|
Starcraft is able to keep the upper echelons of competition fair because there are a lot of extra eyeballs on games. Hard to pull off a maphack in front of a stadium. People still cheat though: http://forums.somethingawful.com/showthread.php?threadid=3550785 Masters level player, engaged in commentary on the balance all while cheating. It would be far more instructive to learn what facet of SC would've prevented this. Or automated the community response? It's unclear if it would be the massive privacy violations or if, like Starcraft, SC would have a squeaky clean 1% and hordes of uncaught cheaters beneath that.
|
#
?
Apr 13, 2014 17:03
|
|
|
|
| # ? Oct 7, 2024 15:04 |
|
|
Eripsa, Starcraft is a recreational activity that people participate in once they have provided for their basic needs
|
|
#
?
Apr 13, 2014 17:05
|
|
|
SedanChair posted:Eripsa, Starcraft is a recreational activity that people participate in once they have provided for their basic needs Well, most of the time, at least.
|
|
#
?
Apr 13, 2014 17:15
|
|
|
Muscle Tracer posted:Everyone already understood everything you said in this post. I mean, I'm sure some people did but the thread definitely didn't. Obdicut, Ratoslov, and GulMadred are all citing instances of imbalanced systems as if that somehow constitutes an objection to my view. But nothing I've said rules out the possibility of imbalanced systems. I've explicitly claimed that some systems are imbalanced, and gaming those systems produce undesireable results. So examples of imbalanced systems that produce bad results is not an objection or criticism of my view, in any way shape or form. If anything, it's an elaboration of my claims. one of those posts are mounting an objection or even a criticism, they are saying things that are entirely compatible with my claims, but they are framing it as if I've demonstrated some fundamental conceptual error and a deep ignorance of the subject. This is a complete interpretive disconnect between what I'm saying and what the thread takes from it. If we want to have an actual conversation about the topic (instead of this knee-jerk attack that's obfuscating the discussion), then we ought to be discussing this claim: GulMadred posted:every transaction ought to be a Pareto improvement. Conceptually, if you disagree with my claims, this has to be why. But no one has really mounted a defense of this claim; GulMadred has only identified it as the important issue, but Obdicut's and Ratoslov's examples aren't given as a defense of this claim. So, now. Why should I think this is true? What's the argument? I've given examples of games that are balanced (like chess) that aren't of this form. In chess, good moves for one player can be (but aren't always) bad moves for the other. So each transaction isn't a Pareto improvement. Nevertheless, the game is balanced. So on the example we might imagine an economic situation where some transactions can result in an overall net loss for some agents, but where the system is nevertheless balanced in some important sense. GulMadred is supposing that no system can be balanced if there are losers, and that every transaction must result in the improvement of all players for it to be considered a fair and balanced improvement over other economic scenarios. I mean, if that were the case then it would immediately be clear that hyperinflation would blow the system up. But I've not proposed an economic situation where all transactions are Pareto improvements. So it's possible in Strangecoinland for agents to gain advantages at the sake of another's loss. But this doesn't demonstrate the system is imbalanced, because chess is an example of a similar system which is balanced. So the mere fact that it rejects GulMadred's implicit assumption is not itself a demonstration of imbalance. In a real Strangecoin economy, the potential for loss can be compensated for in other ways. I've talked about TUA coupling functioning as a basic source of revenue so that people never find themselves without any cash flow, and account caps and other ways to ensure that the disparity between the haves and have-nots doesn't become so disproportional so as to create imbalances within the system. There can be strangecoin winners and losers, but the system should be designed so that the gap between the two keeps the system manageable and fair. One aspect of this already discussed in the thread is the fact that central nodes will also experience greater cognitive load maintaining their central position; in other words, staying on top requires work, and it may be more desirable for users to maintain a steady peripheral position in the economy instead of pursuing unlimited wealth and power. To extend the SC analogy, its common for tournament winners to sstruggle to keep their top ranking after their wins, as other users adapt to their style and strategies and incorporate them into the metagame. It's comparatively easier to win a one-off tournament than it is to stay on top of the metagame consistently across many tournaments. This is relatively unlike the existing economy, where wealth tends to accumulate and where the rich tend to stay rich. If we want to avoid that kind of concentration of wealth and power (and I agree with this thread that we do), then we need at least some transactions to not be Pareto improvements, an for some winners to potentially turn into losers. So I'm not convinced that we should accept GulMadred's implicit assumption, or that gaming as always a bad thing. RealityApologist fucked around with this message at 18:29 on Apr 13, 2014 |
|
#
?
Apr 13, 2014 18:00
|
|
|
JawnV6 posted:Starcraft is able to keep the upper echelons of competition fair because there are a lot of extra eyeballs on games. Hard to pull off a maphack in front of a stadium. Part of my point is that you don't need to prevent it entirely in order to have a fair game. So the squeaky clean 1% is legitimate enough to set the standards of good play and keep a lively metagame going. The hordes of cheaters underneath that might screw someone over in a particular game, but those instances of cheating aren't sufficient for undermining the legitimacy of the game itself, or the ability of players in the community to distinguish between good play and poor play. I can know that cheaters abound, and yet nevertheless play a good game on the ladder with a well-matched opponent, where both players consider the outcome fair even though one loses. I'm not saying cheating is never a problem, I'm just saying that the possibility for cheating isn't the deciding factor of whether or not a game is broken. It's worth mentioning that the whole attention economy framework is meant to direct lots of extra eyeballs to where they are needed, precisely to perform panoptic judgments of this form. It promotes a kind of ethical collectivism simply because everyone is watching everyone else.
|
|
#
?
Apr 13, 2014 18:13
|
|
|
So, why no simulations? What you makes you confident the system will have strange attractors and not some fixed point where a small group of people has all the wealth? Obviously a simulation would not be easy, you would need some sort of AI, but c'mon, you have to at least set up 100 agents or whatever and see what happens under certain simplified assumptions. Until you've done that you haven't done due diligence. I'm a modeler by trade, and just coming up with a model based on what you think should happen... well, 90% of the time it won't be anything like what you expected. This thread is huge, I just skimmed all 9 pages of your own posts but didn't see any simulations. Show me some phase portraits. You should be able to come up with some really simple situations, like "here's what happens in an economy with 5 agents with 2 pairs cooperating and the 5th acting alone". Otherwise it's not really honest to throw around terms like strange attractors and Lyapunov this-or-that. E: On the last page you talk about "finishing" the spec. How could you possibly finish the spec without confirming how it behaves? If you end up going anywhere with this, it will be after hundreds of revisions based on thousands of simulations. SurgicalOntologist fucked around with this message at 18:27 on Apr 13, 2014 |
|
#
?
Apr 13, 2014 18:24
|
|
|
Ok then I don't understand why we're talking about it this much if you're giving up on preventing it and declaring open season. Although I didn't know that we were drafting some giant swath of humanity to provide this interpretive layer, that's new!
|
|
#
?
Apr 13, 2014 18:26
|
|
|
You keep hand-waving away problems by simply saying that StrangeCoin is "balanced" without even attempting to show how it would be balanced.
|
|
#
?
Apr 13, 2014 18:33
|
|
|
RA, how about you work on finishing that spec so we can rip it apart and try to actually use a non-linear DiffEq this time.
|
|
#
?
Apr 13, 2014 18:35
|
|
|
Who What Now posted:You keep hand-waving away problems by simply saying that StrangeCoin is "balanced" without even attempting to show how it would be balanced. He doesn't know how to say "I want it to be" instead of "it is." It's the Platonic Strangecoin that lives only in him.
|
|
#
?
Apr 13, 2014 18:43
|
|
|
SurgicalOntologist posted:So, why no simulations? What you makes you confident the system will have strange attractors and not some fixed point where a small group of people has all the wealth? Obviously a simulation would not be easy, you would need some sort of AI, but c'mon, you have to at least set up 100 agents or whatever and see what happens under certain simplified assumptions. Until you've done that you haven't done due diligence. I'm a modeler by trade, and just coming up with a model based on what you think should happen... well, 90% of the time it won't be anything like what you expected. This thread is huge, I just skimmed all 9 pages of your own posts but didn't see any simulations. Show me some phase portraits. You should be able to come up with some really simple situations, like "here's what happens in an economy with 5 agents with 2 pairs cooperating and the 5th acting alone". Otherwise it's not really honest to throw around terms like strange attractors and Lyapunov this-or-that. You are absolutely correct. Much of this thread has been my attempts to explain that I'm a philosopher and don't know enough about agent-based modeling to bring the idea to a point where I can conduct simulations. I'm posting these threads to ask for help with the concept and fill in the places I'm struggling with. I've repeatedly asked for help with the coupling relationship, for instance. I've gotten relatively little help in the thread, and a lot of waiting on me to produce answers to questions and very little attempts by others to work out potential answers independent of me, even though it's clear I don't have all the answers or the technical competence to provide it. The spec I'm writing is meant to clarify things the formal character of the transactions, the order of operations they should be evaluated in, and and the conditions under which a simulation would be successful, and so on. It is meant to correct for many of the mistakes in the original spec. I never pretended that these issues had been fully worked out; I came to this thread with the explicit intention of seeking help from people who understand this stuff better than I. Nevertheless, there are a variety of conceptual and theoretical issues that inform the design of this system, and about which I'm much more comfortable speaking and which are relevant for understanding the nature of the project (and the theoretical background from which it is being proposed), and which can be discussed independently of any details in the spec or even of the project itself. This issue of "gaming", for instance, is a general issue about the nature of competitive systems (whether or not gaming is "bad"), and isn't really about Strangecoin itself. Its a matter of due diligence that I address these theoretical or conceptual issues just as much as addressing the technical details, and since my training is in the former its where I tend to focus my time. But, point taken. I'll shut up until this spec is posted. The thread is better without me anyway.
|
|
#
?
Apr 13, 2014 19:02
|
|
|
Who What Now posted:You keep hand-waving away problems by simply saying that StrangeCoin is "balanced" without even attempting to show how it would be balanced. This. It helps to determine what is "fair" and what is "balanced" and if they are interchangeable or if they are distinct. Fwiw, Chess is not necessarily fair since while all players have the same pieces in positions that are in positions that are equivalent, one player has one more turn of information than the other which makes it unfair for the player without that turn of information. Thus, it is unfair for the first player in terms of availability of information. There is a trade off in that they have a better position for that term in exchange for giving up that information, but they are not equal resources. RealityApologist posted:I'm having trouble parsing this. My argument is that in any balanced system, rank and status are genuine, trustworthy signifiers, given that you've taken adequate measures to prevent cheaters. That's not true in an imba system. Trouble parsing it? Now you know how we feel at times. Snide comments aside, what quality of a balanced system makes it so that gaming and cheating does not upset this balance? Based on your comments, it seems that it is tautological such that, by definition, a balanced game is immune to being upset by gaming and cheating and if it is upset, then it wasn't balanced to begin with. This is what I can gather. You do admit that Strangecoin has no guarantees of balance, however, I don't believe you've shown that it is more balanced (or fair) compared to the current system. RealityApologist posted:You are absolutely correct. Much of this thread has been my attempts to explain that I'm a philosopher and don't know enough about agent-based modeling to bring the idea to a point where I can conduct simulations. I'm posting these threads to ask for help with the concept and fill in the places I'm struggling with. I've repeatedly asked for help with the coupling relationship, for instance. I've gotten relatively little help in the thread, and a lot of waiting on me to produce answers to questions and very little attempts by others to work out potential answers independent of me, even though it's clear I don't have all the answers or the technical competence to provide it. You asked for assistance, and most of us gave it to you in terms of pointing out flaws and holes in what is currently developed. We've also pointed you in the direction of places where you can develop the foundation in which you are lacking. However, you've not done a great job of enticing anyone into helping you develop it wholesale as the current theories behind it and the argument you put forward for it aren't quite convincing enough for the most part. There are some charitable individuals who are helping, but are at standstills due to the lack of development in other parts. Xelkelvos fucked around with this message at 19:20 on Apr 13, 2014 |
|
#
?
Apr 13, 2014 19:14
|
|
|
Xelkelvos posted:You do admit that Strangecoin has no guarantees of balance, however, I don't believe you've shown that it is more balanced (or fair) compared to the current system. I'd actually go a step farther and say that a lot of this thread (minus the jokes) has shown very well that StrangeCoin is a lot less balanced (or fair) compared to the current system.
|
|
#
?
Apr 13, 2014 19:19
|
|
|
RealityApologist posted:This issue of "gaming", for instance, is a general issue about the nature of competitive systems (whether or not gaming is "bad"), and isn't really about Strangecoin itself. It's not about whether gaming is "bad", it's about your proposal having very manipulable interactions baked in that directly facilitate exploitative relationships - the opposite of your goals when forming the idea. There are dozens of posts in this thread giving examples of how the rules of Strangecoin could lead to direct economic attacks on minorities, facilitate relatively simple money laundering, are easily circumventable through bartering, black market, and service exchanges, and a host of other abuses. No one is giving you technical help because the idea, not the execution, is broken. It's like you are trying to solve the problem of mass shootings by proposing that all new metal be too soft to work into guns, and then when people point out this would prevent bridges and buildings from being built saying you just wanted help on picking the right alloy of pewter.
|
|
#
?
Apr 13, 2014 19:23
|
|
|
RealityApologist posted:You are absolutely correct. Much of this thread has been my attempts to explain that I'm a philosopher and don't know enough about agent-based modeling to bring the idea to a point where I can conduct simulations. I'm posting these threads to ask for help with the concept and fill in the places I'm struggling with. I've repeatedly asked for help with the coupling relationship, for instance. I've gotten relatively little help in the thread, and a lot of waiting on me to produce answers to questions and very little attempts by others to work out potential answers independent of me, even though it's clear I don't have all the answers or the technical competence to provide it. I don't know what help you expect to get. No one can tell you what kind of coupling relationship you should use without being able to test them in a simplified version of the system. And yes, you need to address the conceptual issues, but whenever these concepts touch upon your actual proposal all you can do is handwave because we have no idea how your system actually behaves. My advice: start simple, maybe not all of your processes (coupling, inhibition, endorsement, etc.) are necessary. Maybe some can emerge from the others. This strikes me as one of those projects that tries to build a self-organizing system whole cloth. You can't mandate complexity, it needs to happen on its own. But I don't know. Even though I think this very much over-engineered, I think it'll be interesting to find out what happens. So maybe I could help if I find the time. When you post the spec I'll consider writing an engine for you. It would still be up to you or others to write AI for the agents before you could run simulations. Post the spec to GitHub or Bitbucket because I'd rather fork your project than host the original.
|
|
#
?
Apr 13, 2014 19:27
|
|
|
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DkGMY63FF3Q
|
|
#
?
Apr 13, 2014 21:05
|
|
|
Once again the Onion shows that Satire can never be as crazy as reality.
|
|
#
?
Apr 13, 2014 21:09
|
|
|
Who What Now posted:You keep hand-waving away problems by simply saying that StrangeCoin is "balanced" without even attempting to show how it would be balanced. This is known as Begging The Question. Related, but not alike, to the fallacy of Circular Reasoning in which Strangecoin will provide more information for everyone to make choices with once we are already in a world that has a surplus of information to make choices with. For a philosophy doctoral candidate I think this is a bad place to be at, even if this thread is merely a product of a surplus of leisure time rather than a fully-formed idea.
|
|
#
?
Apr 13, 2014 21:15
|
|
|
why doesnt the OP learn to code a messaging client, or plugin for some existing one? they could experiment with sorting some smaller amount of info to generate saiyan aura colors or whatever. it sounds difficult, but i bet its orders of magnitude easier than teaching onesself juuuust enough from several disciplines to actually solve any real problem. its also loads easier than trying to convince anyone of anything on SA. prototype it on a smaller scale. if it works, it works (it wont work). or is this another "im just the ideas guy" thing?
|
|
#
?
Apr 13, 2014 21:17
|
|
|
loving hell. This is uncanny! Edit: economists will try to tell you this is impossible. I've already thought of that. Feasibility deals with implementation, I'm not involved in that. Can we change the thread title to 'Strangecoin: Economists will try to tell you this is impossible'?
|
|
#
?
Apr 13, 2014 21:29
|
|
|
I'm actually totally befuddled right now. I was trying to explain it in simple terms, but that you apparently know what Pareto optimality is, but don't care about transactions being pareto efficient just proves that your total lack of training in economics is what makes this project pointless. You don't even understand enough of the basics of economic theory to understand how little you are grasping the problem. Competition is, ceteris paribus, a good thing because it encourages innovations and therefore increases well being, but it is not axiomatically good in all cases. There are plenty of ways where externalities or inefficiencies lead competition to producing a suboptimal outcome. This is why we don't allow absolutely free competition in all ways, and as poo poo as a lot of our government structures (in any country on earth) can be, one thing they do sort of right is prevent many such cases. This is not something you can simply wave away by talking about compensation. Who compensates? How do you compensate? What are the structures in place that allow it? These are more than simple technical problems. They are central to any economic system, core to its purpose in the first place. You know what, just answer two questions: What do you mean by fair and balanced? What criteria are you using for that judgement, and why should they apply to judging an economic system? I think this is probably the foundational point of difference between you and many of us. You seem to believe in a form of economics that I don't think I have ever encountered outside of a bitcoin thread. It doesn't really have any proper structure or systemic understanding. It takes a few pointers from free market rhetoric and accepts them as immutable truths. Before even worrying about the spec, you should have some sort of barebones theory of economics worked out; some sort of systemic understanding you can use to judge the merits of your system in simulations. Right now, it's not even clear to me what would be a successful test for a strangecoin simulation.
|
|
#
?
Apr 13, 2014 22:30
|
|
|
Little Blackfly posted:
No but you see because the current system sucks and future systems will be better, this means nothing about the current system has any explanatory power or use so why bother even learning about it. It's trash to be thrown out with the revolution.
|
|
#
?
Apr 13, 2014 23:29
|
|
|
Xelkelvos posted:You asked for assistance, and most of us gave it to you in terms of pointing out flaws and holes in what is currently developed. We've also pointed you in the direction of places where you can develop the foundation in which you are lacking. However, you've not done a great job of enticing anyone into helping you develop it wholesale as the current theories behind it and the argument you put forward for it aren't quite convincing enough for the most part. There are some charitable individuals who are helping, but are at standstills due to the lack of development in other parts. CheesyDog posted:No one is giving you technical help because the idea, not the execution, is broken. It's like you are trying to solve the problem of mass shootings by proposing that all new metal be too soft to work into guns, and then when people point out this would prevent bridges and buildings from being built saying you just wanted help on picking the right alloy of pewter. These are mostly my thoughts with the subject. I've already given you more time then you've deserved to help explain why your systems as they currently stand, don't really make sense. If you want to take your ideas and turn them into something useful, why would I build upon your nonsensical ideas? While a science fiction novel might be inspiring, I wouldn't use it as the foundations of any work either; it's simply a motivation. I hope that the revised description of strangecoin will be worth the wait; but from the way you've been posting lately, I don't feel confident. Other then pointing you to material to help you finish the description, what else is there to do? We can't take the ideas in your head and formalise them to your satisfaction until there is something solid that you can stand by. You've either abandoned many of your assumptions or accept that they need significant revision (from the OP). Lets try and revise it before getting sidetracked with discussions of gaming/cheating, auras, and other topics tangential to the specification. I know its tempting, but it just gives people further ammunition that you don't actually have a solid understanding of the system you are trying to describe. If you don't understand it well enough to describe, you can't expect anybody else to understand it. crusader_complex posted:or is this another "im just the ideas guy" thing? Seems like it.
|
|
#
?
Apr 14, 2014 04:04
|
|
|
Tokamak posted:These are mostly my thoughts with the subject. I've already given you more time then you've deserved to help explain why your systems as they currently stand, don't really make sense. If you want to take your ideas and turn them into something useful, why would I build upon your nonsensical ideas? While a science fiction novel might be inspiring, I wouldn't use it as the foundations of any work either; it's simply a motivation. It's posts like this that Eprisa will completely ignore. Or worse, he will quote and then handwave away as completely worthless.
|
|
#
?
Apr 14, 2014 04:25
|
|
|
crusader_complex posted:or is this another "im just the ideas guy" thing? Gee I don't know: RealityApologist posted:The thread is better without me anyway. "You kids go and have fun. I'll just sit here at home in the dark" 
|
|
#
?
Apr 14, 2014 06:44
|
|
|
I'm not a psychologist, but based on the ebbs and flows of the thread I'd predict his next manic phase to hit Tuesday or Wednesday, so it's okay, he should be back to his old self soon.
|
|
#
?
Apr 14, 2014 08:31
|
|
|
SurgicalOntologist posted:I don't know what help you expect to get. No one can tell you what kind of coupling relationship you should use without being able to test them in a simplified version of the system. And yes, you need to address the conceptual issues, but whenever these concepts touch upon your actual proposal all you can do is handwave because we have no idea how your system actually behaves. I gave the same advice a few times some tens of pages ago, and I actually recommended your EP threads as a source of inspiration for how to talk about complexity, but RA seems dead set on the approach he's using. Every time one of the many fundamental problems with his proposals are pointed out, he bizarrely seems to consider it a victory, since each thing that gets pointed out is something he can "fix" and thus something he claims to learn from (in some way that can't be measured by what he says later). He's the kind of student who really spends quite a lot of time studying, but who studies in a manner so superficial that the knowledge gained is useless for all practical purposes. Edit: Not directed at you, but it doesn't help that various people keep using "finish the spec" like a sharp stick when RA clearly doesn't have the necessary skills to do so. He'll write something up, and people will rip it apart without him really learning anything, and then we'll start over. Pressuring people to do tasks they are wildly underqualified for doesn't help them learn anything, it makes them feel awful and burn out. Zodium fucked around with this message at 10:26 on Apr 14, 2014 |
|
#
?
Apr 14, 2014 10:21
|
|
|
Zodium posted:Edit: Not directed at you, but it doesn't help that various people keep using "finish the spec" like a sharp stick when RA clearly doesn't have the necessary skills to do so. He'll write something up, and people will rip it apart without him really learning anything, and then we'll start over. Pressuring people to do tasks they are wildly underqualified for doesn't help them learn anything, it makes them feel awful and burn out. You're right that his new spec is just going to be his old spec except slightly reworded, but lately he has been using it as an excuse against any and all criticism. So I can sympathize with the thought that the sooner he posts it, the sooner he'll have to face the music.
|
|
#
?
Apr 14, 2014 13:10
|
|
|
RealityApologist posted:I mean, I'm sure some people did but the thread definitely didn't. Obdicut, Ratoslov, and GulMadred are all citing instances of imbalanced systems as if that somehow constitutes an objection to my view. But nothing I've said rules out the possibility of imbalanced systems. I've explicitly claimed that some systems are imbalanced, and gaming those systems produce undesireable results. So examples of imbalanced systems that produce bad results is not an objection or criticism of my view, in any way shape or form. If anything, it's an elaboration of my claims. one of those posts are mounting an objection or even a criticism, they are saying things that are entirely compatible with my claims, but they are framing it as if I've demonstrated some fundamental conceptual error and a deep ignorance of the subject. They are citing imbalanced systems because your claim is not just that balanced systems are good, but that Strangecoin can be just such a balanced system. It's the second part of this statement that they, and I, find to be suspiciously unfounded. Zodium posted:Edit: Not directed at you, but it doesn't help that various people keep using "finish the spec" like a sharp stick when RA clearly doesn't have the necessary skills to do so. He'll write something up, and people will rip it apart without him really learning anything, and then we'll start over. Pressuring people to do tasks they are wildly underqualified for doesn't help them learn anything, it makes them feel awful and burn out. The "new spec" is the only way to pin anything down for sure. It's next to impossible to tell what, if anything, has changed from the original because despite all of this chatter, RA has admitted remarkably little and given ground on even less. Ideally the spec is not "new" so much as frequently updated to reflect RA's evolving (or not evolving) viewpoints on, say, why the gently caress anyone would have any incentive to use SC instead of anything else.
|
|
#
?
Apr 15, 2014 03:59
|
|
|
Muscle Tracer posted:The "new spec" is the only way to pin anything down for sure. It's next to impossible to tell what, if anything, has changed from the original because despite all of this chatter, RA has admitted remarkably little and given ground on even less. Ideally the spec is not "new" so much as frequently updated to reflect RA's evolving (or not evolving) viewpoints on, say, why the gently caress anyone would have any incentive to use SC instead of anything else. The idea of cutting an economy from whole cloth is so massively complicated, and the critique of RA's ideas in this thread so extensive, that to have a meaningful discussion (i.e., one that amounts to more than pointing out ways in which the idea is too inconsistent and incomplete to discuss), the new spec would now have to actually fill one or more books. What use could there possibly be for the finished spec, besides yet more ammunition for the satisfaction of demonstrating how inconsistent and incomplete the idea is? If the last 52 pages pointing this out didn't do the trick, more of the same certainly won't make RA "admit" or "give ground" on anything.
|
|
#
?
Apr 15, 2014 10:54
|
|
|
Zodium posted:If the last 52 pages pointing this out didn't do the trick, more of the same certainly won't make RA "admit" or "give ground" on anything. We won't know if the last 52 pages ~did the trick~ till the spec is updated, because it is impossible to tell from RA's posts what has and has not penetrated. That is the point.
|
|
#
?
Apr 15, 2014 14:57
|
|
|
Man, these threads are always an emotional rollercoaster. Eripsa comes bursting in with this insane-sounding idea, filled with platitudes and vague reasonings, but gives off this air that he's put some thought into his ideas and just isn't expressing himself properly. He laments that oh, if only I could write less academically maybe you could just understand what i'm trying to say! So people start ripping his ideas apart like a pack of starving wolves, and he deflects any and all criticism by frantically sliding the goalposts back and forth. No, of course it's not an economy, until someone comes to his defense, then yeah of course it's been an economy all along finally SOMEONE understands! Then one brave soul comes along and starts to model Eripsa's insanity into something concrete, and I feel this twinge of pity because you know what? Maybe he really does have a problem with expressing his ideas. And I feel bad, because there might be a glimmer of something substantial under all the noise, and the posters in the thread aren't giving him that benefit of the doubt. Of course, in the back and forth of modeling the problem it comes out that Eripsa didn't do a goddamn shred of thinking about his own ideas, but he's sure as poo poo gonna stand tall and proud when someone puts thought and work into his ideas for him. Eripsa, you are a fraud. You're pathetic. You're a crank who hasn't had any meaningful interaction with the outside world except for your insular transhumanism internet bubble, who wants everyone to praise you for your revolutionary ideas without putting even the most minimum effort into those ideas. And equating the very real struggles racial and gender minorities face every day of their lives just by existing with you creeping on women in bars with your camera glasses is the corn nugget posing as a cherry upon your massive poo poo sundae. I think Jaedong will do well at Blizzcon this year, although admittedly I'm biased as a Zerg fan.
|
|
#
?
Apr 15, 2014 19:03
|
|
|
OatmealRaisin posted:Eripsa, you are a fraud. You're pathetic. You're a crank who hasn't had any meaningful interaction with the outside world except for your insular transhumanism internet bubble, who wants everyone to praise you for your revolutionary ideas without putting even the most minimum effort into those ideas. And equating the very real struggles racial and gender minorities face every day of their lives just by existing with you creeping on women in bars with your camera glasses is the corn nugget posing as a cherry upon your massive poo poo sundae. Eripsa's reasoning and goal is as backward as his name. If I could make a recommendation: title the next thread "Through a glass, murkily".
|
|
#
?
Apr 16, 2014 03:09
|
|
|
I gotta say I'm a little disappointed in Eprisa. It's Wednesday, and he promised us a new spec on Monday. Way to be punctual. 
|
|
#
?
Apr 16, 2014 16:13
|
|
|
Who What Now posted:I gotta say I'm a little disappointed in Eprisa. It's Wednesday, and he promised us a new spec on Monday. Way to be punctual. Genius can't be rushed, and neither can whatever Eripsa is. Perfidia posted:Eripsa's reasoning and goal is as backward as his name. What the...I am staggeringly embarrassed I never even noticed that.
|
|
#
?
Apr 16, 2014 17:32
|
|
|
Captain_Maclaine posted:What the...I am staggeringly embarrassed I never even noticed that. Just wait till you hear about "racecar."
|
|
#
?
Apr 16, 2014 17:34
|
|
|
Muscle Tracer posted:Just wait till you hear about "racecar." You're blowing my mind man.
|
|
#
?
Apr 16, 2014 17:40
|
|
|
Forums Barber posted:I'm not a psychologist, but based on the ebbs and flows of the thread I'd predict his next manic phase to hit Tuesday or Wednesday, so it's okay, he should be back to his old self soon. This thread is a safe space for non-experts to claim expertise.
|
|
#
?
Apr 16, 2014 17:42
|
|
|
Captain_Maclaine posted:You're blowing my mind man. Dude, you wanna really flip out? Every date this week is a plaindrome of itself. 
|
|
#
?
Apr 16, 2014 18:57
|
|
|
|
| # ? Oct 7, 2024 15:04 |
|
|
Who What Now posted:Dude, you wanna really flip out? Every date this week is a plaindrome of itself. Only if you use a really lovely date format, though. Yeah I went there, gently caress M/D/Y, and M/D/Y with 2 digit years especially.
|
|
#
?
Apr 16, 2014 19:00
|
|
