1/15/2012

6/10/2013 6:40 AM

30

0

6 wins / 7 losses

Pursued

unpublished

You are Ex-Agent "Abrasive", and you are the followed, the hunted, the trailed, the sought... The pursued. Having been forced out of NUPWO, an underground government agency dedicated to keeping the world in order (or so they proclaim), you've attempted to live the rest of your life in normality. However, you have seen things you were never meant to see, and the same organization that you were a loyal servant to is now trying to silence you by any means necessary. This is a somewhat-serious, somewhat-comedic action-esque storygame in which you are followed and aggressed by a multitude of factions. Within this storygame contains fights, multiple paths, and so on. Good luck! (This is indeed my first storygame, but feel free to be as critical as you wish)

All the props in the world go to you, good sir, for allowing it to also work in Chrome. Now us Chrome users can use the site properly without changing browsers!

My view on the matter (which is, of course, just an opinion) is that the people who actually care about the world, the environment, the wellbeing of others, and so on, will shut up about CO2 emmissions. There has been more than enough evidence to be skeptical about global warming (including many neutral-study temperature averages showing a global decrease in temperature) and even more evidence to be skeptical that human-made CO2 emissions are the cause of it. For example, CO2 makes up only 2% of the atmosphere's greenhouse gases, and is actually a rather weak greenhouse gas, at that. You know what makes up the majority? Water vapor. Lowering those levels would have a much larger effect, but good luck controlling that. There's also sunspot activity, urbanization (seriously, they build temperature readings on the outskirts of growing cities, where temperatures are guaranteed to increase), among other things. I'm not saying that climate change isn't happening or isn't dangerous, but just that there's a lot of proof showing that it really isn't as big of a deal as people make it out to be. However, let's look at a couple of other issues: Carbon Monoxide levels Lack of clean water Overpopulation Deforestation Natural disaster relief Endangered species AIDS in Africa These are issues that are without a doubt happening, without a doubt dangerous to both humanity and the planet as a whole, and without a doubt can actually be aided a considerable amount by putting resources into them. So, why are we focusing less on those issues, and instead pouring more and more money into global warming, with the money, quite frankly, not being put to any other use other than powering the CO2-emitting meetings that the high-up people attend? Now, let's talk about "clean energy"... *is booed off the stage*

You receive the laptop back, but with its background changed to a mountain vista. Score! I stick my tongue into the machine.

You receive a giant fly and ride it off into the sunset. I take that sunset and wedge it into the machine.

You receive a fourth dimension to the face. I insert a completed math problem: "2 + 2 = (1/2)log216"

You receive an alien probe. I angrily smash my Pre-Cal homework into the machine.

Yes, I do. Because if you put controls on what other people do with their bodies, then you're a lot less libertarian, and thereby more authoritarian. I was, however, confused as to why you refer to abortion as "hypothetical," and why you assumed that it was your basis that I was pondering over. Also, there's also the stimulus plan. Honestly, the stimulus plan and the healthcare bill combined spent so much money in an effort to "right social wrongs" (which is essentially the basis of being "towards the left," is it not?) that it's seriously difficult to portray him as "right-winged." Also, I'd prefer not to bring my own intelligence into the matter, thank you.

But then if you look at the stuff that he HAS done, you'll find that he still ranks pretty far left on the spectrum. At least, further left than the people of the site have said. Also, abortion is hypothetical? And I didn't mean your basis, I meant the site people's basis.

But then that one stance places them as more authoritarian than Obama? And I'm still pondering how in the world Obama could *actually* be as far to the right as the site creators say he is. Yes, yes, you've posted their explanation, but I still highly doubt it, judging by the sheer weirdness of the questions.

1 & 2: But the problem is that a lot of these questions do nothing to determine political alignment (like the astrology one) and/or are so very extreme that it calls into question the reliability of the point system. 3. I'm not talking of the terms themselves, I'm speaking on how everything is relative to the observer's position, not on the chart, but also in other aspects as well. (This is because politics is too complex to even divide into a 2D grid. Maybe a 4D grid would work, if possible.) If somebody was very authoritarian, but less authoritarian than, for example, Hitler was, then Hitler would claim that that person "cares far too much about human rights," even though by the charts standards that person would be quite authoritarian.