LibertatemBoard

Coumba wrote:

anyone know how to make a good national map? like the one we have now in the region map but like i can make state boundaries and put cities down

http://mapchart.net/usa-counties.html

Coumba wrote:

anyone know how to make a good national map? like the one we have now in the region map but like i can make state boundaries and put cities down

I would use donjon.bin.sh for random maps. Idk if there are better map-makers, but that one works just fine.
Bonus points for establishing a pixel as being x miles on each side (for example, 30mi x 30mi pixels). Then look at a city you wish to model (e.g. New York City-present day or London c. 1500) and fill in the pixels with the color of your choice.

Coumba wrote:

anyone know how to make a good national map? like the one we have now in the region map but like i can make state boundaries and put cities down

Get a free student edition of ArcGIS. Download national, state, county boundaries from http://www.naturalearthdata.com/downloads/, add them in, color them, become a cartographer like myself.

It's fun.

Teuberland wrote:

I would use donjon.bin.sh for random maps...

My friend has used that for DM'ing--
I mean um, I like to do manly things like wear leather jackets and get in to fights...

Coumba wrote:

how do I just draw lines with map chart.net

You could just go find a map of the area you want and draw lines on it with MSPaint.

The only legislation I pass is to increase the military

Always got to be ready

Hey guys, uh a bit embarrased to admit, but I think I am kinda losing some of my previous views. Lots of things I thought made a lot of sense don't really anymore. I have always considered myself socially progressive, well not really progressive because I don't support lots of social issues but I think people should be allowed to do whatever the hell they want with their lives, and I still hold most of these views. I still also consider myself to be fiscally conservative, but I used to really be into like privately owned jails and stuff, and I'm really just not digging it anymore, the idea has started to just make me feel icky inside. I read a lot of books on the privatization of these kinds of industries including hospitals and asylums and I just don't think we should be monetizing people like this. For example privatized jails literally have no incentive to offer educational programs unless they are given a larger subsidy for doing so by the government. Even in these cases you see companies going through extensive labor to ensure that this comes at the cheapest price possible, activity like seeking out the most damaged textbooks, hiring underqualified educators, and in some exteme cases the jail will purposefully fail an inmate and still seek subsidization for that inmate as they "tried" and the inmate simply was not cooperative. When one is incarcerated they need to be punished, of course, but at the same time jail is a place to improve oneself and grow as a person, not be reduced to an animal. I've always believed deeply that competition is the best way to help everybody, drive down prices while driving up quality of product, I still to this day believe this to be true. Yet, this model doesn't work in the jail system, why? Because quality is irrelevant to these companies and the consumers are well, the imprisoned and indifferent legislators. If you imagine a company selling candy, of course it's in everyone's best interest to drive down prices, yet there are also strict self imposed regulations on quality as consumers won't buy sawdust, they are rational individuals who will splurge for the best deal, even meaning paying more for quality. These inmates cannot seek imprisonment anywhere else so when these companies are paid for example, 25,000 an inmate, as long as they keep the inmate alive and out of the general population they can pretty much get away with anything (a hyperbole of course, but you do see deprivation of programs that are offered in public institutes and the whole innovation part of prison leaves, why buy equipment for a workshop if you don't have to? Publicly elected or appointed Wardens may want to spend this money on the inmates simply to help them because they are civil servants rather than corporations incomprehensibly scared of their next quarterly report). Even in the previously mentioned case of education, if they get 5000 more for educating an inmate and can offer a passable education for 1000, then they are set, they are not motivated to excel, whereas a public jail is more motivated to spend the money for the general good. Of course the arguement can be made that these criminals get what they deserve, but is this true of patients at mental asylums? I am not defending any particular point, I still love the free market, and I am trying to leave my arguement open to be negated but this has really been bothering me, maybe there is something I am missing? (Of course this is not true of private schools and retirement homes as switching is easy, so I'm trying to focus on forced attendance here). Sorry for typos and a lack of general structure, typed on a whim.

Hyderbourg wrote:

but I think people should be allowed to do whatever the hell they want with their lives, and I still hold most of these views. I still also consider myself to be fiscally conservative, but I used to really be into like privately owned jails and stuff, and I'm really just not digging it anymore, the idea has started to just make me feel icky inside. I read a lot of books on the privatization of these kinds of industries including hospitals and asylums and I just don't think we should be monetizing people like this.

The flip side to freedom is the freedom to fail. That means you are free to commit crimes as long as you do not get caught. However, if you find yourself caught, part of that freedom is you now get to own the responsibility for that crime and the consequences that go with it.

I have no problem with making money off of criminals. It is either that or go the way of some of the more draconian nations that require inmates to work for their keep and/or families to pay for their keep while locked up. In lieu of that the inmate doesn't get fed, gets no bedding, no health care, in some cases doesn't even get a cell.

Society already invests a great deal in law enforcement. Getting some of that back from those that make that investment necessary makes sense.

Hyderbourg wrote:

For example privatized jails literally have no incentive to offer educational programs unless they are given a larger subsidy for doing so by the government.

You want an education, go to school. What ever led you to believe that a jail was meant to be anything other than a jail?

Hyderbourg wrote:

Even in these cases you see companies going through extensive labor to ensure that this comes at the cheapest price possible, activity like seeking out the most damaged textbooks, hiring underqualified educators, and in some exteme cases the jail will purposefully fail an inmate and still seek subsidization for that inmate as they "tried" and the inmate simply was not cooperative.

Again, see the above. This is what happens when jails try to be more than the punishment they are intended to be.

Jails are meant to serve two, and only two purposes.
1. Keep dangerous people off the streets.
2. Punish criminals for their crimes.

Hyderbourg wrote:

When one is incarcerated they need to be punished, of course, but at the same time jail is a place to improve oneself and grow as a person, not be reduced to an animal.

That depends on your offense. If you are an animal going in, what makes you think a jail can make someone any different coming out?

The problem you are missing here is that you cannot force anyone to get or accept help. If they do not want the help, nothing you can do is going to change that. Many of these people look at their sentences as nothing more than an inconvenience or break from the streets. The minute they get out they are right back to what they were doing before. When we try to social worker these people, what we do is turn out criminals that are still doing the same thing but they appreciate poetry, Shakespeare and can accurately calculate their percentage of the take.

The ones that are going to sin again are going to do that, educated or not.

Hyderbourg wrote:

Yet, this model doesn't work in the jail system, why? Because quality is irrelevant to these companies and the consumers are well, the imprisoned and indifferent legislators.

What leads you to believe that quality is any more of a concern under government control? Criminals are not politically popular among voters. As such it is far from easy to get even the minimum necessary to just house the inmates. I've been inside the walls of many prisons. Trust me, the Feds are the only people that give a hoot and even some of their institutions are down right scary.

The part that you seem to be failing on is that inmates have some right to something beyond meals, minimal shelter and basic healthcare. They do not. That is one of the penalties for being a criminal and getting caught. There are some diversion programs that occasionally work early on in the game. But nationwide, history shows us those prisons will be seeing 70% of their guests again.

There is no point in wasting money on that. If a private entity can do it better and cheaper, then more power to them. Perhaps if we took some of the touchy feely out of prisons, that number might go down.

The Ambassador to the CLFR wrote:

-snip-

Except, your whole premise is flawed because prisons are about rehabilitation as well as punishment, or at least they should be. Our current system of focusing on punishment has led to a system where nearly 77% of released criminals are re-arrested in five years, and of those people, nearly 57% are re-arrested by the end of the first year.

http://www.nij.gov/topics/corrections/recidivism/pages/welcome.aspx

That doesn't seem like a way to deter criminals; if anything, this system is keeping criminals as criminals. And in many cases, it is so difficult for ex-prisoners to live a normal life after being released (they can't get a job since job applications ask about criminal history, they're denied government benefits, they have difficulty getting housing, they have to pay fees for things such as probation officers, etc.), that these people have no choice but to go back to crime. However, this system does benefit one group of people: the private prisons whose profits are increased by having a bunch of prisoners. What we need is a prison system focused on rehabilitation and education, so these people have useful skills that could be used in a job upon being released, in addition to punishment. We also need to remove a lot of the barriers that prevent ex-prisoners from succeeding after being released.

New jaslandia wrote:

Except, your whole premise is flawed because prisons are about rehabilitation as well as punishment, or at least they should be. Our current system of focusing on punishment has led to a system where nearly 77% of released criminals are re-arrested in five years, and of those people, nearly 57% are re-arrested by the end of the first year.
http://www.nij.gov/topics/corrections/recidivism/pages/welcome.aspx
That doesn't seem like a way to deter criminals; if anything, this system is keeping criminals as criminals. And in many cases, it is so difficult for ex-prisoners to live a normal life after being released (they can't get a job since job applications ask about criminal history, they're denied government benefits, they have difficulty getting housing, they have to pay fees for things such as probation officers, etc.), that these people have no choice but to go back to crime. However, this system does benefit one group of people: the private prisons whose profits are increased by having a bunch of prisoners. What we need is a prison system focused on rehabilitation and education, so these people have useful skills that could be used in a job upon being released, in addition to punishment. We also need to remove a lot of the barriers that prevent ex-prisoners from succeeding after being released.

I would add post release psychological and sociological support. Not only finding jobs, and housing; but help with staying away from bad influences,social skills training refreshing ect.

Lol!!

I've been thinking about something. There's always this talk of some societal oppression on minorities, but as someone who is visibly a minority, I never had this happen to me. Why is that? Am I not tanned enough looking that it doesn't happen? I don't think so. It clearly isn't a community thing because I hear about these people who say they suffered from this oppression. From what I conclude, the thing really breeds this oppression is when the oppressed person is one who really holds their culture/race/ethnicity to their heart, primarily to point of identifying as that communal group.

I myself never did this. Although of Latin descent (paternally), I never celebrated this culture nor ever chose to be connected to it, so essentially I would be acting "white" to other people. For my life so far as well, I acted very individualistic. I never identified with any culture to point of believing I'm part of homogeneous group people and that I'm like all of them and vice versa. Sure, I say I'm American, I say I'm Canadian, but that's because that's how I grew up. I believe that I am an individual, I am not part of some collective which I can apply "societal privileges/prejudices to and I don't "brothers" and "sisters". It may be possible that because I don't make myself some sort of Latin icon, I don't experience the same societal "oppressions".

Now, the extreme identification of culture/race/ethnicity that I speak of can be seen through this example: Many times I see black people who have lived here, and have been raised here by parents who have been the same, and they go around in traditional African clothing as if somehow they are from an African culture in any way.

This, in my view, is a failure in the belief of one's self and now one must become absorbed into a collective in order to live, which ultimately, makes one believe that one is affected by injustices just as others like oneself had presently or historically and in turn, in my opinion, makes that one, more susceptible to these societal injustices that are believed to exist.