Unity, in an amazing example of cannon-balling their own lower
extremities, managed to piss off their entire user-base last week with
a rather sudden alteration to the licensing and payment agreements for
using their software, a tool-set used by many independent and smaller developers. It rather drastically changed the deal, from a monthly
'per-seat' price for using the software, to a poorly-defined
'per-install' royalty, the rate for which would be calculated
retroactively. Attempts to clarify the situation by Unity only made
things even more confusing. Worse, Unity announced this change only
three months before it was too take effect; a startlingly short time
given that it can take /years/ for a new game to be developed.

To say that their customers - game developers, both amateur and
professional, large and small - took this poorly would be an
understatement. Unity found /no/ supporters for their high-handed
demands, which is really quite amazing given that even the most
atrocious acts usually find /some/ people willing to support them.
Developers protests included not the usual kvetching, but
cancellations of current licensing, cancellation or removal of
existing games from digital storefronts, shutting down use of Unity's
own advertising programs (used in many free-to-play mobile games) and
more. There are rumors that Apple - which is depending heavily on
Unity for its VR/AR platform - had words. The company's stock price
took an noticeable dip.

So on Monday, Unity blinked.

Well, probably. So far, all we've gotten is a usual non-apology
apology for causing "confusion and angst" and promises to "talk to our customers and partners" to "make changes to the policy". What these
changes will actually consist of remains uncertain, but it seems
unlikely that they will be anywhere as draconian and widespread as
they had intended.

The thing is, what Unity intended isn't really as awful as it first
seems. For most, its pricing remained competitive, and - although no
change forced downwards from corporate overlords will ever avoid some disruption and complaints - this one could have been a far less bitter
pill to swallow. It wasn't so much the pricing which was problematic
as it was Unity's method of announcing it. Forcing it upon existing
users (as opposed to a new license that only applied to new projects),
under such a short time-frame, and with so much confusion about how
the royalty was to be calculated (the 'per-install' is almost never
used in the industry) was ineptitude of the highest order.

Nobody denies Unity a right to raise its prices. Regardless of its
reputation, the Unity engine is incredibly popular and robust. It has
a much lower learning curve than other available engines, and an
incredible amount of support with regards to assets and documentation.
It is the engine of choice for many starting developers for a reason.
But these developers are also much more price sensitive, and much more vulnerable to being taken advantage of. As such, heavy-handed tactics
such as Unity employed were all but guaranteed to result in the sort
of backlash we saw. It was absolutely predictable, and completely
avoidable. That Unity went ahead anyway says a lot about it's C-level management. It is an indictment of their management talents and
business acumen and once again calls into question why they deserve
their inordinately large paychecks.

(It's been suggested that one reason for Unity's action was to promote
the use of its IronSource advertising engine in more games. Already
used by many developers as a drop-in solution, it shares advertising
revenue between Unity and developers. Given Unity's CEO's predilection
for monetizing games, and its insistence on 'per install' royalties
(which would be much easier to calculate if the adware is installed),
this is a distinct possibility. But Unity-the-company had also
over-extended itself purchasing numerous other smaller companies
(including Weta Digital), so maybe it was simply a matter of trying to
pull in more revenue quickly. Regardless, the licensing changes came
across as incredibly self-serving, and Unity's responses over the past
week did nothing to clear the air).

Whether Unity will backtrack entirely - as did Hasbro/WotC with the
d20 License brouhaha - or double-down despite user revolt - as did
Reddit - remains uncertain. It will probably be somewhere in between.
Still, the conciliatory tone shows that Unity has realized that they
have greatly over-stepped in the eyes of their customers. The company
has lost a great deal of trust. It was long seen as an inexpensive and
fairly risk-free way for smaller developers to break into the gaming
industry, and it is unlikely to regain that trust anytime soon.

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

On 9/18/2023 1:12 PM, Spalls Hurgenson wrote:

So on Monday, Unity blinked.

Well, probably. So far, all we've gotten is a usual non-apology
apology for causing "confusion and angst" and promises to "talk to our customers and partners" to "make changes to the policy". What these
changes will actually consist of remains uncertain, but it seems
unlikely that they will be anywhere as draconian and widespread as
they had intended.

"Move along, nothing to see here." Personal opinion, that is likely
just a meaningless PR blurb to quiet people down while the company lies
low for a while before quietly implementing the change exactly as it was announced after everyone has moved on to the next high profile upward fornication.

--
buy them buy them buy them buy them buy them buy them buy them buy them
buy them buy them

I've done good in this world. Now I'm tired and just want to be a cranky
dirty old man.

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

Am 18.09.23 um 22:12 schrieb Spalls Hurgenson:

It was long seen as an inexpensive and
fairly risk-free way for smaller developers to break into the gaming industry, and it is unlikely to regain that trust anytime soon.

Wont help the trust is gone, b2b is quite different than b2c, core
developers have left, I expect unity in its current form as company gone
within 3 years. We might see increased profitability short term but long
term the engine will stall and customers will jump ship towards other
engines.
What Unity did here is basically osborne from a different angle reloaded!

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

On 9/18/23 15:26, Dimensional Traveler wrote:

On 9/18/2023 1:12 PM, Spalls Hurgenson wrote:

So on Monday, Unity blinked.

Well, probably. So far, all we've gotten is a usual non-apology
apology for causing "confusion and angst" and promises to "talk to our
customers and partners" to "make changes to the policy". What these
changes will actually consist of remains uncertain, but it seems
unlikely that they will be anywhere as draconian and widespread as
they had intended.

"Move along, nothing to see here."  Personal opinion, that is likely
just a meaningless PR blurb to quiet people down while the company lies
low for a while before quietly implementing the change exactly as it was announced after everyone has moved on to the next high profile upward fornication.

That seems to be a preeety common thing for companies to say.

--
--
user <candycane> is generated from /dev/urandom

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

On Mon, 18 Sep 2023 13:26:10 -0700, Dimensional Traveler
<dtravel@sonic.net> wrote:

On 9/18/2023 1:12 PM, Spalls Hurgenson wrote:

So on Monday, Unity blinked.

"Move along, nothing to see here." Personal opinion, that is likely
just a meaningless PR blurb to quiet people down while the company lies
low for a while before quietly implementing the change exactly as it was >announced after everyone has moved on to the next high profile upward >fornication.

Leaks from an internal meeting reveal Unity is considering a 4%
revenue-sharing model (that is, 4% of each sale goes to Unity). This
compares well with Epic's 5% cut for using Unreal. Like Unreal, these
fees only take effect for developers pulling in $1 million USD or
more. The poorly defined 'per-install' fees are right out; cuts are
taken from each sale, as is standard in the industry. Developers would self-report installation counts rather than those numbers being
collected automatically by Unity.

Of course, these are notes from an /internal/ meeting rather than any
official announcement, but it does appear that Unity is taking the
revolt of their customers fairly seriously. Neither is there
indication (yet) as to whether or not these new terms would apply to
older projects, or only new ones.

Unity certainly has done itself a lot of self-harm and its
high-handedness has undoubtedly cost it a lot of the trust of
developers. It seems obvious now the direction Unity wants to go, and
its ad-heavy, per-install goals don't seem advantageous to developers.
But the leaked proposal isn't a bad one and - if implemented - should
assuage developers currently in the middle of a Unity-based project.
Whether it's worth it or not to start a NEW project using Unity is
less certain - there's that trust issue - but a major concern for a
lot of developers was how Unity's licensing changes was going to
radically disrupt their financial planning for CURRENT projects.

Ultimately, how palatable these new licensing agreements will be -
assuming the leak is accurate - depends a lot on how Unity presents
them. A genuine mea culpa, solid (licensed-backed) assurances that
there won't be a sudden rug-pull a few months or years down the line,
maybe even a change of leadership... these all would do a lot to earn
them forgiveness.

The Unity engine is amazingly attractive to a lot of developers, not
least because of its robust ecosystem and I think, given the chance,
most of them would prefer to stay with it. Even the original license
changes might have been acceptable had Unity not gone into it so
bull-headedly, but eased their way forward slowly. It was attitude
rather than method that annoyed Unity's customers. Correct that, and
Unity can quell the revolt.

To quote the inimitable Groucho Marx: "The secret of life is honesty
and fair dealing. If you can fake that, you've got it made."

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

On 9/19/23 06:53, Spalls Hurgenson wrote:

To quote the inimitable Groucho Marx: "The secret of life is honesty
and fair dealing. If you can fake that, you've got it made."

Image is everything. Just look at apple!

--
--
user <candycane> is generated from /dev/urandom

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

On 18/09/2023 21:12, Spalls Hurgenson wrote:

The thing is, what Unity intended isn't really as awful as it first
seems. For most, its pricing remained competitive, and - although no
change forced downwards from corporate overlords will ever avoid some disruption and complaints - this one could have been a far less bitter
pill to swallow. It wasn't so much the pricing which was problematic
as it was Unity's method of announcing it. Forcing it upon existing
users (as opposed to a new license that only applied to new projects),
under such a short time-frame, and with so much confusion about how
the royalty was to be calculated (the 'per-install' is almost never
used in the industry) was ineptitude of the highest order.

That's were I do have so sympathy with them, my basic understanding is
that they are having a problem making money (no Fornite style money tap)
so they looked at what they've got and came to the conclusion of aren't
we selling this a bit cheap especially to those that make serious money
out it.

The problem though, boy has it been communicated badly and some of the speculation is that they didn't even have a plan of how it was going to
work in practice. The retrospective part, that just sounds like madness
not to mention probably not legal.

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

On Thu, 21 Sep 2023 10:01:05 +0100, JAB <noway@nochance.com> wrote:

The retrospective part, that just sounds like madness
not to mention probably not legal.

The retroactive part was likely legal.

A Unity license actually gets you two things: the IDE that lets you
create the game (that's the front-end editor and tools the developers
use to make the maps and scripts and AI), and a license to embed the
Unity run-time into your final product. If it was just the former,
Unity would be on extremely shaky ground changing license agreements
on pre-existing projects. But because developers are shipping
Unity-owned code with every copy of their game, Unity has a right to
charge for that privilege of distributing their code.

Until recently, Unity hasn't done this. They've utilized a per-seat
pricing model where developers only paid (usually a monthly fee) for
each developer using the IDE. It didn't matter if your game sold one
copy or 60 million, the price was the same; Unity got no royalties per
sale.

But Unity now wants to change this. They can get away with this
because the developers, if they don't agree to these terms, can just
not distribute Unity's code (of course, doing so will make the
developer's own games non-functional until that code is replaced). But
the developers using Unity's code has always been at Unity's
discretion, and they have always had the right to terminate a license.

What Unity can't do (and isn't) is charge for previous uses of that
license. So a developer who sold/distributed ten million copies of a
game prior to 1 Jan 2024 isn't suddenly going to get a bill for those
earlier sales. However, those earlier sales /will/ be used to
calculate how much they pay for future royalties. Thus, a game that
made ten million sales ten years ago but only sells two copies a year
now will probably get a worse rate than a new game that sells a
million copies a year, because those older sales will be used to
calculate the new royalty rate. If the developer doesn't like this new
rate, they can stop distributing Unity code, either by taking their
game off the market or replacing the Unity-owned runtime.

None of this is really all that unusual, and Unity has themselves
legally covered with the common 'we reserve the right to change
licensing agreements' clause in their EULAs. Unity has been updating
its EULA over the past couple of years in preparation for this change.
There may be some edge-cases for older games which are utilizing an
older runtime that - having never been updated to the new runtimes -
may not be using the new EULAs. In that case, there may be some
question if the new rates could be said to apply, especially since
older EULAs had words that implied that developers could choose the
older terms if they chose. But if a developer has updated game has in
the past year or so, then the developers have agreed to these new
terms, and thus are bound to the more restrictive licensing.

There's also the issue of how that royalty is calculated. Initially,
Unity wanted a 'per install' fee, which is extremely difficult to
calculate, and that calculation would be made entirely by Unity. It is
probably legal* but it opens up many new issues.*

But none of this was illegal. Sketchy, sure (especially depending on
unaudited install counts by a company incentivized to make them higher
than they actually were). Poorly communicated? Definitely. Announced
with too short a time limit so that affected projects wouldn't have
any option except to accept them? Oh yeah. But within the bounds of
the law? Almost certainly.

That's not to say Unity didn't fuck up or that what they did wasn't
immoral. They have a massive power imbalance over their customers -
most of whom are smaller developers whose businesses probably couldn't
survive a change-over to a new engine. Most of them didn't have a
legal department to warn them of the risks of depending on a
third-party as the basis for their projects. They don't have the
business acumen to survive a sudden shift like this license change.

Unity should have taken all this into account. There are many ways
Unity could have walked this change into effect(Announcements of the
coming change years ahead. Pushing it first to new users instead of
onto existing customers. Only affecting premium customers rather than
smaller developers). Instead, they chose the most bull-headed method - everybody, take this deal or fuck you! - and reaped a well-deserved
whirlwind of disappointment and rage. The company messed up.

Just not legally.




----------------
* Specifically, how are those numbers calculated? If it requires
embedded software, it may violate GPRD privacy rights on the end-user
(not the developer). The developer could rightfully question the
accuracy of those numbers too.

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

On Thu, 21 Sep 2023 09:44:48 -0400, in comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.action,
Spalls Hurgenson wrote:

But Unity now wants to change this. They can get away with this
because the developers, if they don't agree to these terms, can just
not distribute Unity's code (of course, doing so will make the
developer's own games non-functional until that code is replaced). But
the developers using Unity's code has always been at Unity's
discretion, and they have always had the right to terminate a license.

IOW, "That's a really nice game you have there, it would be a shame if something bad were to happen to it."

I'd like to read the prior license for code distribution. Are you basing
your opinion on having read it? Does it say, "we can change the terms of
the distribution license whenever we like," or "these are the terms upon
fixed release, your license for the specific Unity code at the time of
release is for the life cycle of the product."

What I'd heard about it being legal is that pre-insUnity* games couldn't release updates because it would then activate the new license, because
they would be releasing the new Unity code in an update. I thought even
that was shaky, unless the whole thing is in the cloud** and you can't
keep your original copy of Unity around. I had thought that older games,
which don't need to be patched (hopefully), were in the clear.

--
Zag

No one ever said on their deathbed, 'Gee, I wish I had
spent more time alone with my computer.' ~Dan(i) Bunten

*If you say that fast enough, it sounds like insanity. Maybe.

**Yet another argument against not having control of local copies when
your business depends on it.

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

On Thu, 21 Sep 2023 19:17:18 -0500, Zaghadka <zaghadka@hotmail.com>
wrote:

On Thu, 21 Sep 2023 09:44:48 -0400, in comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.action,
Spalls Hurgenson wrote:

IOW, "That's a really nice game you have there, it would be a shame if something bad were to happen to it."

Sort of. But the developers entered into a commercial license with
another company. That's one of the risks they took. Whether they
completely understood it or not, use of Unity's software and runtimes
always carried that risk. And while courts tend to be more forgiving
when a contract is made between an individual and a corporation,
licenses made between commercial entities - and that's what this is -
get less leeway.

Arguably, this is an area where the law itself needs to be improved,
because there /is/ a power imbalance between a tiny five-man
development house and a seven-thousand employee corporation like Unity
(such a law would have wide-ranging effects, though). But right now?
Courts assume - in regards to commercial contracts - that if you made
such an agreement, you did so /only after/ thoroughly reviewing it and
- if you didn't - well, that's /your/ problem.

I'd like to read the prior license for code distribution. Are you basing
your opinion on having read it?

I've read the current license*, but most of my interpretation is based
on discourse and conversation with others who are far wiser in that
area than me.

* https://unity.com/legal/terms-of-service

Does it say, "we can change the terms of
the distribution license whenever we like," or "these are the terms upon >fixed release, your license for the specific Unity code at the time of >release is for the life cycle of the product."

Yes.

The relevant bit section 23, where they discuss their rights to change
the terms. Specifically,

23.1: "...You acknowledge that Unity may from time to time
modify, discontinue, substitute or terminate an Offering...",

and

23.2 "...Unity reserves the right from time to time to (and
you acknowledge that Unity may) modify these Terms (including,
for the avoidance of doubt, the Additional Terms) without
prior notice..."

This is fairly standard boiler-plate and apparently has been included
in previous versions of the license agreement for some time (over a
year). Earlier versions of the license did, apparently, have some
language that allowed developers some lee-way (I haven't read it
myself, but something along the lines of 'if we make changes, you have
certain rights to pick-n-choose the license') but that had only
limited reach and, anyway, that language had been written out of the
new licenses some time ago.

What I'd heard about it being legal is that pre-insUnity games couldn't >release updates because it would then activate the new license, because
they would be releasing the new Unity code in an update. I thought even
that was shaky, unless the whole thing is in the cloud and you can't
keep your original copy of Unity around. I had thought that older games, >which don't need to be patched (hopefully), were in the clear.

That is more or less correct. If you want to keep distributing Unity
code, you need a license. There are some questions about the language
contained in older (and we're talking a year or two back) licenses,
which might not have allow Unity to enforce the proposed changes.
Thus, if a developer a) released a game using that older license and
b) hadn't updated its Unity tools or the runtime embedded in the game
since the change, it isn't clear that Unity could enforce its new
terms.

However, if a developer has accepted the updated terms at any time in
the past year or so (either by updating their developer tools or using
the new runtimes), Unity is in the clear. Still, it is unlikely that
there are many developers who released a game three or four years ago
and haven't updated Unity tools or their game since. The few that do
fall into this are the aforementioned edge-cases and /may/ have a
case. But the bulk of developers? Probably not.


Again, this isn't to dismiss the concerns developers have about the
proposed changes, nor am I implying that I agree with how Unity has
imposed - or, at least, tried to impose - those changes. But in my
-admittedly limited - understanding, Unity is probably on firm ground
from a legal standpoint.

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

On Fri, 22 Sep 2023 11:52:24 -0400, in comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.action,
Spalls Hurgenson wrote:

On Thu, 21 Sep 2023 19:17:18 -0500, Zaghadka <zaghadka@hotmail.com>
wrote:

On Thu, 21 Sep 2023 09:44:48 -0400, in comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.action,
Spalls Hurgenson wrote:

IOW, "That's a really nice game you have there, it would be a shame if
something bad were to happen to it."

Sort of. But the developers entered into a commercial license with
another company. That's one of the risks they took. Whether they
completely understood it or not, use of Unity's software and runtimes
always carried that risk. And while courts tend to be more forgiving
when a contract is made between an individual and a corporation,
licenses made between commercial entities - and that's what this is -
get less leeway.

Arguably, this is an area where the law itself needs to be improved,
because there /is/ a power imbalance between a tiny five-man
development house and a seven-thousand employee corporation like Unity
(such a law would have wide-ranging effects, though). But right now?
Courts assume - in regards to commercial contracts - that if you made
such an agreement, you did so /only after/ thoroughly reviewing it and
- if you didn't - well, that's /your/ problem.

I'd like to read the prior license for code distribution. Are you basing >>your opinion on having read it?

I've read the current license*, but most of my interpretation is based
on discourse and conversation with others who are far wiser in that
area than me.

* https://unity.com/legal/terms-of-service

Interesting. It's a ToS and not a formal contract with signatories?

--
Zag

No one ever said on their deathbed, 'Gee, I wish I had
spent more time alone with my computer.' ~Dan(i) Bunten

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

On 9/22/23 14:50, Zaghadka wrote:

Interesting. It's a ToS and not a formal contract with signatories?

So what you're saying is it's Engine as a Service?
--
--
user <candycane> is generated from /dev/urandom

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

On 9/22/2023 7:16 PM, candycanearter07 wrote:

On 9/22/23 14:50, Zaghadka wrote:

Interesting. It's a ToS and not a formal contract with signatories?

So what you're saying is it's Engine as a Service?

Software as a Service.

--
buy them buy them buy them buy them buy them buy them buy them buy them
buy them buy them

I've done good in this world. Now I'm tired and just want to be a cranky
dirty old man.

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

On 9/22/23 21:55, Dimensional Traveler wrote:

On 9/22/2023 7:16 PM, candycanearter07 wrote:

On 9/22/23 14:50, Zaghadka wrote:

Interesting. It's a ToS and not a formal contract with signatories?

So what you're saying is it's Engine as a Service?

Software as a Service.

I really dislike x as a Service, always seems to go downhill instantly.
--
--
user <candycane> is generated from /dev/urandom

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

On 9/22/23 23:31, Dimensional Traveler wrote:

On 9/22/2023 8:06 PM, candycanearter07 wrote:

I really dislike x as a Service, always seems to go downhill instantly.

That would be because the whole point of it is to extort more money from
the customers.

Plus, it adds an arbitrary time limit on everything, including the app
itself. Better buy in fast before it's gone forever!
--
--
user <candycane> is generated from /dev/urandom

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

On 9/22/2023 8:06 PM, candycanearter07 wrote:

On 9/22/23 21:55, Dimensional Traveler wrote:

On 9/22/2023 7:16 PM, candycanearter07 wrote:

On 9/22/23 14:50, Zaghadka wrote:

Interesting. It's a ToS and not a formal contract with signatories?

So what you're saying is it's Engine as a Service?

Software as a Service.

I really dislike x as a Service, always seems to go downhill instantly.

That would be because the whole point of it is to extort more money from
the customers.

--
buy them buy them buy them buy them buy them buy them buy them buy them
buy them buy them

I've done good in this world. Now I'm tired and just want to be a cranky
dirty old man.

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

On Mon, 18 Sep 2023 16:12:57 -0400, Spalls Hurgenson <spallshurgenson@gmail.com> wrote:

And now we have confirmation... Unity blinks /definitely/.

The old proposed terms are gone. The new ones are much more equitable.
No royalty payment ('runtime fee structure') for smaller developers,
and not at all for current or older projects. There will be a run-time
fee, but only for new projects that use the "Long Term Support"
version of Unity and make more than $1 million revenue per year /and/
have more than 1 million 'engagements'.

(An 'engagement', as defined by Unity, is essentially a sale of the
game, although it includes free offerings too. Buy the game on Steam,
that's one engagement. Get it free on Epic, that's a second. The
number of installs from each engagement or number of devices you
install it on are /not/ counted. Engagements are self-reported by the developer.)

Furthermore, royalties are capped to 2.5% of total revenue, so if
you're selling your game at a ridiculously low price, you won't be
killed by fees. And the entire Unity stack is free for developers who
make less than $200,000 per year.

And, again, this newer pay structure only applies to new projects that
use the Long Term Support version. So existing projects that are using
the current or older software aren't affected. Doubtlessly Unity will
be pushing LTS hard in the future, and that version will probably see
updates and support faster than the free versions, but that's
acceptable. You get what you pay for, after all.

The only slightly annoying thing I see is that is no language that
excludes freebies from being counted as 'engagements.' From Unity's
side, this makes perfect sense: the developers are giving away the
Unity runtime, so they deserved to be paid every time the game is
distributed. But it does mean that we'll probably see fewer games that
use the Unity engine offered gratis. Also, I haven't seen any verbiage
yet about how streaming games (such as through GeForce Now) are
counted.

Still, this is a major concession by Unity, and has already been
praised by many developers. It just goes to show that - despite people
often claiming that boycotts and protests are pointless - they can
have affect. Of course, we still haven't seen the details of the new
license, and - even though this gives Unity developers pretty much
everything they demanded - Unity will have to work very hard to
re-establish trust. Worries about another sudden reversal will
doubtlessly plague the company for years. I can understand if many
developers move to another engine for future games but - at least for
those stuck in the middle of a current project - it has removed some
of the fear and uncertainty.

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

On 9/23/23 07:25, Spalls Hurgenson wrote:

On Mon, 18 Sep 2023 16:12:57 -0400, Spalls Hurgenson <spallshurgenson@gmail.com> wrote:

And now we have confirmation... Unity blinks /definitely/.

The old proposed terms are gone. The new ones are much more equitable.
No royalty payment ('runtime fee structure') for smaller developers,
and not at all for current or older projects. There will be a run-time
fee, but only for new projects that use the "Long Term Support"
version of Unity and make more than $1 million revenue per year /and/
have more than 1 million 'engagements'.

Wouldn't be surprised if they still lose their "#1 engine" status.
--
--
user <candycane> is generated from /dev/urandom

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

On Sat, 23 Sep 2023 08:52:39 -0500, candycanearter07 <no@thanks.net>
wrote:

Wouldn't be surprised if they still lose their "#1 engine" status.
--

I was thinking the exact same thing. People are going to remember this
I think.

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

On Mon, 18 Sep 2023 16:12:57 -0400, Spalls Hurgenson <spallshurgenson@gmail.com> wrote:


More blinking from Unity.


After essentially backtracking on almost all their former demands
regarding 'per install' pricing - which royally pissed off pretty much
all their users - they've followed up by sacking CEO John Riccitiello.

Unity has been struggling to regain the trust of their users, and even
with the more favorable terms, many of the customers worried that
Unity hadn't really learned their lesson and might turn around in a
year or two. Riccitiello's removal (well, technically,he is
'retiring') may help alleviate some of these fears.

Of course, Riccitiello isn't entirely to blame for the fiasco
although, as CEO, he rightfully should shoulder most of it. The board
- many made up of IronSource shareholders - reportedly forced many of
the changes on Unity, and, as CEO, Riccitiello was just enacting their
demands. IronSource is the primary component in Unity's mobile
advertising component (and earns Unity a pretty penny in yearly
revenue), and it has been suggested that the now rolled-back changes
were largely a ploy to force more developers to put advertising in
their games. So the changing of the CEO may not amount to much if the
current board remains the same.

Then again, the user rebellion likely taught Unity a lesson it won't
easily forget. You don't earn any money on advertising if nobody uses
your software to develop apps, after all. I don't think it's one that
will need repeating anytime soon.

This is (at least) the second time Riccitiello has fled a company
following a disastrous policy shift, the first being his departure
from EA after the launch of "SimCity" in 2013.

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

On 10/9/2023 3:48 PM, Spalls Hurgenson wrote:

On Mon, 18 Sep 2023 16:12:57 -0400, Spalls Hurgenson <spallshurgenson@gmail.com> wrote:

More blinking from Unity.

After essentially backtracking on almost all their former demands
regarding 'per install' pricing - which royally pissed off pretty much
all their users - they've followed up by sacking CEO John Riccitiello.

Unity has been struggling to regain the trust of their users, and even
with the more favorable terms, many of the customers worried that
Unity hadn't really learned their lesson and might turn around in a
year or two. Riccitiello's removal (well, technically,he is
'retiring') may help alleviate some of these fears.

Of course, Riccitiello isn't entirely to blame for the fiasco
although, as CEO, he rightfully should shoulder most of it. The board
- many made up of IronSource shareholders - reportedly forced many of
the changes on Unity, and, as CEO, Riccitiello was just enacting their demands. IronSource is the primary component in Unity's mobile
advertising component (and earns Unity a pretty penny in yearly
revenue), and it has been suggested that the now rolled-back changes
were largely a ploy to force more developers to put advertising in
their games. So the changing of the CEO may not amount to much if the
current board remains the same.

Then again, the user rebellion likely taught Unity a lesson it won't
easily forget. You don't earn any money on advertising if nobody uses
your software to develop apps, after all. I don't think it's one that
will need repeating anytime soon.

This is (at least) the second time Riccitiello has fled a company
following a disastrous policy shift, the first being his departure
from EA after the launch of "SimCity" in 2013.

"You don't know the power of the Dark Side." :P You can never
overestimate the greed of wealthy stockholders.

--
I've done good in this world. Now I'm tired and just want to be a cranky
dirty old man.

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

On 10/9/23 17:48, Spalls Hurgenson wrote:

Unity has been struggling to regain the trust of their users, and even
with the more favorable terms, many of the customers worried that
Unity hadn't really learned their lesson and might turn around in a
year or two. Riccitiello's removal (well, technically,he is
'retiring') may help alleviate some of these fears.

Wow, actual consequences!!

This is (at least) the second time Riccitiello has fled a company
following a disastrous policy shift, the first being his departure
from EA after the launch of "SimCity" in 2013.

You have to be a special kind of evil to be kicked from EA.
--
user <candycane> is generated from /dev/urandom

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

Am 10.10.23 um 08:11 schrieb candycanearter07:

Unity has been struggling to regain the trust of their users, and even
with the more favorable terms, many of the customers worried that
Unity hadn't really learned their lesson and might turn around in a
year or two. Riccitiello's removal (well, technically,he is
'retiring') may help alleviate some of these fears.

Wow, actual consequences!!

People always overlook that such a decision is not done by the CEO
alone, the board of directors has to approve this. Thing is according to
some developers from Unity, that this decision was heavily critizized
upfront internally by literally everyone at the lower ends, the
management and the board of directors nevertheless went ahead despite
the heavy criticism without further discussion and announced it.
This also caused several key members on development level to simply quit!
Unity has deeper problems now than the course, key people who basically
ran the company on technical level have left, not sure how big the bleed
was, but probably really bad.

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

On Mon, 09 Oct 2023 18:48:43 -0400, in comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.action,
Spalls Hurgenson wrote:

After essentially backtracking on almost all their former demands
regarding 'per install' pricing - which royally pissed off pretty much
all their users - they've followed up by sacking CEO John Riccitiello.

Good. Doesn't solve the problem, but that guy shouldn't be running
anything.

Now if only he didn't get a bazillion dollars from his negotiated
withdrawal from the company. He should get zippo. He should have resigned
as soon as the board asked him to do something so totally stupid.

--
Zag

No one ever said on their deathbed, 'Gee, I wish I had
spent more time alone with my computer.' ~Dan(i) Bunten

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

On Tue, 10 Oct 2023 01:11:32 -0500, in comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.action, candycanearter07 wrote:

On 10/9/23 17:48, Spalls Hurgenson wrote:

Unity has been struggling to regain the trust of their users, and even
with the more favorable terms, many of the customers worried that
Unity hadn't really learned their lesson and might turn around in a
year or two. Riccitiello's removal (well, technically,he is
'retiring') may help alleviate some of these fears.

Wow, actual consequences!!

Not really. He will receive a glorious severance package when he should
have resigned in the first place if he actually disagreed with the board.
He will continue to be rich and getting richer.

He could have footed the bill for a personal resignation. It's what a responsible CEO would have done here, if they disagreed. "I was only
following orders," doesn't cut it.

Because of this system - the golden parachutes, the inbred boards, etc. -
there is no accountability or responsibility at the top of major
corporations. If they face no consequences for hurting others, others
with fewer privileges will continue to be hurt.

--
Zag

No one ever said on their deathbed, 'Gee, I wish I had
spent more time alone with my computer.' ~Dan(i) Bunten

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

On 10/10/2023 9:53 AM, Zaghadka wrote:

On Mon, 09 Oct 2023 18:48:43 -0400, in comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.action,
Spalls Hurgenson wrote:

After essentially backtracking on almost all their former demands
regarding 'per install' pricing - which royally pissed off pretty much
all their users - they've followed up by sacking CEO John Riccitiello.

Good. Doesn't solve the problem, but that guy shouldn't be running
anything.

He will be though. There is a school of thought among the C-level types
and members of boards of directors that the more times a C-level has
failed the more they are worth because they've learned from their failures.

*waits for the laughter to die down*

*waits some more*

No, seriously.

*walks out, leaving his audience laughing*

--
I've done good in this world. Now I'm tired and just want to be a cranky
dirty old man.

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

On 10/10/23 17:31, Dimensional Traveler wrote:

He will be though.  There is a school of thought among the C-level types
and members of boards of directors that the more times a C-level has
failed the more they are worth because they've learned from their failures.

*waits for the laughter to die down*

*waits some more*

No, seriously.

*walks out, leaving his audience laughing*

Without proving they have learned anything? Sounds like upper management.
--
user <candycane> is generated from /dev/urandom

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

On 10/10/23 17:31, Dimensional Traveler wrote:

He will be though.  There is a school of thought among the C-level types
and members of boards of directors that the more times a C-level has
failed the more they are worth because they've learned from their failures.

*waits for the laughter to die down*

*waits some more*

No, seriously.

*walks out, leaving his audience laughing*

Without proving they have learned anything? Sounds like upper management.
--
user <candycane> is generated from /dev/urandom

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

On Tue, 10 Oct 2023 15:31:30 -0700, in comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.action, Dimensional Traveler wrote:

On 10/10/2023 9:53 AM, Zaghadka wrote:

On Mon, 09 Oct 2023 18:48:43 -0400, in comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.action,
Spalls Hurgenson wrote:

After essentially backtracking on almost all their former demands
regarding 'per install' pricing - which royally pissed off pretty much
all their users - they've followed up by sacking CEO John Riccitiello.

Good. Doesn't solve the problem, but that guy shouldn't be running
anything.

He will be though. There is a school of thought among the C-level types
and members of boards of directors that the more times a C-level has
failed the more they are worth because they've learned from their failures.

*waits for the laughter to die down*

*waits some more*

No, seriously.

*walks out, leaving his audience laughing*

Yup. It's this self-sealing, cross-dealing, sitting on other companies
boards to get raises, no consequences, escalating path to more and more
wealth at the expense of everyone else's share of staggering profits. If
more Americans knew about it, they'd go socialist.

Me. Not a socialist, btw. But well aware that we work in a system
designed by sociopaths who have put themselves in a no-lose situation.

--
Zag

No one ever said on their deathbed, 'Gee, I wish I had
spent more time alone with my computer.' ~Dan(i) Bunten

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

On 11/10/2023 15:15, Zaghadka wrote:

On Tue, 10 Oct 2023 15:31:30 -0700, in comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.action, Dimensional Traveler wrote:

On 10/10/2023 9:53 AM, Zaghadka wrote:

On Mon, 09 Oct 2023 18:48:43 -0400, in comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.action,
Spalls Hurgenson wrote:

After essentially backtracking on almost all their former demands
regarding 'per install' pricing - which royally pissed off pretty much >>>> all their users - they've followed up by sacking CEO John Riccitiello.

Good. Doesn't solve the problem, but that guy shouldn't be running
anything.

He will be though. There is a school of thought among the C-level types
and members of boards of directors that the more times a C-level has
failed the more they are worth because they've learned from their failures. >>
*waits for the laughter to die down*

*waits some more*

No, seriously.

*walks out, leaving his audience laughing*

Yup. It's this self-sealing, cross-dealing, sitting on other companies
boards to get raises, no consequences, escalating path to more and more wealth at the expense of everyone else's share of staggering profits. If
more Americans knew about it, they'd go socialist.

Me. Not a socialist, btw. But well aware that we work in a system
designed by sociopaths who have put themselves in a no-lose situation.

Well if you're from the US doesn't it just mean I don't like your
position so if I just label it socialist you're by default wrong?

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

On 10/18/2023 1:39 PM, JAB wrote:

On 11/10/2023 15:15, Zaghadka wrote:

On Tue, 10 Oct 2023 15:31:30 -0700, in comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.action,
Dimensional Traveler wrote:

On 10/10/2023 9:53 AM, Zaghadka wrote:

On Mon, 09 Oct 2023 18:48:43 -0400, in comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.action,
Spalls Hurgenson wrote:

After essentially backtracking on almost all their former demands
regarding 'per install' pricing - which royally pissed off pretty much >>>>> all their users - they've followed up by sacking CEO John Riccitiello. >>>>

Good. Doesn't solve the problem, but that guy shouldn't be running
anything.

He will be though.  There is a school of thought among the C-level types >>> and members of boards of directors that the more times a C-level has
failed the more they are worth because they've learned from their
failures.

*waits for the laughter to die down*

*waits some more*

No, seriously.

*walks out, leaving his audience laughing*

Yup. It's this self-sealing, cross-dealing, sitting on other companies
boards to get raises, no consequences, escalating path to more and more
wealth at the expense of everyone else's share of staggering profits. If
more Americans knew about it, they'd go socialist.

Me. Not a socialist, btw. But well aware that we work in a system
designed by sociopaths who have put themselves in a no-lose situation.

Well if you're from the US doesn't it just mean I don't like your
position so if I just label it socialist you're by default wrong?

And the only reason you say "socialist" is because you know you can't
get away with saying "Commie". ;)

--
I've done good in this world. Now I'm tired and just want to be a cranky
dirty old man.

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

On Wed, 18 Oct 2023 21:39:34 +0100, in comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.action, JAB
wrote:

On 11/10/2023 15:15, Zaghadka wrote:

On Tue, 10 Oct 2023 15:31:30 -0700, in comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.action,
Dimensional Traveler wrote:

On 10/10/2023 9:53 AM, Zaghadka wrote:

On Mon, 09 Oct 2023 18:48:43 -0400, in comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.action,
Spalls Hurgenson wrote:

After essentially backtracking on almost all their former demands
regarding 'per install' pricing - which royally pissed off pretty much >>>>> all their users - they've followed up by sacking CEO John Riccitiello. >>>>

Good. Doesn't solve the problem, but that guy shouldn't be running
anything.

He will be though. There is a school of thought among the C-level types >>> and members of boards of directors that the more times a C-level has
failed the more they are worth because they've learned from their failures. >>>
*waits for the laughter to die down*

*waits some more*

No, seriously.

*walks out, leaving his audience laughing*

Yup. It's this self-sealing, cross-dealing, sitting on other companies
boards to get raises, no consequences, escalating path to more and more
wealth at the expense of everyone else's share of staggering profits. If
more Americans knew about it, they'd go socialist.

Me. Not a socialist, btw. But well aware that we work in a system
designed by sociopaths who have put themselves in a no-lose situation.

Well if you're from the US doesn't it just mean I don't like your
position so if I just label it socialist you're by default wrong?

LOL. That's what our Republican party would have us believe.

--
Zag

No one ever said on their deathbed, 'Gee, I wish I had
spent more time alone with my computer.' ~Dan(i) Bunten

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

On 19/10/2023 05:11, Zaghadka wrote:

Well if you're from the US doesn't it just mean I don't like your
position so if I just label it socialist you're by default wrong?

LOL. That's what our Republican party would have us believe.

Unfortunately the give something a negative label without saying why
someone's position is wrong has seeped more and more into British
politics, and right wing media, especially in the last five or so years
along with just outright lying is perfectly acceptable if it gets your
message across.

So as a real-life example, someone at our local pub was against BLM* as
they were a Marxist organisation. I just asked them what they thought
were some of the core ideas of Marxism were and how BLM aligned with
them. Nope, they couldn't name even one core principle but they had
watched a video on YouTube. Well that's ok then.

It's rather depressing really but the positive is that more people
finally seem to be waking up to the current government has been in power
for thirteen years so they don't get to blame the wokerati (a senior
minister did just that) for all the problems that they themselves have
created.

*This isn't to get into a political debate but instead just to
illustrate the point.

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

On 19/10/2023 05:11, Zaghadka wrote:

Well if you're from the US doesn't it just mean I don't like your
position so if I just label it socialist you're by default wrong?

LOL. That's what our Republican party would have us believe.

Unfortunately the give something a negative label without saying why
someone's position is wrong has seeped more and more into British
politics, and right wing media, especially in the last five or so years
along with just outright lying is perfectly acceptable if it gets your
message across.

So as a real-life example, someone at our local pub was against BLM* as
they were a Marxist organisation. I just asked them what they thought
were some of the core ideas of Marxism were and how BLM aligned with
them. Nope, they couldn't name even one core principle but they had
watched a video on YouTube. Well that's ok then.

It's rather depressing really but the positive is that more people
finally seem to be waking up to the current government has been in power
for thirteen years so they don't get to blame the wokerati (a senior
minister did just that) for all the problems that they themselves have
created.

*This isn't to get into a political debate but instead just to
illustrate the point.

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

On Thu, 19 Oct 2023 10:02:26 +0100, in comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.action, JAB
wrote:

So as a real-life example, someone at our local pub was against BLM* as
they were a Marxist organisation. I just asked them what they thought
were some of the core ideas of Marxism were and how BLM aligned with
them. Nope, they couldn't name even one core principle but they had
watched a video on YouTube. Well that's ok then.

Now to really fry some noggins, ask them the difference between Marxism, socialism, and democratic socialism. They'll probably stare off into the distance, secure in their own cognitive dissonance. That or suck down the
rest of their pint and grin vacuously.

So, let me try to remember: International revolution, ideal workers
state, capitalism eventually becoming self-destructive and leading to
that revolution (end-stage capitalism. All our young people love to throw
that term around). Ownership of the means of production by the
proletariat. Turn the mansions into schools (French). Turn the golf
courses into housing sites.

Did I get any of that right?

I'm not down for "international revolution." Any revolution, really. To paraphrase Shaw, it only shifts the burden of the oppressed to the other shoulder. If Marx was right, I don't look forward to the world catching
fire.

But everyone in the States still think all three (Marx, Soc, Dem Soc)
mean communism. The Red Scare effectively neutered the left wing here.
That's why the right wing is so far right, and on a global political
scale, even the moderate left is right of center.

They really don't seem to have a clue that there are democratic socialist policies in place here already. Even more so, they clamor for their entitlements under those policies, all the while claiming that the
govenment gives them nothing and believing in their own self-sufficiency. Democratic socialist policies consistently poll high, very high actually,
if you don't mention the "S" word.

That's not debate. These are facts, and our collective ignorance can kill democracy dead.

--
Zag

No one ever said on their deathbed, 'Gee, I wish I had
spent more time alone with my computer.' ~Dan(i) Bunten

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

On 19/10/2023 14:04, Zaghadka wrote:

On Thu, 19 Oct 2023 10:02:26 +0100, in comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.action, JAB wrote:

So as a real-life example, someone at our local pub was against BLM* as
they were a Marxist organisation. I just asked them what they thought
were some of the core ideas of Marxism were and how BLM aligned with
them. Nope, they couldn't name even one core principle but they had
watched a video on YouTube. Well that's ok then.

Now to really fry some noggins, ask them the difference between Marxism, socialism, and democratic socialism. They'll probably stare off into the distance, secure in their own cognitive dissonance. That or suck down the rest of their pint and grin vacuously.

So, let me try to remember: International revolution, ideal workers
state, capitalism eventually becoming self-destructive and leading to
that revolution (end-stage capitalism. All our young people love to throw that term around). Ownership of the means of production by the
proletariat. Turn the mansions into schools (French). Turn the golf
courses into housing sites.

Did I get any of that right?

I'm not down for "international revolution." Any revolution, really. To paraphrase Shaw, it only shifts the burden of the oppressed to the other shoulder. If Marx was right, I don't look forward to the world catching
fire.

Marxism, and by extension Communism, I always think sound good on paper
but reality intervenes and says - human nature just isn't like that and
all that happens, as you point out, is you replace one elite with a
different elite. Mr. Average still gets shafted either way.

But everyone in the States still think all three (Marx, Soc, Dem Soc)
mean communism. The Red Scare effectively neutered the left wing here.
That's why the right wing is so far right, and on a global political
scale, even the moderate left is right of center.

The last part is one that always leaves me scratching my head about US politics. If you look at its peers you'll tend to have two parties which represent what that can be considered to be right or left leaning to
varying degrees. In the US you have one party that is very much right
wing and another that is just less right wing, where's the left wing?

Bernie Saunders I feel is a great example of the difference in politics.
In the US he seems to be considered as some sort of leftie radical
whereas here in Europe a lot of his positions would be considered uncontroversial by both the right and the left.

They really don't seem to have a clue that there are democratic socialist policies in place here already. Even more so, they clamor for their entitlements under those policies, all the while claiming that the
govenment gives them nothing and believing in their own self-sufficiency. Democratic socialist policies consistently poll high, very high actually,
if you don't mention the "S" word.

Oh yes, they marvellous the government shouldn't be interfering in this
and people need to take responsibility for themselves, well unless it
personal benefits me then it's a disgrace that the government aren't
acting now. You even see cases where people are effectively supporting positions that are against their own personal interest because of the
narrative that they been sold. A simple example from the UK is the
various cuts in what is called legal aid which is (well was) there to
ensure that everyone could have access to legal representation in court.

Due to a drip, drip, drip of how some 'scum bag' was claiming legal aid
the system has been changed so that a whole group of people who aren't
poor, but aren't rich either, just cannot risk going to court as they
could end up financially ruined.

That's not debate. These are facts, and our collective ignorance can kill democracy dead.

I think it's something concerning in the US and to a lesser extent in
the UK and some other European countries. Our democratic institutions
have been shown to be quite fragile in the face of those that just don't
play by the unwritten rules or even the written ones.

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

On Fri, 20 Oct 2023 10:51:27 +0100, in comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.action, JAB
wrote:

where's the left wing?

TL;DR: I bitterly present way more than you are asking for, in my own
colorful and acerbic fashion. Short answer: being dumb and ineffectual
and very, very cross with America.

. . .

<rant>The left here involves itself heavily in purity tests, a philosophy
of intersectionalism that says "we go for everything all at once no
matter how much that massive amount of social change alienates 40-75% of
the country," whining when that doesn't pan out (quel surprise), and
doing crazy shit like coming up with slogans like "Defund the police" or "Abolish ICE" which basically hands a loaded full-auto long gun with a
drum mag to conservatives, who proceed to absolutely slaughter any agenda
they might make progress on. Such things blow up the moderate leftists in
turn. All you're left with is right-of-center after they implode
everything to the left.

The only thing they don't do is line up for a firing squad. Oh wait...
yeah, they show up at mass protests with those poorly though out slogans dressed and presenting themselves as antagonistically as possible, some
as a near career choice, and do exactly that. They line up and say,
"Please attack us so we can feel like victims which is our justification
for everything we do." Then they claim that their provocations are
sacred, inalienable self-expression which the fascists cannot be allowed
to shut down.

They don't realize that they're alienating far more people than just the
Nazis when they do so. Everyone is afraid to tell them this for fear of
being branded a Nazi, a la J.K. Rowling.

Then they lose and they say, "Well, shucks. I know! If we were True
Scotsx, we would have gone harder and that's why we didn't get what we
want." They double down instead of engaging in a good look at the mirror.
It wasn't pure enough. It wasn't antagonistic enough.

Eventually the Supreme Court fixes it, maybe, which is now not going to
happen for the next 30 years thanks to their tactics.

So we have no functional left. We have a very dumb and counterproductive
left arranged in a smug, self-defeating circular firing squad. And then
helpful moderates approach the outside of the circle for the assist and
get shot up as the far left incompetently executes their plan, somehow
misses the people in their circle, and kills everyone nearby trying to
help them. This is because none of them know how to use firearms.

They defiantly respond with slogans like "We won't go back" in response
to the overturning of Roe v. Wade when that is very much _exactly_ what happened, and because they screwed up strategy so badly that the
right-wing managed to get a 50-year-old Constitutional precedent, a right
ffs, rescinded despite their efforts. In may ways, _because_ of their
efforts.

That's where our left wing is. Those, again, are just the facts, though
some may not see it that way and declare me "problematic" for pointing
them out.</rant>

What does Labour do in your country? Are they as completely insane?

--
Zag

No one ever said on their deathbed, 'Gee, I wish I had
spent more time alone with my computer.' ~Dan(i) Bunten

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

On 25/10/2023 19:53, Zaghadka wrote:

On Fri, 20 Oct 2023 10:51:27 +0100, in comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.action, JAB wrote:

where's the left wing?

TL;DR: I bitterly present way more than you are asking for, in my own colorful and acerbic fashion. Short answer: being dumb and ineffectual
and very, very cross with America.

. . .

<rant>The left here involves itself heavily in purity tests, a philosophy
of intersectionalism that says "we go for everything all at once no
matter how much that massive amount of social change alienates 40-75% of
the country," whining when that doesn't pan out (quel surprise), and
doing crazy shit like coming up with slogans like "Defund the police" or "Abolish ICE" which basically hands a loaded full-auto long gun with a
drum mag to conservatives, who proceed to absolutely slaughter any agenda they might make progress on. Such things blow up the moderate leftists in turn. All you're left with is right-of-center after they implode
everything to the left.

The only thing they don't do is line up for a firing squad. Oh wait...
yeah, they show up at mass protests with those poorly though out slogans dressed and presenting themselves as antagonistically as possible, some
as a near career choice, and do exactly that. They line up and say,
"Please attack us so we can feel like victims which is our justification
for everything we do." Then they claim that their provocations are
sacred, inalienable self-expression which the fascists cannot be allowed
to shut down.

They don't realize that they're alienating far more people than just the Nazis when they do so. Everyone is afraid to tell them this for fear of
being branded a Nazi, a la J.K. Rowling.

Then they lose and they say, "Well, shucks. I know! If we were True
Scotsx, we would have gone harder and that's why we didn't get what we
want." They double down instead of engaging in a good look at the mirror.
It wasn't pure enough. It wasn't antagonistic enough.

Eventually the Supreme Court fixes it, maybe, which is now not going to happen for the next 30 years thanks to their tactics.

So we have no functional left. We have a very dumb and counterproductive
left arranged in a smug, self-defeating circular firing squad. And then helpful moderates approach the outside of the circle for the assist and
get shot up as the far left incompetently executes their plan, somehow
misses the people in their circle, and kills everyone nearby trying to
help them. This is because none of them know how to use firearms.

They defiantly respond with slogans like "We won't go back" in response
to the overturning of Roe v. Wade when that is very much _exactly_ what happened, and because they screwed up strategy so badly that the
right-wing managed to get a 50-year-old Constitutional precedent, a right ffs, rescinded despite their efforts. In may ways, _because_ of their efforts.

That's where our left wing is. Those, again, are just the facts, though
some may not see it that way and declare me "problematic" for pointing
them out.</rant>

There's certainly an element in the UK left that is similar and it shows
itself very much with a anti-US/UK bias and idealogical driven agenda
instead of issues that people really care about in their day-to-day
life. So with the former it's you're against the US so by definition are
above criticism even if you're a brutal dictator. For the later it comes
in the form of, no what I care about is our failing NHS and cost of
living crisis not about whether transgender women should be able to use
a female toilet or indeed some sort of class war to smash the rich.

To make it worse our right wing media loves to bring these people out as
though they are representative of the left in general which just isn't
true. The final problem, it's very much a case of either you agree with everything we say or you're labelled as some sort of fascist.

What does Labour do in your country? Are they as completely insane?

Interesting question, they've now gone back to a more left of centre
position after what can best be called a bit of a disaster with Jeremy
Corbyn as leader who was very much old school Labour. They've also
realised that there is very little political advantage in committing to anything concrete as, again, our right wing media will be more than
happy to exploit that*. The best way to describe it is why bother trying
to score goals yourself when you can sit back and let the opposition
score own goals and boy do they do that a lot.

*Or indeed just make things up, so Rishi Sunak, our PM, proudly
announced that he was going to ban the introduction of a meat tax. The
problem being that's never been a Labour policy or even remotely close
to one. The likes of the newspaper The Daily Mail happily splashed it on
their front page as a victory.

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

On Thu, 26 Oct 2023 11:02:34 +0100, in comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.action, JAB
wrote:

On 25/10/2023 19:53, Zaghadka wrote:

On Fri, 20 Oct 2023 10:51:27 +0100, in comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.action, JAB
wrote:

where's the left wing?

TL;DR: I bitterly present way more than you are asking for, in my own
colorful and acerbic fashion. Short answer: being dumb and ineffectual
and very, very cross with America.

. . .

<rant>The left here involves itself heavily in purity tests, a philosophy
of intersectionalism that says "we go for everything all at once no
matter how much that massive amount of social change alienates 40-75% of
the country," whining when that doesn't pan out (quel surprise), and
doing crazy shit like coming up with slogans like "Defund the police" or
"Abolish ICE" which basically hands a loaded full-auto long gun with a
drum mag to conservatives, who proceed to absolutely slaughter any agenda
they might make progress on. Such things blow up the moderate leftists in
turn. All you're left with is right-of-center after they implode
everything to the left.

The only thing they don't do is line up for a firing squad. Oh wait...
yeah, they show up at mass protests with those poorly though out slogans
dressed and presenting themselves as antagonistically as possible, some
as a near career choice, and do exactly that. They line up and say,
"Please attack us so we can feel like victims which is our justification
for everything we do." Then they claim that their provocations are
sacred, inalienable self-expression which the fascists cannot be allowed
to shut down.

They don't realize that they're alienating far more people than just the
Nazis when they do so. Everyone is afraid to tell them this for fear of
being branded a Nazi, a la J.K. Rowling.

Then they lose and they say, "Well, shucks. I know! If we were True
Scotsx, we would have gone harder and that's why we didn't get what we
want." They double down instead of engaging in a good look at the mirror.
It wasn't pure enough. It wasn't antagonistic enough.

Eventually the Supreme Court fixes it, maybe, which is now not going to
happen for the next 30 years thanks to their tactics.

So we have no functional left. We have a very dumb and counterproductive
left arranged in a smug, self-defeating circular firing squad. And then
helpful moderates approach the outside of the circle for the assist and
get shot up as the far left incompetently executes their plan, somehow
misses the people in their circle, and kills everyone nearby trying to
help them. This is because none of them know how to use firearms.

They defiantly respond with slogans like "We won't go back" in response
to the overturning of Roe v. Wade when that is very much _exactly_ what
happened, and because they screwed up strategy so badly that the
right-wing managed to get a 50-year-old Constitutional precedent, a right
ffs, rescinded despite their efforts. In may ways, _because_ of their
efforts.

That's where our left wing is. Those, again, are just the facts, though
some may not see it that way and declare me "problematic" for pointing
them out.</rant>

There's certainly an element in the UK left that is similar and it shows >itself very much with a anti-US/UK bias and idealogical driven agenda
instead of issues that people really care about in their day-to-day
life. So with the former it's you're against the US so by definition are >above criticism even if you're a brutal dictator. For the later it comes
in the form of, no what I care about is our failing NHS and cost of
living crisis not about whether transgender women should be able to use
a female toilet or indeed some sort of class war to smash the rich.

To make it worse our right wing media loves to bring these people out as >though they are representative of the left in general which just isn't
true. The final problem, it's very much a case of either you agree with >everything we say or you're labelled as some sort of fascist.

What does Labour do in your country? Are they as completely insane?

Interesting question, they've now gone back to a more left of centre
position after what can best be called a bit of a disaster with Jeremy
Corbyn as leader who was very much old school Labour. They've also
realised that there is very little political advantage in committing to >anything concrete as, again, our right wing media will be more than
happy to exploit that*. The best way to describe it is why bother trying
to score goals yourself when you can sit back and let the opposition
score own goals and boy do they do that a lot.

So same old same old; politics as usual. But your reckless extreme left
isn't capable of blowing up the center left. They just become PR fodder
for the Conservative Party to fear monger over. As does ours.

You also have a parliamentary system, which means that "getting
primaried" is not the problem it is in the States. Our system makes even
right of center candidates beholden to the extremes. Combined with gerrymandering, some districts are so safe that the general election is actually the primary in all but name, and that's where this highly vocal minority's power becomes outsized. So we actually wind up with *representatives* that the opposition can point to, as opposed to only
the loud minority.

This doesn't happen as much in our Senate because it's determined by a statewide election. There is no district gerrymandering problem. The
extremes do not have as much pull.

*Or indeed just make things up, so Rishi Sunak, our PM, proudly
announced that he was going to ban the introduction of a meat tax. The >problem being that's never been a Labour policy or even remotely close
to one. The likes of the newspaper The Daily Mail happily splashed it on >their front page as a victory.

Yeah. Our right wing just makes stuff up too. The current fable is their promise to ban Critical Race Theory (CRT) from being taught in elementary schools, when it is only actually taught at the collegiate level. I see
it as code for a powerful desire to whitewash the more shameful aspects
of our history.

The left makes stuff up too though, so it's more same old.

You have a better system of government, IMHO, because of proportional representation and a PM that's determined by coalition when things are at
their most divisive. Our President has way too much power and can be
elected by a slim majority, or even a minority if you play the Electoral College system right.

I am reminded of Churchill. "Except for all the others."

We get the wrong guy and we are no longer a democracy, friend. I won't
comment on the how's and why's of that. It can come from either extreme,
and, IMHO, both extremes are demanding it; neither extreme will own it.

--
Zag

No one ever said on their deathbed, 'Gee, I wish I had
spent more time alone with my computer.' ~Dan(i) Bunten

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

On 26/10/2023 16:33, Zaghadka wrote:

You have a better system of government, IMHO, because of proportional representation and a PM that's determined by coalition when things are
at their most divisive. Our President has way too much power and can be elected by a slim majority, or even a minority if you play the Electoral College system right.

Some corrections, we don't have PR and we even had a referendum on it in
2011 which at the time I voted against as in my lifetime, up until that
point anyway, our system of electing a government was very much a choice between do you want a bit more capitalism or do you want a bit more
socialism but either way the government would general be acting in the
best interests of the entire UK. How things have changed.

The way the PM is selected is rather different from that which you
describe and also depends as to which party is in power as the PM is the
leader of the party in government by default and they have different
rules for electing them. So for the conservatives you have a number of
rounds where each of their MP's vote and then it's put the last two to
the conservative membership. The problem with that is that the
membership is really not representative of conservative voters as a
whole which is why we ended up with the disaster that was Liz Truss.
After that went tragically wrong the 1922 Committee (the power behind
the throne) fudged the rules to make sure Rishi Sunak didn't have to go
to the membership.

Labour is different in that MP's and MEP's vote and whoever gets at
least 10% in then placed in a vote made by their membership and some
affiliated trade unions, well at least the last time I looked. They also changed their rules after realising that a further left group was
getting people to join the membership and then voting on-bloc.

The positive of all this though, the PM has power only over their own
MP's and can't just in-act laws without the consent of both the House of Commons (elected) and the The House of Lords (unelected).

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

On Fri, 27 Oct 2023 11:20:44 +0100, in comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.action, JAB
wrote:

The way the PM is selected is rather different from that which you
describe and also depends as to which party is in power as the PM is the >leader of the party in government by default and they have different
rules for electing them. So for the conservatives you have a number of
rounds where each of their MP's vote and then it's put the last two to
the conservative membership. The problem with that is that the
membership is really not representative of conservative voters as a
whole which is why we ended up with the disaster that was Liz Truss.

So that sounds like you have a hybrid between a true parliamentary
system, where if your party doesn't win a majority the majority party has
to coalition with minority parties to form a majority government which
then selects its PM, by whatever rule they like. cf: The Likud.

It sounds more like a bit of a two party system hybrid, where Labour and Conservative parties have far more influence over the selection of a PM,
and the parties have different means of arriving at that selection.

That is to say, the concept of coalition to form a governing majority is
not necessary because a majority is a given. Labour and Conservatives are dominant, and generally win a majority on their own.

Did I get that right? I find this very interesting.

After that went tragically wrong the 1922 Committee (the power behind
the throne) fudged the rules to make sure Rishi Sunak didn't have to go
to the membership.

Oh boy. That sounds exciting. If I gather, your government is in such a
state that it's having to do end-runs around the rules to actually get competent leadership in place? (Liz Truss being the poster girl for incompetency).

cf: Our House of Representatives. They are literally making up rules as
they go because the majority party is fatally fractured and has a
contingent of reps that I call the "crazy eight" who just want to blow it
all up. These are the eight reps that supported the motion to vacate that
ended McCarthy's speakership.

If all of that is uninteresting to you, I'll stop right there.

--
Zag

No one ever said on their deathbed, 'Gee, I wish I had
spent more time alone with my computer.' ~Dan(i) Bunten

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

On 27/10/2023 14:59, Zaghadka wrote:

On Fri, 27 Oct 2023 11:20:44 +0100, in comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.action, JAB wrote:

The way the PM is selected is rather different from that which you
describe and also depends as to which party is in power as the PM is the
leader of the party in government by default and they have different
rules for electing them. So for the conservatives you have a number of
rounds where each of their MP's vote and then it's put the last two to
the conservative membership. The problem with that is that the
membership is really not representative of conservative voters as a
whole which is why we ended up with the disaster that was Liz Truss.

So that sounds like you have a hybrid between a true parliamentary
system, where if your party doesn't win a majority the majority party has
to coalition with minority parties to form a majority government which
then selects its PM, by whatever rule they like. cf: The Likud.

It sounds more like a bit of a two party system hybrid, where Labour and Conservative parties have far more influence over the selection of a PM,
and the parties have different means of arriving at that selection.

That is to say, the concept of coalition to form a governing majority is
not necessary because a majority is a given. Labour and Conservatives are dominant, and generally win a majority on their own.

Did I get that right? I find this very interesting.

Basically yes, so the UK is split into 600+ geographical areas called constituencies. In a national election each one has a vote and the party
with the most votes wins and the candidate gets to take their seat in
the House of Commons as a member of parliament (MP).

Once that's all done the party with the most votes gets asked to form a government. As we don't have PR and only two main parties the norm is
that either the Conservatives or Labour will win an overall majority of
the seats so there is no need for either a coalition or a minority
government with a supply and confidence agreement. This is re-enforced
by many people treating the vote as whether they think the current
government is doing well or not and if not will vote for the party they
think has the most chance of winning the seat.

The PM is then the leader of which ever party forms a government.

This is further complicated by Wales and Scotland having their own
separate devolved parliaments with varying powers. I'd love to explain
exactly how that works but I've never really understood it myself.

In case that's not complicated enough Northern Ireland is a special case
within a special case as its devolved parliament has additional rules
placed on it under the Good Friday Agreement* (something put in place to
end the Troubles) called power sharing. That's there to try and ensure
that no party gets to govern just how it wants.

*That's the reason that after Brexit the UK ended up in the strange
situation where there are customs checks between mainland UK and NI but
not between NI and the Republic of Ireland.

After that went tragically wrong the 1922 Committee (the power behind
the throne) fudged the rules to make sure Rishi Sunak didn't have to go
to the membership.

Oh boy. That sounds exciting. If I gather, your government is in such a
state that it's having to do end-runs around the rules to actually get competent leadership in place? (Liz Truss being the poster girl for incompetency).

cf: Our House of Representatives. They are literally making up rules as
they go because the majority party is fatally fractured and has a
contingent of reps that I call the "crazy eight" who just want to blow it
all up. These are the eight reps that supported the motion to vacate that ended McCarthy's speakership.

If all of that is uninteresting to you, I'll stop right there.

The conservatives have a similar group called the European Research
Group (ERG) who Liz Truss was the darling of. They act in much the same
in that they'd rather see their own party destroyed if it won't
implement the polices they want. They are informally known as the
headbangers and have created most of the problems the current government
now faces as they are what can at best be described as unhinged and
think that the reasons the polls are so bad for them is that the
government hasn't been right wing enough.

The overall result of that, unless there's a rather dramatic change in
voting intentions, the Conservatives are going to be decimated in the
next election and hand Labour a landslide victory. It's even plausible
that it will lead to a complete split in the party between the
hardliners and the moderate wing each with their own party.

I have heard of some the rather strange members of the republican party
mostly because the news I get to see is of the more interesting variety. Marjorie Taylor Greene is probably the one I've heard about the most.
How on earth do these people get elected?

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

On Sat, 28 Oct 2023 11:46:52 +0100, in comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.action, JAB
wrote:

I have heard of some the rather strange members of the republican party >mostly because the news I get to see is of the more interesting variety. >Marjorie Taylor Greene is probably the one I've heard about the most.
How on earth do these people get elected?

Gerrymandering. It's a method of districting (now performed with lethal accuracy by computers crunching census data) that decisively favors one
party over the other. In the case of Greene, it disproportionately
empowers the hard right wing of what is called "the base." The base is
the dedicated, died-in-the-wool 50-70% of the Republican party that comes
out to vote in a primary. The most rabid are the most reliable voters.
The base, on both sides, is about 20-30% of the total electorate at any
given time.

When you have a gerrymandered district, the primary (a process of
partisan candidate nomination and selection) *is* the general election.
They're not picking their candidate to go up against the opposition
party, they are picking the winner of that contest because the opposition
party literally cannot win.

The result is a Republican primary where a) You cannot win the nomination without pandering to Neo-Nazis, and b) What is in fact maybe 20% of the
full bipartisan electorate becomes 40-60% of the primary vote. Thus, the
most strident minority, the "hard core base," determines the candidate.
In the case of the Republican party, because it is on the wane, this
includes an overpowered, previously marginalized group of white
supremacists, race war enthusiasts, and replacement theory adherents.
Moderates are fleeing the Republican party and it only makes the
situation worse, or they're simply getting voted out.

Add to that an escalating anti-government Zeitgeist which started with
Reagan's famous inaugural statement, "Government is not the solution to
our problem, government is the problem," and you get a growing group of
that "hard-core" base that is done with democracy and just wants daddy to
fix it all. That anti-government sentiment is coming from both "bases."
The left and the right. Though only the right admits to it. They are
proud to say that they want to pull the flush lever.

That's where we're at rn, and that's how showboating dumbasses like
Greene get elected. It's better on the left, but not by much. We need
electoral reform here desperately.

I'm sorry your government is in similar straits. Brexit was a major red
flag that it was the case, and the Liz Truss clown show confirmed it.

--
Zag

No one ever said on their deathbed, 'Gee, I wish I had
spent more time alone with my computer.' ~Dan(i) Bunten

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

On 28/10/2023 16:04, Zaghadka wrote:

On Sat, 28 Oct 2023 11:46:52 +0100, in comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.action, JAB wrote:

I have heard of some the rather strange members of the republican party
mostly because the news I get to see is of the more interesting variety.
Marjorie Taylor Greene is probably the one I've heard about the most.
How on earth do these people get elected?

Gerrymandering. It's a method of districting (now performed with lethal accuracy by computers crunching census data) that decisively favors one
party over the other. In the case of Greene, it disproportionately
empowers the hard right wing of what is called "the base." The base is
the dedicated, died-in-the-wool 50-70% of the Republican party that comes
out to vote in a primary. The most rabid are the most reliable voters.
The base, on both sides, is about 20-30% of the total electorate at any
given time.

When you have a gerrymandered district, the primary (a process of
partisan candidate nomination and selection) *is* the general election. They're not picking their candidate to go up against the opposition
party, they are picking the winner of that contest because the opposition party literally cannot win.

The result is a Republican primary where a) You cannot win the nomination without pandering to Neo-Nazis, and b) What is in fact maybe 20% of the
full bipartisan electorate becomes 40-60% of the primary vote. Thus, the
most strident minority, the "hard core base," determines the candidate.
In the case of the Republican party, because it is on the wane, this
includes an overpowered, previously marginalized group of white
supremacists, race war enthusiasts, and replacement theory adherents. Moderates are fleeing the Republican party and it only makes the
situation worse, or they're simply getting voted out.

Add to that an escalating anti-government Zeitgeist which started with Reagan's famous inaugural statement, "Government is not the solution to
our problem, government is the problem," and you get a growing group of
that "hard-core" base that is done with democracy and just wants daddy to
fix it all. That anti-government sentiment is coming from both "bases."
The left and the right. Though only the right admits to it. They are
proud to say that they want to pull the flush lever.

That's where we're at rn, and that's how showboating dumbasses like
Greene get elected. It's better on the left, but not by much. We need electoral reform here desperately.

I've only read bits and pieces about it and that's mostly to do with
trying to suppress voters who the right believe aren't likely to vote
for them. We've recently had a minor case with the introduction of voter
ID has to be shown. There is no indication that fraudulent votes are a
problem and to make it rather blatant of who it was targetted at, in
London there's something called an Oyster card used for paying for
public transport. The normal card isn't accepted but the 60+ card is.
You can guess which demographic is more likely to vote conservative.
Indeed it was a senior Tory that basically said it was an attempt at gerrymandering.

I'm sorry your government is in similar straits. Brexit was a major red
flag that it was the case, and the Liz Truss clown show confirmed it.

The whole Brexit part really brought it home from the absolute lies said
before the referendum, to those that continued after it and the break
down of the norm in British politics. A lot of people feel for big lie
that the EU where somehow just going to roll over and give the UK and
the benefits of being in the EU but allowing us to pick which bits we
didn't like. When that didn't happen the narrative changed to the EU was
trying to punish the UK for leaving by insisting that we keep to the
deal that we signed up to.

On a more positive note the polls look particularly bad for the Tories
and even more worrying for them they is that correlation between as
people get older and settle down they tended to be more likely to vote
for them has rapidly dwindled.

The negative I can see of that is that we will end up without an
effective opposition.

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

On 28/10/2023 16:04, Zaghadka wrote:

On Sat, 28 Oct 2023 11:46:52 +0100, in comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.action, JAB wrote:

I have heard of some the rather strange members of the republican party
mostly because the news I get to see is of the more interesting variety.
Marjorie Taylor Greene is probably the one I've heard about the most.
How on earth do these people get elected?

Gerrymandering. It's a method of districting (now performed with lethal accuracy by computers crunching census data) that decisively favors one
party over the other. In the case of Greene, it disproportionately
empowers the hard right wing of what is called "the base." The base is
the dedicated, died-in-the-wool 50-70% of the Republican party that comes
out to vote in a primary. The most rabid are the most reliable voters.
The base, on both sides, is about 20-30% of the total electorate at any
given time.

When you have a gerrymandered district, the primary (a process of
partisan candidate nomination and selection) *is* the general election. They're not picking their candidate to go up against the opposition
party, they are picking the winner of that contest because the opposition party literally cannot win.

The result is a Republican primary where a) You cannot win the nomination without pandering to Neo-Nazis, and b) What is in fact maybe 20% of the
full bipartisan electorate becomes 40-60% of the primary vote. Thus, the
most strident minority, the "hard core base," determines the candidate.
In the case of the Republican party, because it is on the wane, this
includes an overpowered, previously marginalized group of white
supremacists, race war enthusiasts, and replacement theory adherents. Moderates are fleeing the Republican party and it only makes the
situation worse, or they're simply getting voted out.

Add to that an escalating anti-government Zeitgeist which started with Reagan's famous inaugural statement, "Government is not the solution to
our problem, government is the problem," and you get a growing group of
that "hard-core" base that is done with democracy and just wants daddy to
fix it all. That anti-government sentiment is coming from both "bases."
The left and the right. Though only the right admits to it. They are
proud to say that they want to pull the flush lever.

That's where we're at rn, and that's how showboating dumbasses like
Greene get elected. It's better on the left, but not by much. We need electoral reform here desperately.

I've only read bits and pieces about it and that's mostly to do with
trying to suppress voters who the right believe aren't likely to vote
for them. We've recently had a minor case with the introduction of voter
ID has to be shown. There is no indication that fraudulent votes are a
problem and to make it rather blatant of who it was targetted at, in
London there's something called an Oyster card used for paying for
public transport. The normal card isn't accepted but the 60+ card is.
You can guess which demographic is more likely to vote conservative.
Indeed it was a senior Tory that basically said it was an attempt at gerrymandering.

I'm sorry your government is in similar straits. Brexit was a major red
flag that it was the case, and the Liz Truss clown show confirmed it.

The whole Brexit part really brought it home from the absolute lies said
before the referendum, to those that continued after it and the break
down of the norm in British politics. A lot of people feel for big lie
that the EU where somehow just going to roll over and give the UK and
the benefits of being in the EU but allowing us to pick which bits we
didn't like. When that didn't happen the narrative changed to the EU was
trying to punish the UK for leaving by insisting that we keep to the
deal that we signed up to.

On a more positive note the polls look particularly bad for the Tories
and even more worrying for them they is that correlation between as
people get older and settle down they tended to be more likely to vote
for them has rapidly dwindled.

The negative I can see of that is that we will end up without an
effective opposition.

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)