heroes that return from the war, and you've probably also saved a pretty penny on medical rehabilitation of veterans since you now have none. And seeing as you've prevented your own soldiers from rising to prominence, you've also removed the remote chance that one of them might become a politican after the war, gathering followers based on his past military prowess and accomplishments rather than any sound political platform.

So all in all, the benefits of having all your soldiers die whilst wiping out the enemy are far greater than the loss of human life. I don't see how you, in good conscience, could pass up such a opportunity should it present itself.

me too,it successfully used its glory device

I'm not sure where civilians come into melee tournaments.

Both teams start with 200 points worth of ships.  Who has something left at the end wins. Why would you create a special rule for Shofixti.

Conceivably another weak ship could make some kind of sacraficing manouver to destroy a more powerful ship resulting in both ships' destruction. Is THAT a tie?

It isn't normal for both teams to have EXACTLY 200 points. For example, one team might have 199, while the other has 197. So the 197 point team wins. If, by some chance, they have the exact same number of points, it's a tie.

We're following the age old tradition of topic drift. But obviously you're fighting to protect your civilians in melee as well, so the point is similar although the jargon would be different.


Technically, the special rule has already been created by the games makers. In fact, to make it extra fun they've provided us with two different rule sets. In SC1 killing the last enemy with your glory device gives you a tie. In SC2 it (apparently?) gives you a victory. Or at least plays the victory ditty. So it's up to you wheteher you want to argue that the SC2 rule supercedes the SC1 rule, or if they are equally valid alternative rule sets.


How would this happen? An Umgah bumping a Chenjesu into a planet and getting killed at the exact same moment as the Chenjesu? To be serious for a moment I'd say that the Shofixti scores a moral victory by killing his enemy this way, but it's not really a tactical victory.

Look at it from another perspective - Kohr-Ah managed to lure the Shofixty to self-destruct . The fact Kohr-Ah was the lst ship and died in the process doesn't matter - Kohr-Ah wins .

I'd say a tie is a tie .

The Kohr-Ah are genocidal, not suicidal. I don't think "I tricked you into killing me" is one of their more common tactics. But you'd make a fine addition to my army. Just 49 people more who think like you and I'll show that Draxas that some people are happy to be sacrificed for the greater good.

So, basically, a draw. A perpetual war (and propaganda) machine like this one could easily wipe out the entire population of both sides while accomplishing nothing in terms of actual gains. So yeah, most of World War 1.


That's a strangely effective propaganda machine, apparently.

Let's look at it this way: Who is the winner of the Thraddash - Ilwrath war (besides Zelnick, anyway)? While it certainly seems like the Thraddash got to take the final parting shot by nuking the Ilwrath homeworld, does that mean they're the winners? Or did the Ilwrath win because they wiped out the Thraddash first before being glassed theselves? Or would you like to apply the logical solution, and declare it a draw since they're both all dead anyway? Answer this question, and you can easily extrapolate it to determinethe winner of your Shofixti - whoever duel.

Why are you people arguing about this as if it can be decided objectively? o_O

For Shofixti win: the fact its special ability is suicide, ship uniqueness, Star Control 2 ditty.
For tie: strategic point of view, fairness with other ships, Star Control 1.

It's a subjective choice.

No, a clear victory for the defender who doesn't get his lands sacked and pillaged, and a clear loss for the aggressor who doesn't get to sack and pillage, and has to explain at home why his troops were wiped out by such a small enemy force. There's nothing that says that the war has to continue after such a pyrrhic victory, it may well be that the aggressor realises his folly.


Are you surprised that people are all too happy to die for the stupidest/noblest of reasons?


Although your example isn't relevant to the whole soldier situation (since here all the civvies get wiped out as well, it's easy to answer. The winner is the Traddash, hands down. They were attacked by an unprovoked aggressor, and managed to ensure that the attack cost the Ilwrath much more than they had been expecting to pay. The fact that they managed to run loops around the invading fleet and wipe out the Ilwrath home base is quite impressive. The fact that the end result sees them all ending up dead is irrelevant, the Traddash can declare a moral victory. And since there is no one left to take advantage of the strategic situation neither can claim a strategic victory. So that means one side has a moral victory, and the other has nothing to show.

This thread is much more fun than I expected.


I don't really care about the Shofixti scout, I'm just here to argue 50 soldiers vs. 200 soldiers. And apparently also the Traddash Ilwrath war.

The Kohr-Ah did no such thing. The Shofixti destroyed themselves when they were approached by the Ur-Quan Kzer-Za armada in an attempt to weaken the Ur-Quan forces.

:o
He said that as a purely hypothetical example in the Super-Melee, not as something that actually happened in SC2 ;)

Not to sound like a filthy hippie, but "There are no winners in war, only losers."

Besides, clearly the 50 troops must have had the high ground, or were far better trained and/or equipped, in which case the agressor's forces may have performed much better than expected. After all, if the 200 had spears, and the 50 had assault rifles, then perhaps the 200 are the winners. They're still all dead, though.


Not in the slightest. Human beings seem to have what sometimes seems to be an overwhelming need and desire to throw their lives away. Good for you for helping make that dream a reality!


Well, one has to say that a moral victory really can't be declared if there's nobody left to gloat about it. Besides, moral high ground seems to be even, because both sides were wiped out fighting for the core tenets of their society: The Ilwrath were being undeniably evil by starting an unprovoked war for the sake of a better scrap, and the Thraddash were fighting someone (and being sneaky and underhanded about it to boot), which is pretty much their sole reason for existing save recounting old stories of how they did the same thing before. So it seems like a draw even in the moral theater.


Same here. Hooray for pointless debate and topic derailment!

Not even a purely hypothetical example, but rather the actual event that led to the creation of this thread. The first post states that they had a Shofixti and a Kohr-ah fighting, and the Shofixti went kaboom.

Draxas, I'll get to your filthy hippydom later ;)

I'm with the filthy hippy. This whole thread sounds like an argument for the futility of deciding a winner in war.

That's what the losers say. The winners either say something along "Har har we've got your womenfolk and riches you weaklings" or "That's right! Run back to the hole you came from you filthy invaders, we kicked your asses good!" The losers, be they downtrodden and occupied or running for the hills are the ones who are going "Well you know actually, there are no winners in war".


You are changing the parameters of your example. There was no talk of weaponry or positions, just the question of whether the loss of life could accomplish something of greater value than the loss itself. I've given you several examples of when this can be the case. Protecting civilians and/or societeal integrity would probably be foremost among those. Your reply has mostly been "But they are all dead!" I'm not saying (other than in jest) that every time you have the possibility to get yourself killed you should do so. I'm saying that in some circumstances the price may well be worth paying.

Basically, you're standing inside a circle with 250 men watching them all die and drawing the conclusion that it amounted to nothing. I'm standing outside the circle observing what effect this had on a larger scale. Did the brave villagers protect their village from a marauding horde they had no chance of escaping? Did they trade the certain death of everyone in the village for their own certain death? Or did they just get themselves killed for the sake of some pointless religious argument? There's a world of difference.


Because there are things more important than your own life. You'd make a terrible Shofixti ;)

A simpler way to do explain this might be to down the scale. You and your wife are walking down the street when an armed mugger jumps you. He has a big knife in hand, and yells "I'm going to kill you both deader than the dead guy who died too fast!" with a crazy meth gleam in his eyes. Then he charges your wife. You're a fairly trim guy so you know that if you want to, you'll be able to throw yourself between him and your wife. You also know that this'll only slow him down for a moment. Fortunately, being a kung fu movie buff you know how to twist someones neck right off. But in doing so you'll be letting down your guard and give him ample chance to stab you. So what do you do? 1) Let your wife die and run. 2) Throw yourself in front of your wife and die, but don't hurt the robber because then no one wins. He kills your wife 3 seconds later. 3) Kill the robber and die yourself, protecting your wife. Ignoring my ridiculous "just so" setup, I've been arguing that in general solution 3 can sometimes be a valid response. Because you may value some things much higher than your own life.


I don't think you need to declare a moral victory. And even if no one is left behind, that doesn't change the way things were.


This sounds pretty much like cultural relativity. Just because they are fighting according to their tenets doesn't mean we judge them according to that. We judge them according to our tenets, in which the Traddash were much better and claimed a moral victory.


Just you wait. I touched on absolute morality, which means Resh Aleph is going to come in here any minute and then we'll really be involved in a highly complicated quote war filled with unnecessary tunneling. But who cares, as long as we're having fun!

None of your points seem completely valid to me because life itself never works in absolutes. But if I had to choose, I would be obliged to say that Luki now needs only 48 soldiers more for his Army of Zealots. I too value many things in my life much more than my own hide; as I see it there is no greater deed that one can do in it's life then to give his own life for something/someone that he loves (not for what he believes in, but loves). History tends to tells us the same thing - who can say that Spartans or the Japanese were wrong? I personally don't see any point in living the rest of your time knowing that you forfeited everything just to save your own @$$. Talking about bleak and pointless existence. :P

So, in a tribute to that:

--- via commlink ---
Lord111:I see I was wrong to expect Shofixti's commitment to at least match our own.
Daikon: Doesn't it?
[points to Ur-Quan soldier behind Lord111]
Daikon: You there, what is your profession.
Lord345: I'm a scientist.
Daikon: And you, Ur-Quan, what is your profession?
Lord667: Bureaucrat, alien. 
Daikon: Bureaucrat.
[turns to the third soldier on the comlink screen]
Daikon: You?
Lord533: Engineer.
Daikon: [turns back shouting] Shofixti! What is your profession?
Shofixti: KYAIIEE! KYAIIEEE! KYAIIEEE!
Daikon: [turning to Lord111] You see, old friend? I brought more soldiers than you did.

 ;D ;D ;D :) 8)

Fair enough, for the sake of the debate we're putting things on an edge. In real life, you seldom know that killing 50 of your own men is truly worth the sacrifice.



Heh, my army grows.  ;D

In this case, since everyone is dead, they would actually say something more along the lines of "....." or perhaps, if the the circumstances were just so, "braaaains." But that's not really relevant.


Well, now that's not fair to say. I'm simply extrapolating my example based on some of the known parameters of the original example (Shofixti vs. whatever, where the Shofixti's only real weapon involves self-sacrifice, and the Shofixti is valued less than whoever they happen to be fighting). You, on the other hand, are inferring the existence of an entire world affected by our battle of 50 vs. 200, which the original example (based on Super Melee, which exists in a vacuum that encompasses the orbit around exactly one planet that is so hostile to the combatants that every time they try to land on it, 1/3 of their crew spontaneously combusts) clearly omits. Therefore, I think we have to declare that either both of our changing parameters are valid, or none of them are (or perhaps, only mine are, since I made an airtight argument for them).


Nope, no difference at all. Since they're all dead, only the chroniclers are left to ponder their motives, which are quite likely to be inscrutable to anyone not directly involved. We can guess all we want, but we will never know the truth: that they were all being mind controlled by a mad scientist, in order to gauge our reactions to this scenario and cause us to argue. Don't play into his hands!


I appreciate the compliment.


Hey, I live in America. If all that sucker has is a knife, he's going to be deader than a doornail before he can finish his threat, since both my wife and I are carrying concealed assault rifles, as per the American way. Thanks, NRA!

In all (sort of) honesty, though, chances are good that the meth head is going to kill us both regardless of the scenario. Being hopped up on meth means he's quite likely going to have enough juice keeping him going even after he loses his head, in order to stab us both, as well as anyone attracted to the scene by the violence for a bit afterwards. Or, alternatively, he's really far down the spiral of addiction, and he's really not capable of doing serious damage to either of us, in which case he'll just get his head twisted off by my (apparently) mad kung-fu skillz.

Or is that PCP? Hmm...


Sure you do. Otherwise the historians get to decide. Since both species were wiped out, those would be all the other aliens who both the Ilwarth and Thraddash pissed off with their constant attepmts to pick fights. So much for moral victories; both will simply be dismissed as terribly violent savages that wiped each other out in an orgy of genocidal and pointless violence. Likely that biased account would be met with much cheering and clapping of appendages. Fortunately, we are fortunate to have unbiased and impartial judges of history (AKA: us) to make this call. So make the right, unbiased, impartial call: agree with aliens and say nobody won.


I don't know whose tenets those are, but they sure don't jive with the unbiased, impartial, and correct aliens above, who decided it was a draw.


Hooray! More people to validate the existence of our mad debate would mke me even happier!


Aw man. Nobody wants to join my army of 200. :'(

Heh, fair enough. The armchair generals in your original example then.


I'm not saying your parameters are invalid, I'm simply remarking that you've shifted them without any clear reason. Your original example provided not only 250 men, but also armchair generals who could congratulate themselves. Therefore, as you say, it is quite logical to extrapolate any number of circumstances. After all, you've established outside observers. That infers more action outside of the battlefield than we can see. Your parameters are valid, but your train of thought inconsequential here. I've already stated that I'm not arguing that every single time this situation arises it's the right thing to do, only that there may be circumstances where this is the preferable course of action. If I was arguing that killing the sods off every time was the correct thing to do (except in jest), you'd have completely disproved me. But since all I'm arguing is that there may be situations where this is the preferable course of action. And I daresay that for any events you extrapolate, I can find a opposite.


As we've established, it is quite valid to extrapolate. Thus, there may well be circumstances that matter. Both to those dying and those observing.


You're welcome. cough*Spathi*cough ;)


You are arguing the details of the example rather than the thought behind it. Also, snapping someone's neck pretty much ensures that they won't be moving afterwards. Think up similar scenario where you have to take a bullet for your wife and have the choice of firing one while doing so or not. Oh, and your wife forgot her gun at home.


Does it really matter to them what inferior historians from snivelling races think? While we can judge them according to our system, they won't care much unless we can persuade them to.


Wait, I'm confused. What are you talking about?


This might still become very beautiful.


I think that morally you are an army of 200  ;)

Who the what now? I haven't really followed the soldier discussion, but you guys seem to be doing quite enough of it without my help. :P

Not when they are all dead :P

More seriously, not anymore. Technology has accelerated the costs of both building and being hit by weapons far faster than the benefits of pillage.

Yeah - 3) can be a valid response. It's just that it doesn't have anything to do with victory.

Did someone just change the Matrix?


Not with a military victory, because this is a scaled down analogy of the previous example. But if you look at it at it's most basic, he is your enemy. If he wins, he has defeated you and stands victorious. If you give your life to stop him then you are victorious, having protected that which is more important than life.

No, he is not my enemy - he is just something which is likely to kill me (and this hypothetical 'wife'). Compare: a tornado suddenly appears as my wife and I are walking down the street. If it kills us both, it is not 'victorious', and if I manage to die while saving my wife, I have not somehow 'defeated' the tornado.

I'm reluctant to assign victory or defeat except when both participants have agreed (at least implicitly) on a particular contest.

The hypothetical mugger isn't exactly intelligent either.

Those were provided merely for the sake of saying that only the most callous and distant observers of a battle would think of declaring a victor. Really, those armchair generals are stand-ins for us, who are having this debate.


Since when has "reason" been involved here?

Seriously, though, the whole intent was to show that this scenario, taking place in a vacuum like Super Melee, ends with no victor. Besides, if there were no observers, could we even prove that a battle took place?


MAD SCIENTIST! MAD SCIENTIST! Get your tinfoil hat before it's too late!


Dear God, please don't let me die today. Tomorrow would be so much better.

Also please keep me and my wife away from armed muggers and lopsided battles.


Ever see a chicken run around headless after a trip to the chopping block? It's the same sort of thing... Though it may not apply to humans quite as readily.

Besides, as EP said, it's a bad example. Not least of all because the scenario described does not involve the death of all participants, which means it's no longer analogous to the original example. Even if you could consider this scenario a "battle," there is no question who the victor is: the hypothetical wife who is still alive. That's like argiung whether or not the original scenario is a win or tie for the Shofixti player while he still has another ship in reserve.


History is written by the winners, or in this case, the survivors. Since both Ilwarth and Thraddash are dead, that leaves only outside aliens to decide. Besides, the participants probably won't much care who is doing the judging, seeing as how they're all dead.


Why, the alien judges of history regarding the Ilwrath - Thraddas war, of course. You know, the ones that declared them savages who blasted each other into mutual extinction, resulting in a genocidal draw?


It already is beautiful, and can only become moreso. There is nothing like watching a tangent gracefully extend, then branch chaotically in all directions, consuming the original shape.

Ah, the wonders of nature.


Unfortunately, I am physically but one, and the requisite armchair general observer to boot. So, you may now consider this a recruitment drive. Join the army of 200!

Since neither side survived, both sides lose.

To me the phrase armchair general implicates someone who is actually commanding those forces from afar. But even distant observers implicate that there will be someone around after the battle.


In that case I've clearly misunderstood you. Since you started talking about soldiers and commanding officers, I thought you were making a general point about warfare, i.e that in a battle where both sides are wiped out there are no winners. That's what I took issue with, giving examples of situations where sacrifice might be worthwhile. You even replied to that making some general points about WWI which seemed to indicate that my understanding of your example was correct, i.e that we were talking about an actual situation.

But now it seems you were making a specific observation along the lines of:

"If the entire universe consists of only 250 men and all else is void and no observers or outside forces exist, neither force can claim victory if both are wiped out. And only people who do not exist in that universe but rather hover in their own small adjoining universes that are in no way affected by this battle at all can claim that to be a victory. How these people manage to observe a neighbouring universe and why they do so when it has no affect on them is not important for this example. Why they would declare anything victory or defeat in that adjoining but not connected universe is also not known but they just do so."

If so then fair enough, you are of course correct. The only possible argument in this situation is that it puts those poor sods out of their misery, doomed as they are to live in nothingness. That's a pretty horrible fate in itself. That wasn't what I inferred from your example though. And when you started arguing specifics I assumed that my, er, assumption, was correct.


No thanks, I'll leave the tinfoil to those who need it. You look dashing.


Or at least have the muggers exist in their own separate universes which can be observed but don't really affect you?


That's an interesting point. But I'd say that has more to do with random impulses on the bodies side than any coherent thought. If that were the case, I'd assume they'd not run around but rather try to kick the bastard who cut their head off.


Keep in mind that you're agreeing with someone who thinks that a tornado and a thug has the same level of intelligence. That's an interesting view of the world, but not one I feel inclined to argue about. Regarding the example, it's not bad. You're just staring at the trees so hard that you can't see the forest. Draw a circle around yourself and the mugger. That's your 250 soldiers duking it out. Look outside the circle at your wife and the rest of the world. That's where all those observers and armchair generals that are affected by the outcome of a battle usually hang out.

But since we've established that you were apparently making a fairly odd soldier analogy to supermelee rather than talking about actual soldiering, you are of course correct. Now that I see what you're trying to bring forth, your wife and the rest of the world would have to live in another universe to make this work. To be honest, it also makes your example kind of weird.Tthe only such situations we are ever likely to encounter appear in other video games, so you made some sort of simile between an actual videogame and the exact same situation in another theoretical videogame. That doesn't really negate any of the discussion you were responding to, it's still just a matter of how you define victory in the game.


Except I haven't been arguing about who is writing SC universe history, or human history for that matter. I've been arguing who scores a moral victory from my perspective. The Traddash and Ilwrath won't care about whoever comes after them, since they are dead. And even if some survived (which is not entirely unlikely, given that at least the Ilwrath serve aboard Ur-Quan ships), they still wouldn't care. The only ones who care about what historians say, are those who subscribe to the same worldview. And in the long run, history really isn't an absolute. 1000 years forward the event might be recalled as the "Henious Human Trick"


I don't know what history books you've been reading, but mine all say the filthy humans continued their onsalught on the peaceful Hierarchy races. Some of them also mention the old corrupt historians from that age, and their shameful attempts to explain away unwarranted genocide and theft.


Sometimes, very rarely you get to see a great ending as well. First you branch out and people join the argument. Then slowly, the branches close off, one by one until nothing remain. Like a beatiful tree of words blooming and then dying as winter comes.


My army of 50 lives in a world with people they love and things to defend. Your army of 200 apparently lives in a small pocket universe where nothing matters (or even exists!) and they eagerly await enemies to prove the futility of their existence. I think suicides might become an issue in your army.

I wonder what Lord Vetinari would have to say about this neat little discussion and about the moralities of human survival and human sacrifice...and he would probably be right  ;)  :)

If a battle is fought in a forest, and nobody is there to observe it, and all 250 troops are wiped out, did any of them make a sound?


Very good. Now that the original debate is satisfactorily resolved, now we can talk about lands to defend and needless sacrifice and armchair general gloating, while all of those folks looking for some resolution about whether a Shofixti Scout's final suicide is a win or draw (who abandoned this thread about 2 pages ago) will have some resolution via a totally unreasonable and nearly nonsensical metaphorical example. Hooray!


Well, in that case, I suppose I should make a tinfoil goatee to match. That way I can be a lovable tinfoil rogue.


That sounds like the best place to put them, yes. Stupid muggers trying to take my stuff.


Are you sure you want to start a new tangent about a chicken's capacity for revenge? I'd be happy to debate.


I guess that means you don't want to debate whether or not weather patterns have a malevolent intelligence of their own. Ah well.

The real problem with you parallel is that your circle is too small. My hypothetical wife (let's call her Hypowife, or perhaps Edna) is in far too close a proximity to the "battle" that is occurring to be considered an outside observer. Considering that, should I fall in battle (or if she decided she might actually want to help instead of letting me do all the work and dying), she will be left to defend herself, it's hard to consider her as anything other than another combatant. That being the case, after my suicidal attack where I beat the mugger to death with my own spine, she would still be left to mourn, as a victorious widow. She wins a bittersweet victory, but at least she's still alive.


Well, that was the original point of this debate. But that's resolved now, so we don't have to harp on it anymore, right?

.....

You're going to harp on it for the rest of the post, aren't you.


Well, if we are solely talking about your perspective, then there is hardly a debate to be had. However, if we consider this debate from the viewpoint of the survivors (everyone besides the Ilwrath and Thraddash who might observe the outcome of the war), the issue becomes a bit more murky, but not much. Nobody wins if the outcome is mutual extermination. It's sort of akin to a US - Russian nuclear exchange that glasses both nations (well, assuming that it's a very thorough glassing that eliminates 100% of both populations): the rest of the world might survive to observe the aftermath, but who had the moral high ground or who started it or any other nuance is lost in the fact that both nations have been utterly destroyed.


Huh. My history books describing the even seem to think that the theft of the Aqua Helix and start of the war made for a terribly amusing good time, har har har. The fact that it ended in mutual genocide just made the punchline that much better, har har har!


And then, years later, when everyone thought that the tree of words had left merely a beautiful and interesting corpse to observe for all the ages, suddenly a new shoot springs from the old, dead wood. And thus the cycle of life is eternal.


I knew it! You are still harping on that!

I suppose, if it would help recruitment, I could move my army of 200 into the same pocket dimension as yours... If I had an army of 200. Right now, it's just me, the armchair general, still trying to recruit my army of futility to battle against your 50 paragons of peace, love, and defending what's important through mutual extermination.

Maybe I should offer free cookies to everyone who enlists. Better yet, maybe I should just put some slick looking ads on TV; that seems to work for everyone else, apparently.

I think a better question would be; if Draxas makes a reply on a forum, is it in any way connected to what he is quoting? The Magic 8ball says "Try again later".


Actually, those of us who have been reading the thread and not just coming up with… interesting examples would probably agree that that issue was resolved here (http://forum.uqm.stack.nl/index.php?topic=4403.msg57198#msg57198), here (http://forum.uqm.stack.nl/index.php?topic=4403.msg57226#msg57226) or at the very latest here (http://forum.uqm.stack.nl/index.php?topic=4403.msg57249#msg57249). But I can see how you'd miss that.


On you, it looks dashing. An improvement, really.


I can think of other people who I'd love to shunt into small separate universes at times. It'd be a handy product. The downside is that my company would go bankrupt pretty quickly.


Keep on trucking, I’m sure it’ll work out in the end. Tell me about your thoughts on chicken revenge! Is there any fabric to the rumors that they plan to consume everyone without a tinfoil goatee right this instant????


Not really. But feel free to make an argument and I'll see if it's worth responding to. Be sure to include the difference between tornadoes, typhoons and flash rain. I hear typhoons are real pricks, but tornadoes can be surprisingly helpful around the house.


Wow. This is a pretty good troll, I have to say. I should have caught it earlier but I guess I was too caught up in myself. Well done! On the off chance that all that tinfoil is affecting you and you actually posted "Trees trees trees your example works exactly as intended but I don't just get it", feel free to PM me for an explanation.


Well, only in the parts of the post where we've been talking about two completely different situations and I feel the need to clarify the difference between what I’ve been talking about and what you’ve been talking about. I guess you could call that to harp, but following that logic I’d prefer you call it bamboozle or masticate. If we’re just assigning random verbs I think they should at least sound funny.


Well, you did ask me who won the war. You didn't ask me who Star Control historians of your choosing will determine to have won the war. Nor did you ask me what the survivors will think, or what members of other races will think. Tricky distinctions I know, and in hindsight I should probably have assumed that you were talking about some higher absolute truth rather than what you were actually asking for.


Well, I guess that just goes to show that history isn't always written by the winners and isn’t as absolute as you seem to have been making out. That's a good thing for the Persians, but not as good for the person arguing that all that matters is the opinion of the historians.


Not if you cut it down and make firewood out of it. Then it will just give you a warm satisfied glow and you can plant a new one in the spring!


Bamboozling, please! Actually, I'm being consistent in my post and applying my realisation of your intent to all the places where we've been talking past each other in the interest of good communications. In this case you've not been just talking past me, but also past my recruits, who all signed up for love and honour and such. I don't recall any of them posting "I want to join Lukipelas army in the emptiness of Draxas empty universe of meaninglessness and fight to the death!" But I can see how that would confuse you, seeing as communicating well doesn't exactly appear to be your forte. Tunnel quoting on the other hand, that you’re a natural at that.


Here's a helpful hint. My pocket dimension is the actual universe we're living in. What you need to do is find the pocket dimension where your dashingly brilliant example takes place.


Once you find your pocket dimension, be sure to put some ads on TV. If nothing else, it'll help those of us lacking the psychic ability needed to decipher your examples in threads on internet forums. Money well spent. ;)