Master of Orion, 18 Years Later

Absolutely not recommended.  Seriously.  You will regret reading this.  If you think this is sarcasm, you are wrong.

Back when mom bought our first real computer (it ran Windows 3.1 but did not have a CD-ROM or a sound card), I played "Master of Orion," a 1993 game described as "4X": explore, expand, exploit, exterminate.  It is a space strategy game where you build an empire of star systems, build a fleet, interact with other races, create alliances, go to war, research technology, etc. etc.  You win by earning 2/3 votes of the population (which is made far easier if your empire constitutes 2/3 of the vote) or by destroying your competition.

I start playing this again after I stumbled upon a community of people that still play and have taken it to the extreme, so to speak.  They've played this game so many times, they can usually beat this game on the "Impossible" setting, they know certain exploits (and some refuse to use them even when others think their use is fair game), and they keep playing not necessarily to win but to see how the computer's AI works with each race of aliens.  There are a handful that are creating an unofficial patch that will correct some of the computer's AI issues.

So, like a fool, I thought it would be fun to play again.  I have no interest in joining this little community--one video game addiction at a time, if I can help it--but I found it all fascinating and wanted to reminisce by playing the game.

Here is where this post takes a turn for the worse.  Non-gamers, avert your eyes.

I started small, literally: I played in a Small galaxy on the lowest difficulty setting against four opponents.  I played as the Psilons, who research technology at a much faster rate than any other race, and are largely considered to be the best if not overpowered alien race.  This game ended quickly with a win.

My second game was a Large galaxy, average difficulty, five opponents, still as Psilons.  I learned from the few posts I read on this website that early expansion is the biggest key to survival, let alone winning.  I encountered a few races with larger empires but much lower technology.  They chose to go to war with me, I usually got the better of them and my empire expanded.  That was a win also, but the large galaxy took much longer to conquer--not just because of the amount of systems necessary to take over, but because the game still moves slower when you have such a big galaxy (you have to run this game in a DOS emulator; if there is a way to speed the game up, I haven't figured it out yet).

Next, I tried a Small galaxy, average difficulty, five opponents.  Because space is limited here, this presents a different kind of challenge: get out there fast, fortify what you've got, because at least one race if not several are wanting to expand right away.  I played as the Meklars, a cyborg/gecko race known for increased factory controls (more production).  The Klackons, an ant-like race with their own form of increased production, quickly stole my third system without even a declaration of war (and bringing their total to six).  Knowing I misplayed my opening, I admitted defeat and started a new game.

...I played as the Klackons.  Fleets were built, wars were waged; in the end, I owned seven systems to my next closest opponents six.  A total conquest victory was not in sight when voting time came; of the 19 total votes available, 6 were cast for my opponent and 5 for me before accounting for my 8 votes (two other empires disliked the Silicoids more than they disliked me).  With a race built for more production, I expected a bloody ending.  Not so, it seemed--the game ended in 2474, or 174 turns.

With this in mind, my next game was the same except I played as Humans.  Their advantage is in treaties and trading--I fully expected a peaceful "council" end (council means a winner by vote).  And I played to the Human strengths: I expanded to three systems to make contact with other races.  I entered into trade agreements with four other races, and our relations were slowly getting better.  Things were very even: each race was close in size, population, fleet strength, technology, etc.  At one point, I had four systems, the Darloks (a spy-like race whose advantage is, you guessed it, sabotage and espionage) had four systems, and everyone else had three except for the lizard-like Sakkra, isolated to one planet (and whom I did not even have contact with, our systems were so distant).  I was friends with everyone and expected a diplomatic victory very soon.

The problem was, everyone else was friends with everyone, also.  No one was at war, which was fine while everything was balanced.  However, the balance soon teetered when 1) the Darloks came within a vote of winning the game by council vote, and 2) the Darloks researched or stole the technology for building colonies on radiated planets, three of which were available.  They quickly expanded from four to six systems with a seventh in sight when I knew I had to take action or risk losing at the next vote.

I implored two other alien races to declare war on the Darloks.  The Psilons with their advanced technology were eager to do so.  The Meklars agreed only after I gave them some new technology for their ground troops.

The three empires--my Humans, the Psilons and Meklars--began to tear apart the Darlok empire.  War inspires war, it seems; soon the Psilons and Meklars were at war with each other.  Then the Meklars wanted to war with me.  I destroyed the newest Darlok colonies (that I couldn't take over without their technology) and finally their homeworld, leaving them with a handful of underdeveloped colonies.  At some point, they were down to one colony when the other races laid off and let them be.  As I found out (and then reloaded my game at an earlier point), finishing off an alien race--genocide--is a major faux paux in intergalactic war.

So far, this "peaceful" game was far bloodier than the last.  What started out as a sure victory by vote was turning into a race to conquer systems.  My empire far outstripped the others at the next vote, but the other empires feared my power and voted against me (except for my lone Psilon allies).

The Mrrshans--the cat-like race of superior gunners--tried to make a system grab then pretend everything was OK.  I responded by taking two of their three systems while occupying their third, preventing them from doing anything else but not landing a killing blow.  Out of desperation, it seems, the Mrrshans invaded the last Darlok system, committing the dreaded genocide.  But now that the Mrrshans had two planets, I could take the one I already occupied without committing genocide and alienating the other empires.

Not so.  My allies, the Psilons, attacked their new planet on the same turn.  Apparently their attack went through first, so when I took over the planet I was already at, it was their last and I was the one "guilty" of committing genocide.  The Psilons ended our alliance and tensions rose.

Four empires left: my Humans, the Psilons, and finally the Meklars and Sakkras, each with one planet and each at war with me.  Since everything was a complete and utter mess diplomatically, I turned my sights to destroying the Meklars and Sakkras (more importantly, their votes) so my empire would by itself have the required 2/3 vote necessary to win.  A cosmic space crystal destroyed the Meklars last planet, though it appears as though the game will not let an empire die this way, so I when I sent some ships to merely occupy the planet, the colony was destroyed and I got credit for another genocide.  Next turn, the vote came and I elected myself the new Galactic Emperor of this tiny galaxy, winning the game in 2674--374 turns, or more than twice as long as my Klackon victory.

...How did all of this happen?  How do the militaristic Klackons get enough support from other empires to get an early diplomatic win, while the diplomatic Humans had to slug it out, committing two accidental genocides and forcing a third (the Mrrshans ending the Darloks)?  How was this story created--either in the game or in my mind--from actions and reactions from five computer AIs attempting to act in their own best interest?

But is that really how it happened?  In the Klackon game, I merely responded to provocation and only attacked when others declared war against me.  In the Human game, I urged others to destroy my main competitor when it appeared I would lose at the next diplomatic juncture.  I created war where there was none, because I wanted to win.

Does this say something about me in general (I hope not)?  Does it say something about the way I play games (my wife would say yes, definitely yes)?  Does this mean anything at all?  Probably not.  It's just a game, two different playthroughs of the game (so a small sample size) and there are a lot of other variables to consider.

Still, it's fascinating (to some, maybe just me) and it's why I get sucked into this and other games.  But it doesn't seem like it would make a lot of sense to most people, which is a large part of why this article is absolutely not recommended.  It's bad enough I think of all this stuff with this ancient computer game; it's worse that I was compelled to sit down three different times (because I didn't have enough consecutive minutes available to write this all at once) and write a stupid post about it.

Ghost writer for Twitter!

I think it would be fun to ghost write for someone's Twitter account. Here are some samples:

Learning to play guitar but will not play for you. sx2bu

Mmm... Sushi!

Yuck, sushi.

Sushi... meh.

You are FOOLS to have come here!

Kid with runny nose. Ew boogers are gross.

Ran out of stamps. Gonna try stickers.

No stickers either. Gonna draw a stamp.

I suck at art.

Past due? How about let me pay through twitter.

What is a mailbox? Why do we still have them?

Whoa I am up late LOLOLOL

Baking cookies but you can't have any. sx2bu

Ate a lot of cookies today. Mmm... cookies!

Ate too many cookies today.



...Nevermind, I don't think this would be fun after all.

My Job and My Faith

NOTE: The following content is deserving of several careful edits. But that's not how I'm rolling this morning; I'm working against two clocks and I want to get these ideas down before I lose my chance. Perhaps I will edit later. As always, not recommended.

God is all-powerful. In my Spanish-English Parallel Bible, the term for this is "todo poderoso," and based on my limited Spanish, that seems to mean or come from something like "able to do all things."

That God is all-powerful seems like an easy concept, yet sometimes we struggle with this. It is easy to say God is more powerful than the Quran, especially if one does not believe the Quran is anything special. The same can be said if one said God is more powerful than the Book of Mormon.

But what about saying God is more powerful than the Bible? Of course he is, yet to some I am all of a sudden comparing two very similar things. They're not. One is all-powerful; the other is a book, though God-breathed, that is still a thing and not a sentient being. That the Bible is, to me and some others, the primary written authority on who God is does not change that God is ultimately more powerful. Some might say that the Bible defines God, and how else can we learn about him? But clearly God exists even if there wasn't a Bible, simply because God existed before there was a Bible. I mean, he is the subject matter, clearly he predates it.

What does it mean to say that God is more powerful than the Quran, the Book of Mormon, or the Bible? In the very primal sense, it means God will conquer those things, overcome them. More than that, however, it means that God is stronger than the intents and passions of the writers of those books or documents. Meaning, even if the writer meant to convey one thing, God can make it so the reader learns a completely different thing.

Since God is more powerful than these epic tomes, clearly he is also more powerful than a novel, a book written by a Christian author, or a book written by someone who definitely sought truth even if it is unclear if ultimately she found truth.

I use that last strange description because I can't think of a more significant way to describe Simone Weil and her book that God used to change my outlook on one of his most important commandments.

I learned about Simone Weil in a Christian Mysticism class in college, taught by a professor who I felt possessed a clear distaste for modern Christians. Yet, he still had a passion, even if only academically, for Christian mystics, and I learned a lot even if I didn't know how to apply it.

Simone Weil was a compelling individual, and I'm typing this from memory of a course I took almost ten years ago so I apologize if I mess up her short bio. I believe she authored several books, including "Waiting for God" which was required reading in my course. From what I remember, she embraced Jesus but had difficulty accepting that the God of the Old Testament were one and the same. She rejected baptism. She dabbled in and/or embraced Marxism, though not the antireligious aspects of it--what I mean is, I think she believed that Marxism was a better way to run a Godly community... I can't remember. The point is, she is a controversial individual for a number of reasons.

Regardless of what you think about Weil, she wrote a book that I was required to read, though I only read portions. One of the portions so compelled me you would think I would read the rest of it, but that wasn't the way I worked then and I can't say it's the way I work now.

She wrote about what it means to love your neighbor as yourself, and I am paraphrasing from memory, but this is what I remember. When you see a homeless man, and you remember to love your neighbor as yourself, you are compelled to help the man. Some would think "I offer food to this man because I love God." Others might say "I offer food to this man because I love him." Weil said "I offer food to this man because I love myself," and when I am hungry I do not hesitate to feed myself because I love myself. If I am to love this homeless man as myself, I will feed him because he is hungry, period. Because that's what it means to love him as I love myself. That's how you fulfill God's commandment.

(She says it a million times better than that and probably considerably less heavy handed. I'm shooting for a concept here, the one that latched on to me and hasn't let go, though admittedly more in my head than in practice.)

I can't remember much about Weil, as my convoluted paragraph above proves. I don't know if she has any "authority" when speaking about God (I use quotes because I disagree with the concept of someone having authority to speak about God--either God is using that person or he isn't, it has nothing to do with how good they are or how much they have studied or even if they have any idea what they are talking about, which is really my point with all of this); what I do know is what she wrote spoke to me and I believe it was a message from God that I needed to hear.

God can use books that are written by strangers or even enemies to reveal his truths. Yet God does not even have to use a book. God is more powerful than literacy; he can reveal himself to someone who can't read. He can do it in any way, but one of those ways is through their life experience.

The lesson God taught me through Simone Weil's words, as well as the belief that God can use any situation to reveal himself to a person, are just two of the reasons why I work as a public defender.

Several people have asked me, Christian and non-Christian alike, how I can defend someone I know to be guilty. I don't have an answer memorized but it is something like this: I am guilty. I have sinned against God and deserve nothing but punishment. There is nothing I can do to earn my way out of that situation, no amount of good that will cover over my sin. Yet, my sin is forgiven through Jesus Christ, who in spite of my shortcomings and my sin still wants to save me from eternal punishment. These guilty people I defend, I am one of them. If I am to love my neighbor as myself, I must defend them. Not because love God, not because I love them, but because I love myself, and God has commanded me to love my client as I love myself. Which means I must defend them from accusation regardless of their guilt.

In doing so, I hope that they receive less punishment than what they were facing at the outset, and thought the parallel is imperfect, I hope whatever portion of forgiveness they receive only leads them to the ultimate forgiveness that Christ offers. Even if that doesn't happen, I know that God is working in a person's legal situation in ways that I cannot understand. God placed me here to do this work and I am his tool to be used for his purposes. So even if I strive mightily to get my client an acquittal or an incredibly favorable plea agreement, it still might be God's goal to have me fail because of a greater lesson he wants to impart upon my client. Because God is more powerful than this defense attorney, and though I walk away frustrated with a case where it seems I had no impact whatsoever on the outcome, I have to believe that God has a purpose for that, maybe for me, maybe for my client, maybe for all of us or someone else entirely.

Just so it is clear (especially to those who know me in the legal community), it would be unethical from a professional standpoint and incredibly belligerent and assuming from a faith standpoint for me to think that I know what God wants to happen in a particular case or for a particular client. My goal with any case is always the same: get the best outcome for my client, period. For me to act in any other way is unethical and unprofessional, and it means I am placing limits on God because if I were to act that way, it means I don't believe he is more powerful than my own efforts for my client. For this reason, my beliefs do not and will not affect my duties to my client. My actions in my case will always have that one goal in mind: get the best result for my client.

Man, I thought I was going to get out of this without a legal disclaimer, but I think that last paragraph was necessary in the end.

MLB All-Star "Vacation"!

Huge thanks to my mother-in-law, Kerry, who gave Katie and I tickets to all the MLB All-Star events! Here's a rundown of what went on:

MLB Fanfest: I couldn't go but Katie went with Kerry, Isabelle, and a former student studying to be a sports journalist. Lots of good stuff. I'll let her talk about that on her blog (link on the side there, somewhere).

The Celebrity/Legends Game: I haven't watched this in the past because following celebrities is not one of my hobbies, but we had tickets and the spare time so we decided to check it out. Having never seen one, I can't compare the quality of celebs in past years. But this year's batch didn't do much for me. Nick Jonas may have been the biggest celebrity there. I was happy to see Chord Overstreet (Sam from Glee) and he made a pretty awesome play, but I don't think he's a celeb. Jennie Finch "pitched" (slow pitch softball) but despite her gold medal in Olympic Softball, she's still just a local celeb. There were some random dudes I liked (Matt from Heroes) but no celebrities, really, save Jonas.

The Legends were pretty good, though. Of course there was Luis Gonzalez and Mark Grace, and Matt Williams made an appearance. Probably best of all was Rickey Henderson, who had a leadoff home run off of Jennie Finch. He played hard and brought personality.

There was a mini-homerun derby that pitted Jonas and Henderson against some dude and Gonzo. Jonas and Henderson each hit one HR, some dude hit two, so Gonzo only had to hit one to win it all.

The whole thing took maybe 65 minutes. Given the price of admission (which I won't list), I don't think the fans got their money's worth. But it was a gift to Katie and I and we enjoyed it. Like I said, I can't say if there are usually bigger names there and I can't say if SB 1070 played a role in keeping other celebs away.

MLB Home Run Derby: !!!!! This. Was. Awesome.

Katie and I are NL fans, mostly because of the Diamondbacks but also because we don't care for the DH position (I'm more ambivalent than Katie is but I tend to lean against the DH). So our natural inclination in all things, even exhibitions like the HR Derby, is to cheer for NL.

However, Prince Fielder made that nearly impossible. This year, for the first time ever, the HR Derby had "captains" that chose three teammates from their league to try and outscore the other league (even though there is only one winner in the end). The captains were the previous two winners, Prince Fielder for the NL and David Ortiz for the AL.

Prince Fielder, a 275 lb. vegetarian, weighed his options for power on his NL team, and he came up with Matt Holliday (good choice), Matt Kemp (meh) and... Rickie Weeks, a teammate of his on the Brewers, not known for his power but whatever. Why is this horrible? He did not choose Justin Upton, an Arizona Diamondback who hits long home runs in the same field on which the HR Derby would occur. Nevermind any home field advantage, nevermind getting the fans on your side... let's choose Rickie Weeks cuz he's my homeboy.

Arizona fans were not amused. Fielder was booed all night, Weeks (who didn't deserve it) was booed too, only hit 3 HRs in the first round and was summarily eliminated. After Round 1, it was 3 AL players against one, Fielder. He was eliminated in Round 2.

But you know what? That only added some story to a night that would have been spectacular without it, because this HR Derby was quite the show, thanks to Robinson Cano and Adrian Gonzalez. They were hitting bombs all over right field. I can't figure out how to describe it. It was so steady and consistent that you expected the home run, yet you were in awe that they were able to keep doing it over and over and over again.

The ESPN article about the HR Derby captured part of it: one guy nearly went over a wall trying to catch... his fourth HR ball. Another guy made the catch of the year: he caught a HR ball, landed in the pool with bikini-clad hotties... and didn't spill his beer. Um, how can it get any better than that (and I don't even drink)?!

The HR Derby was absolutely worth the price of admission. Katie and I watch this every year so we're somewhat biased, but if this wasn't the best one we've seen, it was at least on par with the Abreu and Hamilton derbies, and even better than the Tejada/Berkman derby because we got to see it live.

My only complaint: there needed to be an extra charity boost for hitting a home run into the pool, and it's a tremendous oversight by MLB and all charitable organizations that that no such portion of the contest was included.

MLB All-Star Game: It's amazing because the best players play against the best players... right?

Except they didn't: Sunday's starting pitchers couldn't play, and Jeter is a wussbag, and A-Rod is hurt or getting surgery, and Jeter is a wussbag, and Chipper Jones couldn't go, and Jeter is a wussbag.

There was still plenty of star power, but then there are the guys I'd never heard of from teams in last place. Even so, they surprise you: Starlin Castro from the Cubs stole second then third, and Hunter Pence threw out a guy at home with a perfect toss from left field.

The score wasn't close and there weren't enough "OH MY!" plays, but it was great to be there and see all the fans from all over enjoying the game. That was really the best part: cheering with other fans instead of against them.

All in all, a good experience. There's plenty more I could say; maybe I'll add more later.

Excerpts from Encyclopaedia Herbnostica

Foreword: These excerpts, like the rest of the Encyclopaedia Herbnostica, were composed when the author(s) were supposed to be sleeping.

Horny Captain Bearded King: Captain of the Pirate Ship A242, known for his adoration of the fairer sex, his beard, his pirate hat/crown, and his way with words.

First Mate Ocho the Committed: First Mate of the Pirate Ship A242, so named because 5 and 3 are 8, and because he was engaged to be married during his service aboard the ship. Others have speculated that he was "committed" in another sense, but whatever.

Dopplar, the Mutant-Ribbed Cabin Boy: Cabin Boy aboard the Pirate Ship A242, named for his love of science and his mutant rib that jutted out worse than the glacier that sunk the Titanic.

Half-Beard the Chaste: Held no official title on the Pirate Ship A242, leading some to speculate that he inhabited the Crow's Nest, or was a passenger, or a prisoner, or a combination of the three. Though clearly Half-Beard lent credibility to the rest of the crew by virtue of having "beard" in his name, unlike the others... except for Horny Captain Bearded King, so nevermind. Named because he could only grow a beard on one side of his face, and because unlike the others aboard, held no special affection for women (or men, for that matter).

Herb F. Garcia: A curmudgeon known to live in spacious hallway closets, sneaking out at night to post mediocre scores on N64 games like Hydro Thunder. Is rumored to be quite amorous with the ladies despite living in a hallway closet, though none of those rumors were ever confirmed, or even widely circulated. Not to be confused with Herb D. Garcia; it is important that you ask which one you are talking to should a "Herb" answer the phone.

This Post Is Boring and Irrelevant

You have been warned. As always, not recommended.

No, seriously. This is going to be like most people's posts, random thoughts about stuff that doesn't matter. And the thoughts are not even original or interesting. They're just things I wanted to put down on paper, but I don't want to waste paper, so I'll "waste" internet space.

"The King's Speech" lives up to the hype. Must see.

1998 was a very loaded Oscar year, but I didn't realize this at the time. This doesn't change how Jim Carrey deserved a nomination (not necessarily a win) for his performance in The Truman Show.

For instance, I didn't realize/remember until looking at 1998 at filmsite.org that "Saving Private Ryan" did NOT win Best Picture that year. Neither did "Life is Beautiful." No, that honor goes to "Shakespeare in Love." ...Really? Either of the World War II era films I just mentioned would have beaten Gladiator hands down, but I'm not so sure that "Shakespeare in Love" can do that. Loaded year, right?

(I really enjoy Gladiator but I don't regard it as a "Best Picture" quality film. It wasn't as good as Braveheart, though it drew comparisons to that film. It won in a weak year (he says without looking at the actual evidence...).)

Roberto Benigni won Best Actor for "Life is Beautiful," edging out Tom Hanks (Ryan) and Edward Norton in American History X.

Steven Spielberg won Best Director for "Saving Private Ryan," beating the directors of "Life is Beautiful," "Shakespeare in Love" and "The Truman Show."

Anyway.

I don't know what to think about BYU dismissing a star player in a year in which it could make the Final Four. On one hand, BYU showed integrity in making the move. On the other hand, I'm really interested to know when this transgression occurred and for how long BYU knew about it. Does it matter in the long run? Yes and no. Mostly no.

Will the NFL owners lockout the players? It does not seem as inevitable as we first thought. I think I understand the issues at play and I tend to favor the players in this disagreement, but how much of that is media spin? Arguably, ESPN.com and other sources are not nearly as overtly biased as we can imagine media sources were during the last baseball strike, when there was "no doubt" the blame for the strike was the fault of the players. Even so, how can we decide without knowing more information, specifically the information withheld by the owners--how much money is each team bringing in, what are their actual expenses for which they are asking for an additional billion dollars out of the $9 billion pot split between players and owners?

Will Arizona have even an illusion of rational leadership, ever? I'm so jaded by their perpetual failure that I will even consider joining the Start Our State movement if only they promise to observe Daylight Savings Time. Why? So I don't have to reschedule my World of Warcraft playing time every six months. That's how apathetic I've become about politics in Arizona: you can't really help me when it comes to the stuff that matters, so placate me with stuff that doesn't. Ultimately, I think they know it too, which is why the legislature wasted their time on choosing a state gun and creating a license plate for the tea party.

Well, from the Original Tea Party, I leave you with this final thought: A Very Merry Unbirthday To You!