PASSED[Citizen] Genius of the Restoration (patron: Katsumoto)

[Legio]

Genius of the Restoration

Submission

Hello again members of CdeC,

Thanks to the support of Katsumoto, the noblest part-Japanese member I know on this forum, I'd like to resubmit myself, in application form, for citizenship. I'll direct you to some of my better contributions to the site in the past month and a bit.

In the RTW area, I'm writing a guide for how to play the early turns of campaigns for all factions. This is still a work in progress, but I think it's going well so far.

I've been spending some more time in the D&D forums. I had a good talk with TheDarkLordSeth about the role of politics and the judciary. I like discussing South Asian history, and got to talk about the partition of India in a recent thread about Pakistan's existence.

I've enjoyed my forays into threads about Islam as usual, usually critiquing the sources used to support opinions, such as here and here.

I've also started a couple of threads on Australian political issues. One on the recent Australian election, and another this week on the choice by the Director of Public Prosecutions to not charge over two hundred men who had sex with a 12-year-old.

I also became involved in the Content branch wrote a little piece for the ES reviewing some of the happenings within the Historical Research Centre for Shogun 2.

My previous application if anyone wants to look over it

In the D&D I've posted mostly in the EMM, VV and the Mudpit. I hope I've debated fairly and without attacking the people behind the arguments. Here is a post from my first real debate on the forum from last year: Spoiler Alert, click show to read:  Now tell me, that Islam isn't discriminative against women. I think you are confusing the issue. Islam is a living religion. Being a living religion, it is practised differently by different people and evolves because of this. I don't think it's fair to make a 'blanket statement', as Chaigidel put it, that Islam is discriminative towards women. Some Muslims certainly do, others don't. The conceptualisation of a static, defined 'Islam' is useless. The religion changes with it's practitioners. Just because some Muslims are discriminatory does not mean others are, and certainly does not mean that 'Islam', which is merely a convenient term encompassing all it's varied practitioners, is. Some verses of the Qur'an can be interpreted to be what contemporary society considers to be discriminatory against women. When the Qur'an was revealed many of these verses would have been seen as steps towards the protection of women. Like you, I will quote an example, "You who believe, it is not lawful for you to inherit women against their will" (4: 19). My copy of the Qur'an (tr. M. A. S. Abdel Haleem, Oxford UP, 2005) also has a footnote under this that reads, "In pre-Islamic Arabia, if a man died leaving a widow, her stepson or another man of his family could inherit her." Yes, you may cry out at verses for being discriminatory and 'backward', but it was very progressive when it was revealed. It is interesting in regards to the "It is okay to beat wives" section in your post you did not quote in context. Allow me, "If you fear high-handedness from your wives, remind them [of the teachings of God], then ignore them when you go to bed, then hit them. If they obey you, you have no right to act against them: God is most high and great. If you [believers] fear that a couple may break up, appoint one arbiter from his family and one from hers. Then, if the couple want to put things right, God will bring about reconciliation between them" (4:34-5) Where does the emphasis lie here? Is it about how to beat up a wife, or avenues to resolve serious marital conflict? In case you are not sure what message is trying to be conveyed I will quote again, "If a wife fears high-handedness or alienation from her husband, neither of them will be blamed if they come to a peaceful settlement, for peace is best." (4: 128) The verb nashaza means 'to become high' and is translated here as high-handedness. It refers to situations where one partner in a marriage assumes superiority over the other. The quote you used to support your argument wasn't in context with the portrayal of divorce within the sura. What the Qur'an is attempting to convey (through translation) is that it is best if couples do not divorce. Yes, it says that a man can slap his wife, but this is not what the sura is about. Unfortunately, you are correct, the verse you referred to has been used by some in an attempt to justify the beating of women. This is not the intention of the verse however. The men who mercilessly beat their wives for not doing what they tell them are perverting the text. They act 'high-handed' and assume, some are even taught this, that because the Qur'an mentioned slapping once they have a free licence to beat their wives as they see fit. There is a touch of irony that in behaving so they are perpetrating the act of nashaza that is against everything contained in the entire sura. As a side note PowerWizard, I have to agree with Rome that extrapolating the example of Iran to encompass a general 'Islam' is pointless. This is the first post I made in what turned out to be a conversation in the Mudpit about Islam, though it started about an isolated incident in a university, though these things get stressed a little too much sometimes. Spoiler Alert, click show to read:  I saw the title of this thread and chuckled to myself a bit, anticipating what I knew was going to happen in the first post. Thing is, arguing from the specific to the general isn't a good logical step, unless, and this is very important, you have a good sample. Taking one university as your evidence is poor. Statistics are vital for making encompassing claims. There are many different ways to sample. I'll give you a couple using the example of a ship full of convicts heading to Australia: Cluster sampling - you choose a group of subjects and extrapolate wider findings from them. To look at what crimes a convict was sent to the penal stations for by choosing to look at the records for one ship is an example. This is quite an easy way to sample. Unfortunately, there are also problems with this. The cluster chosen might not reflect the wider pattern for instance. If there were groups of people involved in crimes that were all sent to Australia they might be put on different ships for instance, and this would give different results. Random sampling - you choose subjects at random. I'd get the list of character records and have the records I sample chosen at random. This is easier to extrapolate because chances are that the sample is diverse enough to represent different opinions within the population. This brings me on to one more little point. When you're asking questions and want to use data as evidence (51 Muslims at a university means something) the wider the thesis, the wider your sample should be. The claim: Unfortunately these 'very worst individuals' constitute a large proportion of the overall body. should have a larger sample size than say, a claim that 'cotton spinners sent to Australia had fewer fingers than others'. The number of variables and the complexity of the first is much higher than the second. So, what have we learned? Don't take a university as representative of the whole. In fact, don't take what is reported in the media as representative of the whole either, because it certainly isn't reporting impartially and with equal coverage to everyone in proportion to the population. The media has an interest in stories that sell, and is itself a cluster sample if you take all your information from it with the weaknesses this brings. The evidence is all the anecdotal examples, which exist for Muslims far more than for any other groups combined. There's your evidence. The video in the OP -- there's your evidence. Taking anecdotal evidence as a sample gives you very little to extrapolate because you don't know if the pattern will remain true with the whole. This statement is also mildly amusing because the evidence of anecdotal evidence witnessed by Siggy appears to be anecdotal. Valid, no? That thread continues with some more posts by myself about sources. In particular, I was irritated by what I saw as a posting of a source to back up a preconceived position without critically examining the source itself and then saying it was the "best survey conceivable" when it didn't actually support the argument of the poster. Sloppy use of sources is one of my pet hates, and a deliberate misconstruing of them is even worse IMO. Hmm? I'm not saying that some Muslims don't hate Jews, I'm sure some do. Did you miss the point of my post? Perhaps I wasn't clear enough. "antisemitism in Islam" is not what the study shows. The study you posted shows absolutely nothing about the contents of the religion, it only shows the responses of some of the religion's followers. The reason a Muslim might hate a Jew could have nothing to do with Islam at all. Did you ever stop to think about which countries rated highest with a negative view of Jews? Lebanon and Jordan. Funny that. What would give the populations of those countries such a strong opinion on Jews? Hint: starts with an 'I'. On page three of the site, there's an interesting little table that I'll reproduce here: Nevermind that in Turkey over twice as many people responded saying Christianity was more violent than Judaism. But forget all that, antisemitism is obviously inherent in the religion itself, and nothing to do with contemporary and historical political events and wars I'm just messing with you, I assume you didn't actually mean it was a problem of Islam looking at how you responded talking about Muslims, not their religion. However, I'll entertain responding to parts of your post that I take issue with. Enjoy, baby. When numerous countries of almost entirely Muslim population had a 100% negative views of Jews Are you deliberately misconstruing the source to tell you what you want to hear? There were two out of the six countries cited that had a 100% (pretty much) negative view of Jews. Two is hardly numerous. Okay, let's be serious here. The link you gave had two countries with 100% negative; Jordan and Lebanon. I'm not sure if you know this, but Lebanon's population is 39% Christian . Not exactly "almost entirely Muslim" aye? Same goes for Christians actually, Muslims had largely a negative opinion of them as well. Islam's failure to integrate into the west isnt some mystical coincidence, its the god damn people and the radical sects that influence them and shape their world view. Okay, you're not using your source properly again. Here's the bit you're refering to: Firstly, look at the views of Christians, Jews and Muslims. Look at the percentage of the Muslim-majority countries that had a negative view of Christians. My calculations give the average to be 44.67%. Look at the 'Western' countries' negative views of Muslims, 33%. That's not that far apart. If you look at the column for Muslim-majority countries favourable to Christians, the average is 47.17%. The average for the column for 'Western' countries favourable views to Muslims is 53.89%. Even closer this time. So out of this, how on earth do you come to the conclusion that it's the fault of Muslims that they haven't "integrated into the west" (which is such a eurocentric approach it's laughable)? Secondly, it's the "radical sects that... shape their world view"? What? Where did this come from? That's not in your source. I'm confused. I have a feeling you put this "best survey conceivable" (thank you for saying that by the way, because I wont need to read a new one seeing as this one is so accurate) up here in an attempt to support your points, without actually looking at what it says. Of course there needs to be a control in such experiments. The control is a 'normal' country, like e.g. the US. Are you telling me that there is a country in the world that is the embodiment of normality, and that this country is the US? In a normal country like the US the vast majorities of the population don't hold negative views of the Jews. According to Squiggle's "best survey conceivable" 22% do. That figure might be wrong though, and you can dispute it if you like. 100% of the population doesn't think of Jews negatively. Wow, that's the same in most of the countries on earth! Good find! I am always looking for the sources behind the arguments and that's something that I place a great deal of value in. I also know that it's quite possible that I'm wrong, and I've found myself outdone on a couple of occasions while I've been on TWC and have accepted that graciously as a learning experience. Hinduism isn't discussed much in EMM, so I hope my involvement in this thread shed some light on some of the issues involved in classifying and differentiating religious traditions from traditions that they grew out of. On the topic of Eastern religion, I've been involved in a few discussions with hellas1 about Buddhism. I had a hard time understanding his posts and debates seem to go around in circles. Nevertheless I think I refuted his points with reference to his own sources. Spoiler Alert, click show to read:  In regards to pre-brahminical/brahminical origins of Buddhist meditation who had Brahman (Vedanta) as the goal, along with how they got amalgamated into early Buddhist meditation practice, I refer you to a book called: "The origins of buddhist meditation" by Alexander Wynne, written in 2007, past your article quote from 2003. Thank you for replying hellas. Can I ask you to show me what parts of the book you want me to look at that support your position? It's 174 pages long apparently and I'm not going to read it all right now, no matter how good it is. For a clearer understanding of Pre-Shankara Vedanta or Vedanta at the time of the Buddha, I refer you to: A History of Early Vedanta Philosophy, volumes I & II by Hajime Nakamura Nakamura was a respectable historian. Haven't read those, and again I don't intend to read them but I referenced a journal article written by him for an essay earlier this year so I'll post some of it. The school under discussion takes its name from vedanta, a term referring to that portion of Indian scripture comprised in the Upanisads, a portion which the school called Vedanta especially esteems. The origin of the school which came to bear this name must be placed shortly after the completion of the early Upanisads, that is, about 300 B.C. Okay. Nakamura tells us that the school of Vedanta cannot have been influential in the earliest traditions of Buddhism, because it doesn't appear to have been in existence during the early years of Buddhism. Evidence that supports this, such as the absence of the term 'Upanisad' from the earliest Buddhist writings. This does not mean that the thoughts that became 'Vedantic' were not circulating however, and it is likely that they were, but were not actually recognised as a separate branch of thought from Vedism by the Buddhists. Hmm the problems of using early Buddhist writings without criticism! Which leads me to your earlier post about your aim in this thread: This thread is about whether or not God (Monotheism) and Buddhadharma are opposed to one another or Did Buddhadharma, in its' original state, posit an monotheistic god? (i.e. Brahman) There are a number of unaddressed assumptions in this question that I have issues with. Not all monotheistic gods are the same. The God of the New Testament is not the same as the God of the Qur'an for instance. The original form of Buddhism cannot be proven, all we have are early Buddhist writings and projecting an original Buddhism to an earlier time to when they were written (and edited) has too many historiographical problems to be taken as accurate. The claim that Brahman is a monotheistic deity. I said in my last post that it wasn't so in the Vedas with reference to Agni and you haven't rebutted that with anything beside a claim that Brahman is a monotheistic god. I certainly don't think Brahman became monotheistic under Vedantic influence either. Can you please signal your position on these points? Also in regards to your 'rebuttal'... Regarding the paper released in 2003: It supposes that no one who does a comparative study can actually figure out what really went down after the Buddha died. The author uses terms like: "apparantly" and " perhaps" which to me, in the context of this paper, make it say "You might as well give up, it's a lost cause." It's very pessimistic and doesn't factor the element of archeological research's finds... This "scholar" came to conclusions too quickly IMHO. It was directly referring to new finds, so I don't see how you can say it didn't factor them in. The whole paper was focussed on the emerging evidence and how they should change how we look at the history of Buddhist canons. Nobody can figure out exactly what went down after the Buddha died because we don't know exactly what the Buddha taught. Even the first sentence of the book you referred me to, The Origin of Buddhist Meditation, says "The biggest problem in Buddhist Studies is that nobody knows what the Buddha taught". How do you know Salomon came to his conclusions too quickly? Have you read it? It sounds like you are coming to your conclusions too quickly before you actually read what he has to say. And really, disputing his status as a "scholar", was that really needed. I get that you want to discredit his position and all but you could at least read and refer to his work rather than engage in ad hominem attacks to do so. It's also worth noting that the book by Wynne that you said does such a "great job" actually cited and used the exact paper by Salomon that I quoted and you ridiculed. I'll leave you a favourite quote of mine by Andrew Lang. You can consider the consequences if you like. "He uses statistics as a drunken man uses lamp posts - for support rather than for illumination." RTW is what initially brought me to TWC and I've maintained an interest in the RTW General Discussion and Battle Planning sections. I've written a number of guides and campaigns, some have been more successful than others. My Rebel Campaign Strategy Guide was (still is I think) the first detailed one I could fine online and was added to the Scriptorium. My Greek Cities Speed Run campaign that I went through turn-by-turn was reviewed by Juvenal for the Critic's Quill, though I hadn't set out with the idea of recording the campaign as an AAR in the conventional sense, but more as guide for other players. I try to answer all the questions about RTW that I can and I also try to be positive and supportive to everyone on there seeing as the poor forum isn't as lively as it used to be. I've had positive feedback from a number of people who were previously not registered on TWC thanking me for what I've written which is nice. One person even created an account just to say thanks and ask for some tips via PM without making a post. Here for instance is a reply to a question regarding the about raising income by queueing units. Spoiler Alert, click show to read:  Apparently when you put peasants in the build queue it not only raises public order but also increases the income a city generates each turn...it doesn't matter if unit being built that turn isn't a peasant, the order/income still goes up...because of that you can build 1 or 2 military units and then fill up the rest of the queue with peasants and then when it builds the 1-2 military units you can just cancel the peasants and build more military units...therefore you can double a cities worth without ever actually building a peasant... There is an interesting mechanic in the game that makes this worthwhile sometimes. What you're basically doing is lowering the population of the settlement by creating a queue. This in turn means that the settlement pays less of your faction's upkeep for generals and army, which makes it look like the settlement's income is increasing when actually a lot of this is just being spread to other settlements. When you lower the size of one settlement the other settlements have to fill the gap, so if you do it with all your settlements, it makes no difference. It may look like you're gaining money when you do it for each settlement, but each time you do, the other's go down and overall you get less income due to taxation losses from the smaller population. The interesting mechanic that can make this worthwhile is when your population is just over the peak areas where taxation income is at higher rate. Here is an old graph that shows what I mean: This is from an older version of Rome though, and I think the current change is somewhere near 11,000, can't remember though. You can test this yourself if you've got the time, but I think that answers your question. I think I've made valuable contributions to both the Total War and Common Communities since I joined TWC and look forward to more of it. I hope you'll consider me for Citizenship so I can have more to do with the site.

Katsumoto

0

Beautiful members of the CdeC, today I, Katsumoto, would like to present to you Genius of the Restoration, Australia’s Man of the Year™ and all-round good-guy, so that you may consider him for Citizenship. I believe the first time I met Genius was in the Say Cheese thread, whereupon I remarked upon his handsome face and manly beard. He replied in turn, and that’s how we hit it off. I knew immediately it was love at first sight.

This is the second time Genius has applied for citizenship, being rejected the first. He has returned this time with a much larger portfolio of contributions, from Rome: Total War guides to South Asian history debates. This man has done it all and back again.

But enough of my besotted ramblings. Let Genius himself persuade you noble Councillors that he is worthy of standing beside us in the ranks of the Curia. Without further ado, here is his application.

[Legio]

Leaning towards a yes; as I did last time.

[Heinz Guderian]

I've seen his previous application (i think i got on the cdec the day after it had finished). I was suprised he didnt make it then. Seems to be a solid poster. I like his balance in the D & D. Leaning to yes. My wife is cooking chicken and brown rice, so i will go more indepth after i have eaten.

[Jom]

God damn that Katsumoto stealing my clients. Of course I'll be voting yes for this guy as I patronised him last time and feel he deserves citizenship.

[Mega Tortas de Bodemloze]

Here is the applicant's last review ...

FAILED[Citizen] Genius of the Restoration (patron: Jom)

http://www.twcenter.net/forums/showthread.php?t=381139

Since last time he has joined content staff.

[Belisarius]

yes

[Eöl]

Beside his good contributions, I truly like his attitude. I think I will go for a yes

[Heinz Guderian]

I will vote yes. The chicken and rice was shite btw. It had bits of burnt onion in it.

[Jom]

What does Sharia law dictate on this matter?

[Mega Tortas de Bodemloze]

What does Sharia law dictate on this matter?

Start at the beginning, and see it through til the end....{This is from the Anglo version sitting on my coffee table.*}





* Not meant to disrespect any religious faction or aspect.{Just funnin'. Start with the person's base personality, and go from there.}

[Legio]

Start at the beginning, and see it through til the end....{This is from the Anglo version sitting on my coffee table.*}





* Not meant to disrespect any religious faction or aspect.{Just funnin'. Start with the person's base personality, and go from there.}

Starting from the roots is a good way to look at the application of a prospective citizen. I agree fully with Mega.

[Leonidas The Lion]

Gets a yes from me, good contributions ans looks like an overall good member.

[y2day]

I like what I have seen so far. Will look over more before i reach my decision.

[Mega Tortas de Bodemloze]

The applicant after his initial review hit the ground running and joined Content Staff. His strong showing there and his other continued contributions are most encouraging.

I will review his recent thread/post directory, however atm I believe we are looking at an inbound citizen....

Edit: Strong quality posts in RTW Forums, Content areas, and the D&D.

[Pontifex Maximus]

Poll added.

[Squid]

The new additions more than outweight the thought that me vote no the last time. I will be voting yes.

[Eöl]

I looked again and it is a clear yes from me.

[Legio]

Voted mofo

[Mega Tortas de Bodemloze]

Well.... The efforts there, and every so often that's all you can ask. {I spent most of the evening in the D&D, and every time I turned around there was....."Genius of the Restoration" {the applicant}.

Welcome to the Curia Genious, I look forward to seeing your ideas in play...

[Jom]

I knew he would make a great citizen. Damn you Katsummooottooooooooooooo