It's a silly experiment of a galaxy that was basically a joke idea.  Hence being announced on April 1.
If it works... great!
If not... it was a galaxy announced on April 1 where your time had to be dedicated to managing one planet.  What, you spent too much time negotiating NAPs? 

...

I swear, Tymo, you could drive Barney the dinosaur to alcoholism.

There are 75 planets in the galaxy.  Only one planet is not a home planet.  Meaning every other planet... by merit of being a home planet... cannot be attacked.  So your only way of winning size is to take that one planet and keeping it until end of round.

It's a new galaxy opened up today.

You will not be able to attack anyone's home planet.
Morale is not unlimited.

This is NOT a hardcore round.  If you get booted off the explorable, you have every opportunity to build back up and try again.

Welcome to hell.

http://www.nytimes.com/2016/03/29/techn … .html?_r=0

All that without needing to give ISIS a key to every iphone in the world.  It's almost like heavy-handed solutions might NOT be the best fix. 

You're in front of a piece of technology that has a screen.

Confirmed.  3 days.

Let's try this again!

Map size: 80x80 (last round 80x80)
Systems: 655 (last round 658)
Families: 75 (last round 75)
Family size: 1
Max allies: 0
Length: 2 months
Attacks and ops: 4 day delay
Market: 4 day delay
Resources: 50x
Exploration ships: 30
Defense Stations: 1
Cores: 3 (including home system) but you must fight for the other 2
Starting: Tuesday, Mar 22
Ending: Saturday, May 21
This is NOT an IA round for Supernova

Resorting to a dictionary definition for complex political ideas is 100% useless.  Relying on that, "liberals" would be in favor of privatizing Social Security (since that's a new idea) and conservatives would be trying to keep Social Security as is.

Yes, a Constitution is a set of rules.  But why are those rules set up?  Did everyone just decide "Hey, let's make an arbitrary set of rules people have to live by that's separate from other sets of rules people have to live by solely because these rules people have to live by are harder to change than other rules people have to live by... and nothing else!  Why?  Why the hell not?"  Or was there a logical reason why people decided that this document should include a rule for the government not quartering soldiers in people's houses without their permission, but not a rule prohibiting people from committing murder (after all, prohibitions against criminal activity are fundamentally a restriction of the rights of people, just like any other law)?  Why add in freedom of speech, protection against quartering of soldiers, and a requirement to get Congress to pass legislation, and to make those rules harder to overturn than any other rule?

It's easy to say "The dictionary says X."  But you're not asking "why."

Before I post, Yell, I want to make it 100% clear what you're asking for.  You're asking for a comparison of the GOP turnout from 2016 to 2012 in each Super Tuesday state, compared to turnout in the Democratic party from 2008 to 2016 (since there was no competitive Democratic primary in 2012), correct?  I don't want to have to go through the work only to hear "no, you got the wrong thing."

We've known about this bug for a while.  There's not really a fix so... enjoy?