HG wrote:N1KF wrote:
That's a lot of work. In my opinion, it would be better just to ban malicious bots in the first place. Bots aren't a functionality of the game, so having to download or program bots to stop your open worlds from being destroyed by other bots seems like a large hassle.
No. Bots are a game functionality. You can't ban bots. As of today, you can create an download bots on your computer, no matter your operative system or restrictions. If you say you can't, it's because you simply don't want to.
What I meant is that since bots are external programs, we shouldn't have in-game features be limited just because people can use bots. New users will come here expecting a fully working game, with no need to download user-made programs.
I'm fine with bots when they're used to make the game funner or more convenient to play.
You guys traversed many issues. The bot should not be allowed. I think it would be good to have open worlds that have ownership so an 'admin' could watch over conduct in the world and oust the negative bots.
Also, someone said "why not just move to another world?" -- the bot follows you. Or, you don't get to follow the people you were with. open worlds have a degree of association that you'd obviously lose if you wanted to re-create it without the bot.
I think it should stay so you can learn your lesson that time travel has consequences. The space-time continuum is serious business that should not be messed with, and if your EE stats page is a reminder of that then it needs to stay.
Time is simply an illusion, my friend.
lunchtime doubly so
... in the spirit of this similar issue I have moved the topic to B&P. Also, it seems the general answer would (should) be no.
Interestingly enough, I'm supposed to be reading John Locke's theories on private ownership... which have plenty of holes in them. Perhaps you would appreciate them more than I. Indeed, though, at some point the level of private ownership results in waste or at any rate inevitable waste of resources... perhaps there is no limit to a person's greed but to a limit to their ability to benefit from large sums
Being a CEO of a company is a hard job, you're working almost 24/7
well I imagine a lot of CEO's get enough money from whatever they're doing to pay someone else to actually worry about things. They then go golf. IIRC the income discrepancy between CEOs and minimum wage has grown excessively over time
Sports? Film? Indeed, the amount they are paid seems to exceed their work. But some market force must exist to gain them their numbers. Demand for particular people?
It depends on the party's motives. When I say corrupt, I mean that the party is more focused on power and self gain than it is the country's needs. The democrats, for example, will change their opinions for money. That helps them get into office (because businesses will support them) while also giving them a quick buck. A lot of political games are corruption, and that is sad because not playing those games get you nowhere most of the time. Really, any small party can be corrupt. At the same time, a party that I disagree with heavily could potentially not be corrupt. I believe that people should just focus on the country's needs instead of their own benefits. I still wouldn't sway to either party, however. I lean neither to one nor the other.
Agreed. However, I wouldn't say that democrats are the only politicians that follow the money. I'd personally think they'd be equal.
What do you mean by "people"? The politicians should seek the benefits of the country? Or people should vote the benefits of the country? I was actually about to ask this somewhat: What should (or does?) fuel the opinions? Should I seek what lines my pockets? Should I seek what matches my religion? How much of my opinions are just copies of the next man's? What good are those opinions, then, in comparison with someone else's?
But that's a bit out there. Again, agreed. The party system has become more of an in-group out-group than just "we have similar ideas"
I just see no need to identify with a party. Both parties and corrupt in their own ways. I disagree with both in many ways, but I also agree with many points of each.
I can agree with that, but if we accept that they're simple descriptors, you can be closer to one without identifying. I suppose that's not the point you or Atilla are making. To accept that you're closer to one than the other might be to "identify" with the party, which clearly you're both adverse to doing.
That's fair. Congress itself could probably get by with that sort of view. Not on the individual elections, I suppose. But here's a thing: will an alternative party not be "corrupt" as you say? The main 'corruption' I see would be the political games being played. Are you perhaps saying that someone who has a disagreeable view as you is corrupt? (probably not, but I should check). Anywho, folks who are elected to office often show up with their own agenda for their constituents but end up merging back with the majority to gain party benefits (whatever those are) -- in other words, would smaller parties be immune to that? Or perhaps more subject, as they're the smaller group?
Neither. It's fairly silly to exclude alternative parties, especially towards a community full of millennials.
but "ive" and "ic" allow for ambiguity (specific party? or ideological leaning?). So in a way, you could be incredibly dissimilar compared to either and still be closer to one or the other.
someone might also bring up the whole "but what about social issues vs fiscal" or "what about the 2D representation instead of the 1D" and go down a different avenue
Neither. I have my own independent beliefs.
in line with what I just wrote, are you implying that all issues these parties might have discussed mean nothing to you? Otherwise they have made some statement you have agreed or disagreed with and can then reflect in- or out-group associations.
now, don't get me wrong, I'm all for "I'm not being pigeonholed into a binary system" but you can't say you have nothing to do with this political classification
I find it odd that you say "conservative or democratic." Usually it's either on a conservative/"liberal" (not a big fan of how that term is used in modern U.S. politics) or republican/democrat scale. Was that intentional?
Good point. Also, some could be "more right" than conservatives or "more left" than democrats, pointing towards the need for some other descriptors (assuming we're just connecting these to the US parties)
Also, yes. Political polarization is what the bickering is called. bunch of old folks feeling young again by playing this game. A question: polarization has been increasing in American politics. -- is the appearance of Sanders and Trump indicative of the public revealing a greater polarization swing? (or am I exaggerating Trump's distance from centrism? )
So my reaction would be to hear what he has to say first.
P.S. "So, how would you react if Chris Benjaminsen came to your house?" I don't even have a house. I live in an apartment.
So, really, your first question would be "Chris, am I in your house? How did I get here? If not, where is this?"
indeed, you're asking the proper questions. Naturally the second one would be, after "Why did you find me", "How did you find me"
i think this is all that needs to be said, requesting a lock on this topic, good day smile
hey, we changed "Report" to "Flag" to make that sort of thing easy to do and promptlike. That is, flag a topic you want locked. No guarantees you get your way.
this is minimodding
The goal behind forum discussion is to consider policy. Be it censorship or warnings or 'unproductive posts' -- to warn people for discussing valid topics would be to invalidate the purpose of the subforum
yes, please dissect every single thing i said and give a different response to everything that makes you look dazzling
If you make multiple points, then the points should be arguable. Deflecting an extensive response to your extensive initial statement is simply ignoring your opposition. please don't feel that's an accomplishment
That's a recurring statement I've heard when people argue with me, and it seems to be a rather weak one.
Sounds like an appeal to authority, except assuming that the majority is the authority. Philosophers definitely frown upon it.
Additionally, their moderation on it must be failing because I keep seeing these types of posts everywhere!
sorry, I don't like them. sometimes I warn but neglect deleting. To put things in perspective, consider the people complaining about their Spam (Minor) posts while you talk about needing less "unproductive posts" -- we have two competing forces seeing two different sides of the same issue
I don't think that's how minimodding works. I just flagged my original post, but I doubt I'll get a warning for it. I guess we'll just have to wait and see what happens.
see my address to ernesdo, pt 2
if other things come to mind, I imagine I'll mosey back around.
The rest came from the server, which are told (based on subforum) which text to use.
Maybe someone just wants to say something or get their opinion out there. Ever thought of that?
yes. If they're "getting their opinion out there" then they're contributing. If they're "just saying something" they can go do it somewhere that doesn't care for structure. We have a thread in off-topic precisely for people who want to say something that has no thread-creation value.
however, if someone wants to discuss something seriously, there's no sense in having everyone talk about the weather.
also, mysterion, ernesdo: please keep this unrelated squabble to PMs or in the discord. And be nice.
Bobithan wrote:XxAtillaxX wrote:
If that's the case, it's incredibly misleading as reports are already a thing
uhm, well, actually, they're "flags"
well actually we don't like to assign gender labels to our automated post-specific feedback solution.
Pretty sure we switched to "flag" because we still want people to "flag" topics that need to be removed. Apparently "report" is too deterring because it suggests wrongdoing
did hummerz ban insanity for this topic? :o
*Gets banned for spam in a different thread after having just finished a month of ban*
It's almost as if you're the problem.
slightly off-topic ban discussion: troublemaking, not spam. no, doomsday.
hey, you put this in off-topic. cool. Uh, I guess you brought arguing points. Your intent is clearly the same as last time, but the rules don't say much about a user's intent, just their actions.
1) This has multiple discussions in Forum Discussion. If it concerns you, consider discussing it there. I do my best to apply the rules.
2) Hmm. Hummer apparently did fail. I haven't read up on them for a few years. I was going to make a GM-Trump analogy but I figured that association wouldn't be a positive one.
3) We've discussed this.
edit: on that note about intent. Again, this isn't that, but two of your three points are forum-related, so I guess we'll go to forum discussion and pretend you aren't focusing on me for some reason.
also, #FREESONIIIETY does convey a point. however, repeating it makes for spam.
To be specific,
a) more than one identical topic is unnecessary.
b) we have a specific topic for minigame help.
I suggest using the rules here (also at the top of each forum page)
In the instance of the minigame help, I explain the error in the action (in this case, making multiple minigame help threads which could otherwise be posts in a specific place (aka spam)). Naturally there is a freebie for mistakes.
If there are any other rule questions you have, please PM me. Otherwise this topic has no discussion content ("ew hummerz5" has already been covered)
[ Started around 1490371084.5905 - Generated in 0.263 seconds, 10 queries executed - Memory usage: 1.38 MiB (Peak: 1.71 MiB) ]