NCSoft obviously doesnt care about us

[Rust]

I did wonder about that when Ken Macleod got a Prometheus Award (for "libertarian" SF) for The Stone Canal. Did they fail to notice it's a dystopia written by a Scottish Trotskyite?

I've often screamed at the TV when news of current government shenanigins is on: "Orwell wrote 1984 as a warning - not a manual!"

[Phaetan]

Please.
Everyone knows that Scotland is a fiction created by the UN to keep people from asking what is really lurking there.

[FatherXmas]

Well their new building is done-ish.  They're moving in in August.

I envy not. Let's go to the Pangyo Valley! (via Google Translate)

You are going to need to feed it to Google Translate if you want to read it.  It's not just about NCSOFT but other companies located there and how they provide all these amenities to their workers and families ala Google.  What caught my eye was the picture of the completed building.

[Felderburg]

I forgot to post in this topic way back when it was first started. At the time, I could log in just fine at the time, so I assumed the issue was for people who had only CoH on their account. Before I posted just now, I went to verify I could log in - I couldn't, and got the same error. However, I had tried logging in with my username - logging in with my email in the account name field worked just fine, and I can see my account info. In both cases, I got emails saying I was logging in from an unknown IP.

Just thought I'd share for those that do want to log in.

[LadyShin]

So... I told myself in the past that I would never go ahead and play another NCSoft game..

Well for the first time since COH closed, I went ahead and tried.

Joke's on me! In that time apparently they feel I broke their policies and operations guidelines and they suspended/blocked my account.

 

...Dies laughing.

[MaidMercury]

NCsoft hasn't made a dime off me since Nov 2012.....

been playing Mahjongg 

[Ironwolf]

I believe that's oversimplistic to the point of being obviously wrong.  Speaking generally, the nominally agreed upon role of government is to protect the intrusion of one's rights by another, but rights can be intruded upon without the use of force in lots of ways.  For example defamation is an intrusion of rights without the exercise of force.  Tossing pollution in the water supply is an intrusion of rights without the exercise of force.  If I choose not to hire you or allow you into places of business because of your race, that can be done without any exercise of force.

The issue is that exercise of *power* doesn't always require an overt exercise of force.  Curtailing the abuse of power is probably a better mission statement of governmental oversight than curtailing abuse of force.

The real problem though is that not all rights are private and therefore not all threats to those rights involve an exercise of power against a single (set of) individuals.  If I burn down a forest I've attacked no specific individual's rights and exercised no specific power over any particular individual.  I've damaged a commons.  What a society decides are commons worthy of government protection significantly extends the requirements of government oversight.

I'm ignoring the issue of delegation here as being not central: the notion that the people will, as a rule, delegate authority to the government to handle matters they do not want to do themselves and cannot compel the responsibility to anyone else.  For example, large metropolitan areas delegate fire fighting services to the government on the assumption that people do not want to literally do that themselves and cannot compel someone else to do for them.  Rights and responsibilities tend to go hand in hand and if no one wants the responsibility to put out fires they surrender both the responsibility to do it and the rights to (directly) manage the service to the government.

Its worth noting that imperfect though they were, the framers of the (US) Constitution were no dummies either: my own opinion of the history of the Constitution is that the framers were aware that the issue of rights arbitration  was the central issue of governance.  That's why we have a Bill of Rights, for example, and very specifically why we have a Ninth Amendment to the Constitution.  If it was an easy task to *know* what are rights were, relative to other people, the US Constitution would simply enumerate them.  The Ninth Amendment in effect admits the Constitution and the Bill of Rights itself is imperfect, incomplete, and subject to future interpretation and extension.  The implication is that human rights might be intrinsic, but they aren't always legally obvious.  And that's why even if the theoretical limit of government authority is small, it must contain the machinery necessary for self-governance.  It must have the power to make laws and enforce and adjudicate them, because what rights we have, how we are allowed to execute them, and what sort of disputes can occur, is always going to be a messy and complex subject.

If this wasn't true, government could simply reserve the right to enforce what we all knew to obviously be our rights.  But because this is true, no government that is so minimal in its nature will ever be workable.

The only issue I have with the US Constitution is there are no penalties enumerated for violations.

For example the US budget - there has been no determined Federal budget for 6 of the last 7 years in direct violaton of the Constitution. There should be penalties established for these failures. Continuing resolutions are very poor substitues. When the president violated the Constitution by appointing labor board members by him declaring that the Senate was in Recess - when in fact they were not and the Supreme Court agreed - it should be set that automatically a vote for Impeachment is forced to be made within 60 days for any members who do these actions.

If Impeachment was the cost for violation of the Constitution, they would pay far more attention to it. Currently they (both parties) do what they want and give lip service at the most to the Constitution.

I would like to see the money drained out of politics by making ALL donations to the main party and never to one person.Then the party could divide the cash up but no one person would be in debt to any individual.

[Codewalker]

[downix]

The only issue I have with the US Constitution is there are no penalties enumerated for violations.

For example the US budget - there has been no determined Federal budget for 6 of the last 7 years in direct violaton of the Constitution. There should be penalties established for these failures. Continuing resolutions are very poor substitues. When the president violated the Constitution by appointing labor board members by him declaring that the Senate was in Recess - when in fact they were not and the Supreme Court agreed - it should be set that automatically a vote for Impeachment is forced to be made within 60 days for any members who do these actions.

If Impeachment was the cost for violation of the Constitution, they would pay far more attention to it. Currently they (both parties) do what they want and give lip service at the most to the Constitution.

I would like to see the money drained out of politics by making ALL donations to the main party and never to one person.Then the party could divide the cash up but no one person would be in debt to any individual.

Actually Ironwolf, the Constitution does not require an enumerated budget. What is requires is "a regular Statement and Account of Receipts and Expenditures of all public Money" to be published from time to time. This has been done, by the Congressional Budget Office.

The Budget as we know it today did not exist until 1921 in fact. And it was always a formality, not a legally binding anything. Expenditure bills are the only binding statements.

(Sorry, father was a politician, and he wrote a piece on this)

[Aggelakis]

Yeah....let's not go there on a game forum.