If a persons Mexican heritage can play a role in what a Mexican thinks of Trump, then it cant be racist for Trump to bring up the judges heritage when discussing his partiality, in light of perceived unfavorable rulings and Trumps comments on Mexican immigration.
This is a true statement. He is not talking about all Mexicans, he is talking about the judge. You people think he is saying all Mexicans are biased for no reason other than they are Mexican, and he has not said that.
Are you saying that Trump's line of thought goes:
1. The judge disagrees with me.
2. It must be because the judge has Mexican heritage.
Rather than:
1. The judge has Mexican heritage
2. The judge is therefore biased
And that therefore it's not racist, because
- he wouldn't blame the judge's Mexican heritage if the judge found in his favour
- he's not saying all people of Mexican descent are biased because they don't happen to be judging him right now?
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Quote from MD »
I am willing to bet my collection that Frozen and Solid are not on the same card. For example, Frozen Tomb and Solid Wall.
If Frozen Solid is not reprinted, you are aware that I'm quoting you in my sig for eternity?
If Trump is only talking about this one judge and is only complaining about this one judge's perceived unfair rulings, why did he say that the judge has an "inherent conflict of interest" because of his heritage? A conflict of interest exists regardless of what rulings a judge makes - it exists before any rulings are even made. If this judge has a conflict of interest, then so would every other judge with Mexican heritage, regardless of their actual feelings about Trump.
True or false, a judges Mexican heritage can influence his opinion on Trump due to Trumps postion on immigration and Mexican immigrants?
The answer is true.
I think you all need to answer this qeustion with either true or false and stop eqiuvocating. Lay your cards on the table and answer. If you answer true, you then have to conclude it is at least possible Trumps claim has some validity.
If the answer is true, what Trump said is not racist. A racist idea can never be true.
If Trump is only talking about this one judge and is only complaining about this one judge's perceived unfair rulings, why did he say that the judge has an "inherent conflict of interest" because of his heritage? A conflict of interest exists regardless of what rulings a judge makes - it exists before any rulings are even made. If this judge has a conflict of interest, then so would every other judge with Mexican heritage, regardless of their actual feelings about Trump.
You are eqiuvocating. The judge(s) has the purported conlfict of interst not the heritage.
It is a conlict if interest, just not a relevant one, nor does it nessicairly indicate bias.
You are eqiuvocating. The judge(s) has the purported conlfict of interst not the heritage.
In an interview, Mr. Trump said U.S. District Judge Gonzalo Curiel had “an absolute conflict” in presiding over the litigation given that he was “of Mexican heritage”
You are eqiuvocating. The judge(s) has the purported conlfict of interst not the heritage.
In an interview, Mr. Trump said U.S. District Judge Gonzalo Curiel had “an absolute conflict” in presiding over the litigation given that he was “of Mexican heritage”
Now answer my true or false question with a single word. You are just repeating yourself without acknowledging the fact that statement Trump made can be true, and if it can be true, then it cant be racist.
Now answer my true or false question with a single word.
No, I'm not playing that game with you again. We've been over it many times. Defend your statement that the purported conflict of interest is not the heritage, given that Trump said exactly the opposite.
Now answer my true or false question with a single word.
No, I'm not playing that game with you again. We've been over it many times. Defend your statement that the purported conflict of interest is not the heritage, given that Trump said exactly the opposite.
It takes at least two things to create a conflict of interest. Trump immigration policy and the judges ethincity. The judge is the one that has the conflict because he shares an interest in both.
You stated if he was talking about this one judge....besides you are not responding to my arguement and essentially ignoring it.
It takes at least two things to create a conflict of interest. Trump immigration policy and the judges ethincity. The judge is the one that has the conflict.
You stated if he was talking about this one judge....besides you are not responding to my arguement and essentially ignoring it.
If the things that determine the conflict of interest are Trump's policies and the judge's ethnicity, then any Mexican judge would also have the same conflict of interest when judging cases involving Trump. Therefore, Trump's complaint is not limited to this one judge - it's an attack on the ability of any judge of Mexican heritage to preside over cases in which Trump is involved.
It takes at least two things to create a conflict of interest. Trump immigration policy and the judges ethincity. The judge is the one that has the conflict.
You stated if he was talking about this one judge....besides you are not responding to my arguement and essentially ignoring it.
If the things that determine the conflict of interest are Trump's policies and the judge's ethnicity, then any Mexican judge would also have the same conflict of interest when judging cases involving Trump. Therefore, Trump's complaint is not limited to this one judge - it's an attack on the ability of any judge of Mexican heritage to preside over cases in which Trump is involved.
Yes. What you do not understand is, its impossible for a judge not to have some type of marginal conflict of interest for all kinds of reasons, including heritage, race, etc. Merely stating this irrelevant conflict is not racist.
Yes. What you do not understand is, its impossible for a judge not to have some type of marginal conflict of interest for all kinds of reasons, including heritage, race, etc. Merely stating this irrelevant conflict is not racist.
But Trump is not suggesting this is an irrelevant or marginal conflict of interest. He said that the judge should recuse himself because of it. The term he used was "absolute" conflict of interest.
Yes. What you do not understand is, its impossible for a judge not to have some type of marginal conflict of interest for all kinds of reasons, including heritage, race, etc. Merely stating this irrelevant conflict is not racist.
Why was it a relevant conflict of interest on page 177, but an irrelevant conflict of interest on page 178?
Yes. What you do not understand is, its impossible for a judge not to have some type of marginal conflict of interest for all kinds of reasons, including heritage, race, etc. Merely stating this irrelevant conflict is not racist.
Why was it a relevant conflict of interest on page 177, but an irrelevant conflict of interest on page 178?
Because it does not matter if its a relevant or irrlevant conflict of interest
Some people may think it's irrelevant and some people may think its a relevant conflict of interest. Whether or not it's a relevant or not has no bearing on whether it's racist.
Yes. What you do not understand is, its impossible for a judge not to have some type of marginal conflict of interest for all kinds of reasons, including heritage, race, etc. Merely stating this irrelevant conflict is not racist.
But Trump is not suggesting this is an irrelevant or marginal conflict of interest. He said that the judge should recuse himself because of it. The term he used was "absolute" conflict of interest.
Well he thinks it is relevant. That does not make his statement racist, he just puts more wieght into the conflict than other people.
Ive answered two of your qeustions, answer mine or its clear stonewalling.As it is the crux of my entire argument.
Public Mod Note
(Blinking Spirit):
Infraction for stonewalling.
Well he thinks it is relevant. That does not make his statement racist, he just puts more wieght into the conflict than other people.
That's what makes it racist. That Trump feels the so-called "conflict of interest" that arises when a person of a particular racial background presides over court case involving him is so intense and so "absolute" that it requires a recusal. It's one thing to acknowledge, as everyone in this thread has done, that people's views are a product of their experiences, and that those experiences include one's ethnic and cultural background. But when we elevate that influence to the level of an "absolute conflict of interest", especially as it concerns only one particular race (or ethnicity or whatever you want to call it), it becomes racism (or "racial prejudice" or whatever you want to call it). It's asserting that one's race imparts such a significant influence over one's ability to preside over cases that it rivals the affect of the other factors which require a recusal.
If Trump felt that the alleged conflict was "marginal" or "irrelevant", we wouldn't be having this discussion. He wouldn't have even brought up the judge's heritage. But in his world, a person's race is critical - it defines for him their ability to be impartial.
Ive answered two of your qeustions, answer mine or its clear stonewalling.As it is the crux of my entire argument.
A persons ethnicity, nationality, or heritage can influence thier thinking on a range of topics?
The answer is True.
That's true and that's the point I've been making throughout this conversation. I can't believe that anyone can disagree with that without doing so disingenuously.
It's why it has not been answered or acknowledged. The argument from the other side is so wrapped up in the hatred of Trump, they've lost all perspective it seems. No one can claim I'm in the bag for Trump, I have serious contempt for the man.
Simply saying its racist does not work anymore. You can blame SJWism for that.
Yes or no, a persons nationality impacts thier decision making and attachment to issues?
Yes. But it is racist to assume that just because a person has that nationality, that will do more than just play some little role in their worldview but rather makes them incapable of fairly reviewing certain cases.
We've already all agreed that everyone's experiences differently shape their views.
Hmmm... Yes, I can see all the ignoring of this point from opposing positions.
Oh wait, people are agreeing with it.
They have distorted or contorted the question to the point they are answering a different question, unasked question.
I AGREE WITH YOUR STATEMENT ("a persons nationality impacts their decision making and attachment to issues"/"A persons ethnicity, nationality, or heritage can influence their thinking on a range of topics") ENTIRELY.
Is that enough for you?
You said "just because", which ignores that Trump's immigration stance may cause a Mexican to hold a grudge, at least in part due to the fact they are Mexican.
No it doesn't. Trump's accusation is that the judge holds certain views because he is Mexican. i.e. The casual factor is being Mexican. The supposed bias is a result of dislike of the immigration policy, no? So it's all dependent on the Mexican part, everything else is one big result.
If a persons Mexican heritage can play a role in what a Mexican thinks of Trump, then it cant be racist for Trump to bring up the judges heritage when discussing his partiality, in light of perceived unfavorable rulings and Trumps comments on Mexican immigration.
No, it's not racist to simply bring it up. But Trump isn't just bringing it up, he's accusing the judge of being biased against him because the judge is Mexican. He's doing more than simply exploring possible relationships between ethnicity/background and worldview, he's making a pointed accusation that someone is not up to the job and putting it down to ethnicity/background. Sure, the perception of unfair rulings maybe be what lead him to make the statements he did, but he did not argue the judge was biased based on the rulings. If he had have argued based on the rulings, I would have no moral objection to the statements, even if he made some suggestion of the involvement of ethnicity/background, because he wouldn't be defining someone in a negative light based on it, but he is because he didn't.
EDIT: Just so we are clear, my stance is that the statements were somewhat, but not strongly racist, and I suspect Trump's intentions were even less so if at all.
That's true and that's the point I've been making throughout this conversation. I can't believe that anyone can disagree with that without doing so disingenuously.
It's why it has not been answered or acknowledged. The argument from the other side is so wrapped up in the hatred of Trump, they've lost all perspective it seems. No one can claim I'm in the bag for Trump, I have serious contempt for the man.
Simply saying its racist does not work anymore. You can blame SJWism for that.
Yes or no, a persons nationality impacts thier decision making and attachment to issues?
Yes. But it is racist to assume that just because a person has that nationality, that will do more than just play some little role in their worldview but rather makes them incapable of fairly reviewing certain cases.
We've already all agreed that everyone's experiences differently shape their views.
Hmmm... Yes, I can see all the ignoring of this point from opposing positions.
Oh wait, people are agreeing with it.
They have distorted or contorted the question to the point they are answering a different question, unasked question.
I AGREE WITH YOUR STATEMENT ("a persons nationality impacts their decision making and attachment to issues"/"A persons ethnicity, nationality, or heritage can influence their thinking on a range of topics") ENTIRELY.
Is that enough for you?
You said "just because", which ignores that Trump's immigration stance may cause a Mexican to hold a grudge, at least in part due to the fact they are Mexican.
No it doesn't. Trump's accusation is that the judge holds certain views because he is Mexican. i.e. The casual factor is being Mexican. The supposed bias is a result of dislike of the immigration policy, no? So it's all dependent on the Mexican part, everything else is one big result.
Induldge me in one more answer:
Is it possible a judge can be biased toward Trump in a seperate unrelated legal proceeding due to no other reasons than the judges Mexican heritage and Trump's inflamatory and repeated stance on illegal Mexicans?
Racist comments can never be true, in any circumstance. There is a possibility Trump is right about the judge being biased.
It's why it has not been answered or acknowledged. The argument from the other side is so wrapped up in the hatred of Trump, they've lost all perspective it seems. No one can claim I'm in the bag for Trump, I have serious contempt for the man.
Yes. But it is racist to assume that just because a person has that nationality, that will do more than just play some little role in their worldview but rather makes them incapable of fairly reviewing certain cases.
We've already all agreed that everyone's experiences differently shape their views.
Hmmm... Yes, I can see all the ignoring of this point from opposing positions.
Oh wait, people are agreeing with it.
They have distorted or contorted the question to the point they are answering a different question, unasked question.
I AGREE WITH YOUR STATEMENT ("a persons nationality impacts their decision making and attachment to issues"/"A persons ethnicity, nationality, or heritage can influence their thinking on a range of topics") ENTIRELY.
Is that enough for you?
You said "just because", which ignores that Trump's immigration stance may cause a Mexican to hold a grudge, at least in part due to the fact they are Mexican.
No it doesn't. Trump's accusation is that the judge holds certain views because he is Mexican. i.e. The casual factor is being Mexican. The supposed bias is a result of dislike of the immigration policy, no? So it's all dependent on the Mexican part, everything else is one big result.
Induldge me in one more answer:
Is it possible a judge can be biased toward Trump in a seperate unrelated legal proceeding due to no other reasons than the judges Mexican heritage and Trump's inflamatory and repeated stance on illegal Mexicans?
No. The judge has to have several beliefs to actually object. And those beliefs cannot be due solely to an arbitrarily determined set of ethnicity/background.
Racist comments can never be true, in any circumstance.
A racist comment can be partly true because there is most likely more to it than a statement or suggestion of racist belief.
It's why it has not been answered or acknowledged. The argument from the other side is so wrapped up in the hatred of Trump, they've lost all perspective it seems. No one can claim I'm in the bag for Trump, I have serious contempt for the man.
Yes. But it is racist to assume that just because a person has that nationality, that will do more than just play some little role in their worldview but rather makes them incapable of fairly reviewing certain cases.
We've already all agreed that everyone's experiences differently shape their views.
Hmmm... Yes, I can see all the ignoring of this point from opposing positions.
Oh wait, people are agreeing with it.
They have distorted or contorted the question to the point they are answering a different question, unasked question.
I AGREE WITH YOUR STATEMENT ("a persons nationality impacts their decision making and attachment to issues"/"A persons ethnicity, nationality, or heritage can influence their thinking on a range of topics") ENTIRELY.
Is that enough for you?
You said "just because", which ignores that Trump's immigration stance may cause a Mexican to hold a grudge, at least in part due to the fact they are Mexican.
No it doesn't. Trump's accusation is that the judge holds certain views because he is Mexican. i.e. The casual factor is being Mexican. The supposed bias is a result of dislike of the immigration policy, no? So it's all dependent on the Mexican part, everything else is one big result.
Induldge me in one more answer:
Is it possible a judge can be biased toward Trump in a seperate unrelated legal proceeding due to no other reasons than the judges Mexican heritage and Trump's inflamatory and repeated stance on illegal Mexicans?
Racist comments can never be true, in any circumstance. There is a possibility Trump is right about the judge being biased.
Is it possible? Yes. Is there evidence other than Trump's views? No.
In fact, Trump is assuming that Judge Curiel is against Trump's immigration policy. The judge hasn't said a word about Trump's immigration policy or his wall. As I've mentioned before, Curiel's background as a drug prosecutor might in fact mean that he might be in favor of stronger immigration control. Judge Curiel could be biased in favor of Trump, but we don't really know what Judge Curiel thinks of Trump's campaign because he hasn't expressed approval or disapproval. My assumption is just as valid as Trump's "he's a Mexican and therefore against me and my wall" assumption because neither has any evidence supporting the premise.
The only thing the judge has done is rule against Trump in a few motions, which have alternative objective legal rationales other than "judge is biased." There's a possibility that Trump is right. Given the lack of evidence though, the possibility is so insignificant, there's a better chance that Trump is a secret Clinton plant (not that I believe that conspiracy theory, but I wanted to highlight how absurd the "Judge Curiel is biased based on his heritage!" is)
I found this and I think it explains my previous post perfectly:
Racism is volitional error of morality and intellectual integrity, and acts of racism (both expression of racist ideas or racist conduct) can be detected and identified by empirical means to the extent the true motivations are known (known—not perceived or assumed). The conduct or expression itself is either racist or not. Whether I perceive your actions as racist is of no consequence to the truth and fact of whether or not your actions are racist.
Acts and expression of racism will always be binary. If a person of color did not get the job, it was either the result of racism or it wasn’t. If I say something, it is either an expression of racism or it is not.
Similarly, beliefs either fit the definition of racism or they don’t. I refer to the standard, conventional definition—some newer definitions of racism are ridiculous and border on the mystical.
Racism can only exist on a spectrum when the thinking about racism is vague, convoluted, or intellectually dishonest.
I found this and I think it explains my previous post perfectly:
Racism is volitional error of morality and intellectual integrity, and acts of racism (both expression of racist ideas or racist conduct) can be detected and identified by empirical means to the extent the true motivations are known (known—not perceived or assumed). The conduct or expression itself is either racist or not. Whether I perceive your actions as racist is of no consequence to the truth and fact of whether or not your actions are racist.
Acts and expression of racism will always be binary. If a person of color did not get the job, it was either the result of racism or it wasn’t. If I say something, it is either an expression of racism or it is not.
Similarly, beliefs either fit the definition of racism or they don’t. I refer to the standard, conventional definition—some newer definitions of racism are ridiculous and border on the mystical.
Racism can only exist on a spectrum when the thinking about racism is vague, convoluted, or intellectually dishonest.
I disagree that racism cannot exist on a spectrum. Something absolutely either is racist or not, but I also think there are degrees or kinds of racism, just that those degrees are all just as much racism. Since this post you have given provides no actual evidence to suggest why having degrees of racism would be problematic, only claims that it would be, if you're trying to use it as an argument, you're going to have to do a little more work.
1. The judge disagrees with me.
2. It must be because the judge has Mexican heritage.
Rather than:
1. The judge has Mexican heritage
2. The judge is therefore biased
And that therefore it's not racist, because
- he wouldn't blame the judge's Mexican heritage if the judge found in his favour
- he's not saying all people of Mexican descent are biased because they don't happen to be judging him right now?
The answer is true.
I think you all need to answer this qeustion with either true or false and stop eqiuvocating. Lay your cards on the table and answer. If you answer true, you then have to conclude it is at least possible Trumps claim has some validity.
If the answer is true, what Trump said is not racist. A racist idea can never be true.
You are eqiuvocating. The judge(s) has the purported conlfict of interst not the heritage.
It is a conlict if interest, just not a relevant one, nor does it nessicairly indicate bias.
Now answer my true or false question with a single word. You are just repeating yourself without acknowledging the fact that statement Trump made can be true, and if it can be true, then it cant be racist.
No, I'm not playing that game with you again. We've been over it many times. Defend your statement that the purported conflict of interest is not the heritage, given that Trump said exactly the opposite.
It takes at least two things to create a conflict of interest. Trump immigration policy and the judges ethincity. The judge is the one that has the conflict because he shares an interest in both.
You stated if he was talking about this one judge....besides you are not responding to my arguement and essentially ignoring it.
If the things that determine the conflict of interest are Trump's policies and the judge's ethnicity, then any Mexican judge would also have the same conflict of interest when judging cases involving Trump. Therefore, Trump's complaint is not limited to this one judge - it's an attack on the ability of any judge of Mexican heritage to preside over cases in which Trump is involved.
Yes. What you do not understand is, its impossible for a judge not to have some type of marginal conflict of interest for all kinds of reasons, including heritage, race, etc. Merely stating this irrelevant conflict is not racist.
But Trump is not suggesting this is an irrelevant or marginal conflict of interest. He said that the judge should recuse himself because of it. The term he used was "absolute" conflict of interest.
Because it does not matter if its a relevant or irrlevant conflict of interest
Some people may think it's irrelevant and some people may think its a relevant conflict of interest. Whether or not it's a relevant or not has no bearing on whether it's racist.
Well he thinks it is relevant. That does not make his statement racist, he just puts more wieght into the conflict than other people.
Ive answered two of your qeustions, answer mine or its clear stonewalling.As it is the crux of my entire argument.
Seriously? When do you plan on responding to me? "Hey, Kettle, this is Pot; you're black!"
That's what makes it racist. That Trump feels the so-called "conflict of interest" that arises when a person of a particular racial background presides over court case involving him is so intense and so "absolute" that it requires a recusal. It's one thing to acknowledge, as everyone in this thread has done, that people's views are a product of their experiences, and that those experiences include one's ethnic and cultural background. But when we elevate that influence to the level of an "absolute conflict of interest", especially as it concerns only one particular race (or ethnicity or whatever you want to call it), it becomes racism (or "racial prejudice" or whatever you want to call it). It's asserting that one's race imparts such a significant influence over one's ability to preside over cases that it rivals the affect of the other factors which require a recusal.
If Trump felt that the alleged conflict was "marginal" or "irrelevant", we wouldn't be having this discussion. He wouldn't have even brought up the judge's heritage. But in his world, a person's race is critical - it defines for him their ability to be impartial.
true
Same answer I've given every other time.
I AGREE WITH YOUR STATEMENT ("a persons nationality impacts their decision making and attachment to issues"/"A persons ethnicity, nationality, or heritage can influence their thinking on a range of topics") ENTIRELY.
Is that enough for you?
No it doesn't. Trump's accusation is that the judge holds certain views because he is Mexican. i.e. The casual factor is being Mexican. The supposed bias is a result of dislike of the immigration policy, no? So it's all dependent on the Mexican part, everything else is one big result.
RUNIN: Norse mythology set (awaiting further playtesting)
FATE of ALARA: Multicolour factions (currently on hiatus)
Contibutor to the Pyrulea community set
I'm here to tell you that all your set mechanics are bad
#Defundthepolice
No, it's not racist to simply bring it up. But Trump isn't just bringing it up, he's accusing the judge of being biased against him because the judge is Mexican. He's doing more than simply exploring possible relationships between ethnicity/background and worldview, he's making a pointed accusation that someone is not up to the job and putting it down to ethnicity/background. Sure, the perception of unfair rulings maybe be what lead him to make the statements he did, but he did not argue the judge was biased based on the rulings. If he had have argued based on the rulings, I would have no moral objection to the statements, even if he made some suggestion of the involvement of ethnicity/background, because he wouldn't be defining someone in a negative light based on it, but he is because he didn't.
EDIT: Just so we are clear, my stance is that the statements were somewhat, but not strongly racist, and I suspect Trump's intentions were even less so if at all.
RUNIN: Norse mythology set (awaiting further playtesting)
FATE of ALARA: Multicolour factions (currently on hiatus)
Contibutor to the Pyrulea community set
I'm here to tell you that all your set mechanics are bad
#Defundthepolice
Induldge me in one more answer:
Is it possible a judge can be biased toward Trump in a seperate unrelated legal proceeding due to no other reasons than the judges Mexican heritage and Trump's inflamatory and repeated stance on illegal Mexicans?
Racist comments can never be true, in any circumstance. There is a possibility Trump is right about the judge being biased.
No. The judge has to have several beliefs to actually object. And those beliefs cannot be due solely to an arbitrarily determined set of ethnicity/background.
A racist comment can be partly true because there is most likely more to it than a statement or suggestion of racist belief.
RUNIN: Norse mythology set (awaiting further playtesting)
FATE of ALARA: Multicolour factions (currently on hiatus)
Contibutor to the Pyrulea community set
I'm here to tell you that all your set mechanics are bad
#Defundthepolice
Is it possible? Yes. Is there evidence other than Trump's views? No.
In fact, Trump is assuming that Judge Curiel is against Trump's immigration policy. The judge hasn't said a word about Trump's immigration policy or his wall. As I've mentioned before, Curiel's background as a drug prosecutor might in fact mean that he might be in favor of stronger immigration control. Judge Curiel could be biased in favor of Trump, but we don't really know what Judge Curiel thinks of Trump's campaign because he hasn't expressed approval or disapproval. My assumption is just as valid as Trump's "he's a Mexican and therefore against me and my wall" assumption because neither has any evidence supporting the premise.
The only thing the judge has done is rule against Trump in a few motions, which have alternative objective legal rationales other than "judge is biased." There's a possibility that Trump is right. Given the lack of evidence though, the possibility is so insignificant, there's a better chance that Trump is a secret Clinton plant (not that I believe that conspiracy theory, but I wanted to highlight how absurd the "Judge Curiel is biased based on his heritage!" is)
Something is either true, false or unknown. Something is either racist or not.
Are all the claims made on wikipedia true, false or unknown?
Answer: they are partly true- some are, some are not.
RUNIN: Norse mythology set (awaiting further playtesting)
FATE of ALARA: Multicolour factions (currently on hiatus)
Contibutor to the Pyrulea community set
I'm here to tell you that all your set mechanics are bad
#Defundthepolice
I disagree that racism cannot exist on a spectrum. Something absolutely either is racist or not, but I also think there are degrees or kinds of racism, just that those degrees are all just as much racism. Since this post you have given provides no actual evidence to suggest why having degrees of racism would be problematic, only claims that it would be, if you're trying to use it as an argument, you're going to have to do a little more work.
RUNIN: Norse mythology set (awaiting further playtesting)
FATE of ALARA: Multicolour factions (currently on hiatus)
Contibutor to the Pyrulea community set
I'm here to tell you that all your set mechanics are bad
#Defundthepolice