|
Who What Now posted:Does this mean I can play house rules Strangecoin? As long as you post enough pictures of random networks.
|
#
?
Apr 28, 2014 20:57
|
|
|
|
| # ? Dec 10, 2024 04:50 |
|
|
RealityApologist posted:The intended result of such a network are stable subnet cliques or castes that have various pull within the overall network, such that their transactions have a significantly larger impact on the network than other nodes. If everyone is trying to balance their load, and I'm engaged in dozens of transactions with various people, then any new transaction I make in the network is going to have consequences for the balances of lots of other nodes, and they'll have to adjust to take my activity into account. There's nothing intrinsically desireable about a higher throughput, except that the stakes are that much higher for the network. For one, the caste criticism still stands as self-organization predisposes itself to xenophobic attitudes towards any individuals in the out-groups. Human nature, as adversarial as it is, will desire the domination of the in-group over any in the out-groups with varying levels of self degradation. Even if those groups were aware of the numerical ramifications of those actions, there is not any guarantee that they will act optimally in terms of greatest benefit for gain. This is why Mutually Assured Destruction is a thing. Similarly, these groups may align and unite to the point of two or three super blocs creating multiple levels of xenophobic competition. If you observe massively multi-player games with high level of social organization like CyberNations or EVE, groups will self-organize (as you assert), however demonization of opponents will emerge and self-destructive action may be taken in order to hamstring the opponent in some way, even if this might damage future alliances. Things like fear and coercion are not accounted for in this "game" of Strangecoin which can artificially inflate social blocs and destabilize the entire system. This willful destruction of the system for personal gain is not represented in your system it seems and that is necessary to emulate to accurately portray socioeconomic relations in any realistic form. If you have any philosophical presumptions of human behavior and social interaction, that might be informative in terms of what assumptions of human behavior you have in your game. All games have rules and assumptions in terms of what actions the players can or will take. Knowing these assumptions is important. Xelkelvos fucked around with this message at 21:08 on Apr 28, 2014 |
|
#
?
Apr 28, 2014 20:57
|
|
|
At least you can buy a house with Monopoly money
|
|
#
?
Apr 28, 2014 21:01
|
|
|
Who What Now posted:Yeah, you know what I want to do every time I buy groceries? Play a rousing game of Monopoly! That's not completely stupid at all. Install Windows posted:While no one plays rulebook Monopoly, tons of people enjoy playing house rules Monopoly. You're supposed to play like a ruthless capitalist when you play Monopoly, but surprise, most people don't find loving over their friends and family all that much fun, hence the house rules to make the game more "fair"/fun.
|
|
#
?
Apr 28, 2014 21:04
|
|
|
fade5 posted:Monopoly actually works best when you don't do the usual house rules. The thing is, the goal of Monopoly is to Bankrupt everyone as fast as you can, and the house rules slow that down. All the house rules basically aim at putting more money in circulation, which makes the game last longer. It's basically a really crude form of wealth redistribution to give everyone a fighting chance, especially if they get lucky. The most common house rules are not auctioning properties that people don't want to buy, and loading up free parking with a ton of money. The first removes a drudgery aspect that also takes a long time, the second usually results in someone getting so much money they can load up a monopoly with hotels and soon bankrupt everyone else.
|
|
#
?
Apr 28, 2014 21:08
|
|
|
Oh great, it's a game now. loving fantastic. RA, could you possibly be any more of a weasel?
|
|
#
?
Apr 28, 2014 21:19
|
|
|
fade5 posted:Monopoly actually works best when you don't do the usual house rules. The thing is, the goal of Monopoly is to Bankrupt everyone as fast as you can, and the house rules slow that down. All the house rules basically aim at putting more money in circulation, which makes the game last longer. It's basically a really crude form of wealth redistribution to give everyone a fighting chance, especially if they get lucky. Monopoly was actually designed to demonstrate to people what happens in a monopoly. It wasn't supposed to be fun. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Landlord%27s_Game It was made by a Georgist, who are some of the only decent Libertarians. Wanamingo posted:Oh great, it's a game now. loving fantastic. Someone suggested it, so of course he has to pivot to it. He has a frankly creepy habit of adopting the language and concepts of the people he's talking with.
|
|
#
?
Apr 28, 2014 21:20
|
|
|
What gets me is that he's talking like it's always been a game. He called it a currency in the thread title and then started talking about how it works compared to the dollar, but no, it's a game, what do you mean it's a supposed to be money, I never called it that and I certainly never called it a replacement for the economy, where are you getting this from when it's always been a game? Jesus christ RA, get help. This is not healthy.
|
|
#
?
Apr 28, 2014 21:30
|
|
|
RealityApologist posted:
Everyone plays Monopoly by ignoring the rules and cheating. They may have not gotten to that in your Ph.D. studies yet...
|
|
#
?
Apr 28, 2014 21:31
|
|
|
Obdicut posted:Monopoly was actually designed to demonstrate to people what happens in a monopoly. It wasn't supposed to be fun.
|
|
#
?
Apr 28, 2014 21:31
|
|
|
RealityApologist posted:
So now Strangecoin is a boardgame with dice and a conclusive end? It's a competitive game where I'm trying to get have my balance be more 0 than my friends? It's just a thing I do for fun when the power goes out, instead of something I use for day to day groceries? If you really want it to be a boardgame, it doesn't seem like this should be in D&D (TG I suppose?) but it seems like a really bad one since I can win by just donating all my coins and then never get any more. burnishedfume fucked around with this message at 21:59 on Apr 28, 2014 |
|
#
?
Apr 28, 2014 21:33
|
|
|
fade5 posted:Ah, there we go, that's exactly what I was getting at. Thanks Obdicut. I read a post somewhere on the forums explaining why Monopoly in it's base form wasn't meant to be fun and it made all the house rules make complete sense. There were significant rule and mechanics changes from the original Landlord's game to canon Monopoly.
|
|
#
?
Apr 28, 2014 21:35
|
|
|
Wanamingo posted:What gets me is that he's talking like it's always been a game. No, I'm not. I explicitly said that I was giving up the economic and political rhetoric to concentrate on modeling the multiagent network. I've explicitly adjusted my presentation and rhetoric on the basis of the criticisms raised in this thread. I'm being responsive to criticism. And y'all call me a flipflopper for doing so. You are all absolutely terrible at basic comprehension and argumentation. You deserve me.
|
|
#
?
Apr 28, 2014 21:36
|
|
|
RealityApologist posted:You are all absolutely terrible at basic comprehension and argumentation. Who the mother living gently caress are you to judge? You're saying "Strangecoin is a game." But it wasn't always! If it's changed so fundamentally why should we give a poo poo? If you've changed everything about it just go away.
|
|
#
?
Apr 28, 2014 21:38
|
|
|
RealityApologist posted:No, I'm not. I explicitly said that I was giving up the economic and political rhetoric to concentrate on modeling the multiagent network. I've explicitly adjusted my presentation and rhetoric on the basis of the criticisms raised in this thread. I'm being responsive to criticism. And y'all call me a flipflopper for doing so. It took me ages to catch up, but I just want to say that it's been a real joy reading this thread. I haven't had this much fun since that goldmined thread about the guy who refused to take the slightest bit of financial advice. This is just a classic post. RA, if you've given up the economic and political rhetoric of Strangecoin, then what is its current purpose? If it's not an economic system, and it's no longer being used to affect political change by making our caste system explicit, then what is Strangecoin currently used for? Let's pretend that you succeed at "modeling the multiagent network" (lol). You have the network now, what are you going to do with it? Strangecoin went from a currency, to a tool for economics research, to a tool for exploring existing power structures, to a game. Why should I, as a technologically literate first world consumer, want to use Strangecoin?
|
|
#
?
Apr 28, 2014 21:43
|
|
|
RealityApologist posted:You are all absolutely terrible at basic comprehension and argumentation. RealityApologist posted:Strangecoin is not a replacement for the economy. It is not a replacement for money. Strangecoin is a game. This game is played by trading around worthless coins. That's the only similarity to money or economics. In this paper, it is argued that a more accurate model of socioeconomic relations can be formed through a game of trading worthless coins than by simply tracking real currency exchanges, because
|
|
#
?
Apr 28, 2014 21:44
|
|
|
It's just a game cousin.RealityApologist posted:
|
|
#
?
Apr 28, 2014 21:47
|
|
|
"New rule! New rule!" Strangecoin is the socioeconomic version of Calvinball, only without any of the childlike whimsey and with significantly more pointless frustration. Captain_Maclaine fucked around with this message at 21:54 on Apr 28, 2014 |
|
#
?
Apr 28, 2014 21:49
|
|
|
RealityApologist posted:No, I'm not. I explicitly said that I was giving up the economic and political rhetoric to concentrate on modeling the multiagent network. I've explicitly adjusted my presentation and rhetoric on the basis of the criticisms raised in this thread. I'm being responsive to criticism. And y'all call me a flipflopper for doing so. Please tell me you are directly involved with undergrad students at your school so that the next generation can observe the consequences of choosing a loving retarded major.
|
|
#
?
Apr 28, 2014 21:52
|
|
|
i figured it was just taking him a while to cycle around to the manic phase but gently caress i was not disappointed.
|
|
#
?
Apr 28, 2014 21:55
|
|
|
RealityApologist posted:The object of the game for everyone is to balance their accounts, so that their total income matches their total expenses. You can do this in two ways: never trading any coins, or trading coins strategically so that your income matches your expenses. How can you just make up stuff this dumb? This is no more the "object of the game" than the goal of the economy is to match supply with demand (and make everyone Free and Equal) because wow.
|
|
#
?
Apr 28, 2014 21:58
|
|
|
It just doesn't get old.RealityApologist posted:
Eripsa poses as a philosopher of science and it appears that his understanding of the history of science is "proto-chemists were like 'atomic theory bro'"
|
|
#
?
Apr 28, 2014 22:01
|
|
|
Cantorsdust posted:Strangecoin went from a currency, to a tool for economics research, to a tool for exploring existing power structures, to a game. Why should I, as a technologically literate first world consumer, want to use Strangecoin? People are acting like this is some giant inconsistency or backtracking, but I'm just reframing the proposal to give a better sense of its intention, in response to the criticisms from this thread. Strangecoin functions like a currency, and there's a substantive conception of social organization underlying it's design, but I'm framing it as a game for the purposes of this thread so we can build the drat thing. It was never the point to replace the whole economy or instigate a revolution; that's all inflated rhetoric coming from the echo chamber of the thread. My proposal is motivated by concerns (about corporate and class structures, nepotism, and other socioeconomic realities), and I'm talking about those things again to give some insight into the motivation for the proposal, and none of that has changed. I've just tried to make it clear in the revised proposal that nothing about the proposal lives or dies on the basis of those considerations. That's not backtracking, that's focusing. You know, like y'all have been asking. If you don't want to talk about the technological mediation of social organization, or the potential for using tools like Strangecoin to study and even manage such systems, then I have nothing to tell you to change your mind or make you interested in this project.
|
|
#
?
Apr 28, 2014 22:10
|
|
|
RealityApologist posted:People are acting like this is some giant inconsistency or backtracking, but I'm just reframing the proposal to give a better sense of its intention, in response to the criticisms from this thread. Strangecoin functions like a currency, and there's a substantive conception of social organization underlying it's design, but I'm framing it as a game for the purposes of this thread so we can build the drat thing. Naw, we just think you're dumb.
|
|
#
?
Apr 28, 2014 22:17
|
|
|
What is Strangecoin supposed to accomplish as a game? Indeed, how can it work as a game? You haven't really described this.
|
|
#
?
Apr 28, 2014 22:19
|
|
|
Stop talking about Strangecoin as if it's actually ever going to be built and implemented. You can't even convince people that they should care about a hypothetical Strangecoin proposal, who are you expecting to actually build a real system for you? The people who have partially did so to show you that it was so fundamentally flawed it was impossible!
|
|
#
?
Apr 28, 2014 22:21
|
|
|
Eripsa's knowledge of chemistry is also game-based:
|
|
#
?
Apr 28, 2014 22:22
|
|
|
Who What Now posted:Stop talking about Strangecoin as if it's actually ever going to be built and implemented. You can't even convince people that they should care about a hypothetical Strangecoin proposal, who are you expecting to actually build a real system for you? The people who have partially did so to show you that it was so fundamentally flawed it was impossible! It's not really a fun project and I'm currently behind on some of the other stuff I'm doing -- if Strangecoin were more fun to code I'd earnestly consider it.
|
|
#
?
Apr 28, 2014 22:25
|
|
|
RealityApologist posted:Strangecoin is not a replacement for the economy. It is not a replacement for money. Strangecoin is a game. This game is played by trading around worthless coins. That's the only similarity to money or economics. quote:The object of the game for everyone is to balance their accounts, so that their total income matches their total expenses. You can do this in two ways: never trading any coins, or trading coins strategically so that your income matches your expenses. quote:I've argued in this thread that a game of this sort is a more accurate model of our socioeconomic relations than traditional money, and that it may be easier for us to reason about the kind of network structure found in strangecoin than it is to reason about dollars. 1) Strangecoin is a game played by trading coins that have literally no value. 2) The object of the game is to adjust expenses such that they exactly match income. 3) Our current economic system is predicated on the exchange of traditional money for goods and services, and it is our collective recognizance of this property of money that imparts it with value. If there is a "win condition" for our modern economic system, it is generally understood as having maximized the ratio of income to expenses. Still though, Strangecoin is a more accurate model of our socioeconomic relations because _______. Where am I going wrong here? I am feeling like you've convincingly argued that Monopoly is actually a better model of our socioeconomic relations than Strangecoin. Edit: I feel like you should decide if Strangecoin is a prescriptive or alternate economygame or a model for our current one. But in its current state I don't think it can really be both. Dogstoyevsky fucked around with this message at 22:30 on Apr 28, 2014 |
|
#
?
Apr 28, 2014 22:28
|
|
|
RealityApologist posted:If you don't want to talk about the technological mediation of social organization, or the potential for using tools like Strangecoin to study and even manage such systems, then I have nothing to tell you to change your mind or make you interested in this project. But the average person doesn't want to talk about the technological mediation of social organization (do you mean phonecalls, texting, and facebook messages here?) or the potential for using tools like Strnagecoin to study such systems. How will you convince them your currency, as you just called it again, is worth switching to?
|
|
#
?
Apr 28, 2014 22:29
|
|
|
RealityApologist posted:People are acting like this is some giant inconsistency or backtracking, but I'm just reframing the proposal to give a better sense of its intention, in response to the criticisms from this thread. Strangecoin functions like a currency, and there's a substantive conception of social organization underlying it's design, but I'm framing it as a game for the purposes of this thread so we can build the drat thing. Back when you pretended it could and should function as a currency, your claim was that it would allow us to reify existing class structures and reveal obscured networks of nepotism in a way that regular currency can't. Now that it's not a currency, you need to do the work to show that it can still do all that better than an actual currency, despite not being directly involved in the exchange of coins for goods and services. This also goes back to a question I asked several times many pages ago: why can't you accomplish all of this reification of class structures and whatever bullshit word salad you can think of spewing with a regular currency like the dollar? You can presume omniscience, or propose shifting to a purely electronic currency with no physical coins or bills, or whatever you want. You never answered this question, or even tried to come up with a remotely feasible digitally philosophical network theorized StrangeCoin without the basic income, broken universal account or convoluted and likely also broken non-payment transactions. All we're learned from this thread is that you have a problem with stapling incoherent ideas together into a nonsensical mess. The whole support transaction type is just satisfy your obsession with attention economies, for example. The "locally non-zero sum" is a way of jamming in something quantum (meta)physical-sounding in there. How many pages did it take before you changed your mind and diverted the surplus/deficit to TUA, ensuring that transactions actually are zero sum anyways? Precambrian Video Games fucked around with this message at 22:36 on Apr 28, 2014 |
|
#
?
Apr 28, 2014 22:31
|
|
|
Hahaha, FIFTY. EIGHT. PAGES. A master troll at work. Otherwise he's a walking stereotype and every time that's been a thing the guy was revealed to be playing a character for his own entertainment. But I think Toblerone had more respect for his audience.
|
|
#
?
Apr 28, 2014 22:33
|
|
|
Mr. Stingly posted:Hahaha, FIFTY. EIGHT. PAGES. A master troll at work. Otherwise he's a walking stereotype and every time that's been a thing the guy was revealed to be playing a character for his own entertainment. But I think Toblerone had more respect for his audience. go back and find the Google Hangouts video if you want to be convinced that he's earnest. Not that I'd recommend watching it.
|
|
#
?
Apr 28, 2014 22:35
|
|
|
Mr. Stingly posted:Hahaha, FIFTY. EIGHT. PAGES. A master troll at work. Otherwise he's a walking stereotype and every time that's been a thing the guy was revealed to be playing a character for his own entertainment. But I think Toblerone had more respect for his audience. Well you can watch a video of him rambling incoherently about this for like 2 hours if you want.
|
|
#
?
Apr 28, 2014 22:36
|
|
|
I never ever said he was a troll and those words don't appear in my post. Where did you infer that. I actually think he's a walking stereotype and made a strong case for that. You goons have terrible argument/reading skills skills.
|
|
#
?
Apr 28, 2014 22:39
|
|
|
Is it a currency? An economic system? A way to enforce peonage on the outcasts in the hectic, Facebook driven modern world? Mayhaps even a game? Nay, I say unto you: it is a house on fire. And that's just using the basic rules. Now roll three dice. CheesyDog posted:Eripsa's knowledge of chemistry is also game-based: What's that, a loaf of weed?
|
|
#
?
Apr 28, 2014 22:47
|
|
|
Mr. Stingly posted:I never ever said he was a troll and those words don't appear in my post. Where did you infer that. I actually think he's a walking stereotype and made a strong case for that. You goons have terrible argument/reading skills skills. Mr. Stingly posted:A master troll at work. This isn't even out of context.
|
|
#
?
Apr 28, 2014 22:49
|
|
|
Dusseldorf posted:This isn't even out of context. (He's imitating Eripsa.)
|
|
#
?
Apr 28, 2014 22:51
|
|
|
Dusseldorf posted:This isn't even out of context. A master troll at work. Get it? He's Eripsaing. beaten ^^^^^^^ New verb: To Eripsa, meaning to suddenly change your failure of an argument midstream because someone said something new and you need to glom onto that, because your mind mistakes change for progress. He still reminds me most of the extremely bullshitty executives I had to sit through painful meetings with. As someone now in academia, he really less resembles your average academic and more more average marketing executive. Obdicut fucked around with this message at 22:58 on Apr 28, 2014 |
|
#
?
Apr 28, 2014 22:52
|
|
|
|
| # ? Dec 10, 2024 04:50 |
|
|
RealityApologist posted:First, I'm a naturalist. quote:The term ‘naturalism’ has no very precise meaning in contemporary philosophy quote:So understood, ‘naturalism’ is not a particularly informative term as applied to contemporary philosophers. quote:Even so, this entry will not aim to pin down any more informative definition of ‘naturalism’. It would be fruitless to try to adjudicate some official way of understanding the term. Makes u think
|
|
#
?
Apr 28, 2014 22:55
|
|
