Thread replies: 27
Thread images: 5
Thread images: 5
File: chess_move_by_jgbruno-d3c9i9q.jpg (467KB, 1200x806px) Image search:
[Google]
467KB, 1200x806px
Okay, what game is truly fair. A game where there is no tricks or tactics of upper advantage, and it depends completely on skill and intelligence.
We should just replace that in exchange for war, and make the a sort of random jury in each country do it to win.
How is WAR any better? Really, if you can honestly give me a reason, why war is a better solution at solving dispute between countries, then please answer.
You know this specific game, played between countries would be a better indicator of deservement than any war would be.
We're at a civilized point in history where this is possible.
Now I'm not saying we should get rid of any defense. But thats it, keep defense, as that is what soldiers and nuclear arms should be used for. Defence and defence mechanisms.
But if you need to solve some shit, don't use that same shit. Use a completely fair game, and between countries.
So get a random jury, like in courts as they randomly select people from the public to participate as the jury, we get random competitors from around the country and collect them. In the thousands.
We teach 'em this game, by an outside party to both groups, and confirm that both parties know the rules exactly. Just know them, not tutorial. They may have not played, they may have.
We then let the battle commence. A series of games, with a pair of them, one from each country, televised and streamed online. A pair every time til the huge sample is finished. We keep collecting results daily, til last match. Until the last country is unable to win because the other country has the majority.
Not only does this promote intelligence and problem solving, both skills essential to a thriving economy and country, but no blood, easy, and fair.
All solved by having a fair game, with an outside WAR PARTY observe and maintain events. It cant be cheated, because it's just a game.
I ask you /pol/, how is war any better than a fair game between countries?
>>
War is just as sly as real life.
Besides pic, what other games are truly fair?
>>
>>132658756
pure economic competition
>>
>>132658756
So much text for such a simple answer: what happens when you beat me at chess and I punch you in your fucking face? The weak should fear the strong.
>>
>>132658756
Elefun the elephant
Or hungry hungry hippos
>>
>Cheat by altering the samples.
>Cheat by gerrymandering.
>Cheat by the best players accidentally becoming incapacitated on game night.
>Lose
>Decide to kill everyone.
Fucking stupid.
>>
>>132659827
duh digital chess in different rooms.
One makes a move on there chess board, and the chess piece moves on the other guys one.
>>
>>132658756
Are you retarded? What are you gonna do if i dont play by the rules? War is not a competition between states. It is a fucking fight for resources/land or other things. War happens if you won the game but i still refuse to give in to your shit. Than you need to call the referee.
And basically all perfect information games. Chess, Go, Shogi are fair and easy to observe to be fair. However those are also the games where no human can beat a good computer anymore. We only have an edge in imperfect information games where you have to gues the intentions of other humans.
>>
>>132659982
what game are you referring to?
If so, shit game idea. We need a fair game.
>>
>>132660080
It's not a game you moron. I'm telling you how you can cheat and in the end it doesn't matter because the loser will just start a war.
>>
Life.exe is the best but if i leave the game now i lose all my shit.
>>
>>132658756
War s chosen because the loser cannot ignore the results.
IDGAF the results of a simultaneous chess game.
>>
>>132660022
Who's to stop me tracking you down with my super drone and killing you?
>>
>>132660062
If the countries agree to the UN, the the WAR PARTY LAW, can be apart of the geneva converntion which states
ALL COUNTRIES THAT WHICH TO GO TO WAR, MUST APPLY TO THE WAR PARTY, WITH THE OPPONENTS APPROVAL ALSO SO THAT THEY MAY PLAY THE REQUIRED GAME AS DESCRIBED BY THE WAR PARTY/
IF A COUNTRY DOES NOT WISH TO BE ANOTHER COUNRTIES OPPONENT, WAR SHALL NOT BE HAD, AND WOULD DEFY THE GENEVA CONVENTION
To all the countries that participate in UN, gotta follow this. So ISIS don't count, and threats to UN can be dealt with violence.
Othewise, all UN participating countries, must commit to War this way.
Now how would a war be better?
>>
>>132660561
It would not be better it would still be unavoidable. What happens if my country decides not to give a shit about the UN? I dont wanna be in them. Will you come with weapons and soldiers? What if my little country got some too. For the most part we only have trading embargos anyways nowadays between countries. However the conflicts of the future will not be between countries anymore but between cultures. There is no UN for cultures and it will be hard to create one.
>>
>>132660950
So what...we keep war because muh infrastructure?
How long we gonna live like this?
>>
>>132660561
What an abominable use of the Geneva convention. Please go back to redtit, kid.
>>
>>132658756
War is a game and why would you want a fair one? You want one were you can win fuck your morality
>>
>>132661140
For the 3 time we do not KEEP war. War sucks but is still unavoidable sometimes. We do a pretty good job to keep it in check by making trading more efficient than war so there is no economic insentive.
However i am pretty sure you are either trolling or mentally handicaped by now.
>>
>>132661140
Until the end you homo.
>>
>>132661192
It's an example. Idea is we could let civilised countries, or countries who wish to improve apply to a convention agreed to them, and we only commit warfare according to the rules of the outside party.
Fairness and no bloodshed.
>>
>>132661140
>How long we gonna live like this?
conflict is in our blood. it's with us forever.
>>
File: Dumbass.jpg (113KB, 512x384px) Image search:
[Google]
113KB, 512x384px
>>132661631
>Fairness
>>
>>132661631
There are no fair games. Stop this bullshit. In war it's the strongest army with the biggest guns. In whatever stupid game you're going to make up it'll be whoever is best at the game so everyone will dedicate their time to playing the game instead of stuff that is actually useful. Not only a stupid idea but nobody would agree to it because in the end you need to take what you want by force. Nobody is going to lose a game and say, okay now you can have all my resources.
>>
File: kys dot jaypeg.jpg (65KB, 550x448px) Image search:
[Google]
65KB, 550x448px
>>132660561
>IF A COUNTRY DOES NOT WISH TO BE ANOTHER COUNRTIES OPPONENT, WAR SHALL NOT BE HAD
You may be the stupidest motherfucker on the whole of the internet.
You realise that there' somalians on the internet?
You're stupider than fucking somalians.
>>
File: 50tyson.png (207KB, 482x352px) Image search:
[Google]
207KB, 482x352px
stupid pub chat m8
>>
>>132660561
starcraft oviously.
Only problem is then the koreans would rule the world.
Thread posts: 27
Thread images: 5
Thread images: 5