Join the new world

Opportunity Cost.

Addy Lawrence is débrouillard

~_^

Not about Addy. Noticed the wink.

Rolo was convicted and sentenced for his actions, he is paying the price for that.

It must be acknowledged that he could perform acts of good, patriotism, or otherwise, despite his past.

I choose to see the good in him and he continues to show glimpses of "the light side of the force".

I am wary of getting burned so I manage the faith and trust that I put with him, but he had yet to let me down on a personal level.

Well, epersonal level.

I suppose I have to ask, what has Addy given Rolo?

But even then I'd have to ask, what does it matter?

Not sure why this has, once again, degenerated into the immediate preocupation with Rolo.


I don't have any difficulty whatesoever with ambiguity or dealing with ambiguous situations, and I imagine that since everyone in erepublic passed grade 4 with less effort than I, there is a general ability to think beyond the immediate concrete imminent dramatic shocking and present.

There are ways to deal with the behaviour of others. The strategies we chose have benefits. Undoubtedly. What is often ignored are the costs- the "opportunity costs".

Contrary to recent radio commentary, for instance, things are not simple dichotomies.

The germ of an answer to "what does it matter" is found in this article, though it isn't preoccupied with Rolo - pointing instead to a more chronic and pervasive phenomenon.

This piece likely too metaphysical. I will take it down soon.

Um...I don't get it...what is this article saying for those of us who don't always grasp abstract data.

hi acacia, and congrats on the radio program. First rate.

justification for helping PTO UN is not "clear v. unclear"; relationship with the Rolo character is not "haters v. supporters"; improving community is not "talk v. do"; etc... Not to worry, radio show hosts are attracted to stark contrasts, as are Presidents, terrorists, ordinary citizens and Accountants. 🙂

one point raised by the article: When no one trusts, a lot of things don't get done.... so you don't get to experience the "alternative". Its easy to think that our community needs destructive conflict to bring it together, cause we sure aren't ready to engage in a CONSTRUCTIVE project that would bring us together, like.....

I believe that what oliver is trying to impress upon us is that our choice to dabble in mirth/mayhem/machiavellian tactics has cost eCanada in unseen ways, particularly related to the other "9 Opportunities" listed above. I don't think it is meant to say that ambiguity directly excludes the 9 others ~ more like erodes them.

Feeling happy to figure out that puzzling title:

"This explains man's necessarily painful evolution. Ignorance surrounds him at his cradle; therefore, he regulates his acts according to their first consequences, the only ones that, in his infancy, he can see. It is only after a long time that he learns to take account of the others. Two very different masters teach him this lesson: experience and foresight. Experience teaches efficaciously but brutally. It instructs us in all the effects of an act by making us feel them, and we cannot fail to learn eventually, from having been burned ourselves, that fire burns. I should prefer, in so far as possible, to replace this rude teacher with one more gentle: foresight. For that reason I shall investigate the consequences of several economic phenomena, contrasting those that are seen with those that are not seen."

Bastiat, "That Which is Seen, and That Which is not Seen." (1850) http://bastiat.org/en/twisatwins.html

("X.Algeria" seems a good read)

Either i am way to drunk to translate this into propper German or just doesn't make any sense?
Seriously dude, even Plugson manages to make his articles soomewhat understandable.

Ahhh Ok...

Well...see the thing is, history teaches us that it tends to be the destructive, not the constructive that brings people together or unites. Dare I say it, WWI, WWII, 9/11, Oklahoma Bombing, Columbine, etc. These events have a way of capturing interest and uniting towards a common end. Not to say that its a good thing, but it is reality.

Why do people watch the news or read the newspaper...the front page is splashed with the most despicable of crimes or the lead news story is usually something traumatic. It is what it is. Sex sells. Good deeds and actions do not tend to unite in the same way. We need a victim...someone to circle the wagons around and hold up lighters for. When was the last time you saw a Nation unite because NOTHING got blown up or NOBODY got killed or a school shooting DID NOT happen. We don't tend to celebrate a quiet well run government...anyone remember Alias Vision? He ran the quietest administration I ever saw and nobody took to the streets to to celebrate.

I beg to differ though...we can talk all we want, but its the doing that gets things done. We can shoot off all the hot air we want about wanting a better community but when do we get the unifying project that will bring us all together in the name of loving kittens and cupcakes?

Again, human emotion is a funny thing and in eLife as in RL, only when we are faced with a horrifying/catastrophic event, do we truly unite, step back, and sober up. Lose a loved one or come face to face with that stark reality, and then watch as that same person FINALLY opens their eyes and loves that person in a way they never could...or would...before.

I blather on and the horse appears to be dead...

I take back what i just wrote. I am clearly unable to read what Plugson wrote during the F5.

: (
Dr. Pain ~ The F5 (?) was too ambiguous, huh?
Anyway, I enjoyed the puzzle oliver set up. Googling a few terms does all the figuring out a guy needs

plug: why did i include the ellipsis?

Acacia: one of the most remarkable pieces of television I ever watched was the moon landing. Another was the '72 series against the Russians. I lived Woodstock.

careful of the dichotomies.

rushed when writing the article so didn't plan it out very well. Here is a bit of a roadmap, done quickly.

Part 1 - "the Addy quote" - suggests that there is a choice besides "rationalization" - rationalization is self deception to protect oneself. Self deception likely not the optimal choice for policy making. One such choice was described in previous article.

Part 2 - deals with opportunity cost - alternatives - suggests that our community often ignores its squandered opportunities, thinks in black and white terms, has difficulty with foresight and perseverance. See plug's comment.

Part 3 - simply recognizes that the ARTICLE is ambiguous in the extreme, shows faith that most readers are perfectly able to deal with ambiguity if motivated and perseverant ( 3 times to pass grade 4 ! - that's perseverance )

Answer:
A) There currently is no constructive project that inspires all eCanadians toward the same goal
B ) You wanted us to look around and see which projects do currently exist that could fill that role
C) You anticipated my brilliant comment preceding the ellipsis.

Hedging my bets on "A"

when we collectively accept the lowest common denominator, even dressing it up as interesting through roleplay still gives us the lowest common denominator

ironically, that too then becomes boring for many, contributing to a hollowing out of the community as people start to feel that the cost of giving a fuck exceeds the cost of not doing so

oh well

Honestly, i don't know why i put in the ellipsis.. when writing article i actually changed the title to include it.. seemed "better".. i can now imagine reasons it "feels" better... like : it isn't a straight line from "can't see" to "doesn't exist" i.e. from one starting point you can go many places.. or maybe to let the reader fill in the "gap" ... don't know.. probably I anticipated your brilliant comment !!! yes - that's it ! 🙂

Ah, ellispsis in the title. I thought you meant in one of the comments.
I misunderstood. Or, there could be an 8-letter word put in the middle of that title (ya know, hangman sort of thing)
L A W R E N C E
o...m...g...!

"cost of giving a fuck exceeds the cost of not doing so"
_____________

And besides, the government doesn't have any money in the treasury to fund these noble projects.....hmmmmmmmm...
spend money on...........
encourage................

That Sistine Chapel looks like it needs paint... 🙂

Plugson, SHOCKINGLY solves IMPENETRABLE mystery and REVEALS SCANDALOUS TRUTH in BEAT DOWN of nerdy author.

__________

that would have been a better title. will use it later.

Ahh yes

Woodstock...in response to what? a War no?
The 72 Summit...a chance to rejoice over a victory that came at the expense of the dreaded communist's
Landing on the moon...a chance to beat the same evil Communist's in the space race...

We all need a villain...a "Thing" to rally around that can be seen as the root of all evil and we need that so we can feel good about ourselves when we overcome it.

Someone pass the dichotomy I'm still hungry LOL

This is fun!

Acacia is simply rationalizing his own involvement in shady shit and support of shady people.

Games are fun because they involve goals to reach; you don't need cheaters in a game to have fun.

Who's cheating?

Everything that has been done has been in accordance with game rules along terms and conditions

I think olivermellors needs to consider playing eCandyland...

Fair point Rolo, I should have said "snakes" instead of "cheaters"

I can't think of a game where there isn't someone or something to "beat" or "compete" against. Heck, even Solitaire pits you against lady luck and her control of the cards.

Like it or not, we all need a villain or someone who represents the very thing we are railing to defeat so that we can claim "victory". Competition exists everywhere...whether we choose to accept it or not. We just get a greater sense of gratification when we "win" against something that is exceptionally villainous.

Just ask the St. Louis Cardinals...they knocked off the "evil Texas Rangers" and that it took 162 regular season games just to qualify for the opportunity made the "Victory" all the more powerful. Small victories yield small scale sense of success...big victories yield a great sense of success.

We all need a villain...just ask the Bible or most any other holy book...but thats another matter and I am not interested in starting a holy war...we already have one in game.

Chance /= a villain.
The bible is a story from which people are supposed to draw lessons on how to live their lives. Stories need protagonists and villains....
eRepublik is not a story. It's a game.

Keep trying to rationalize Acacia.

######
Acacia: The beauty of sport is that you play hard, but honestly. That is a worthwhile victory, best when the adversary is skilled and the competition is fair/honest. Villain, not required. In fact, the greatest competition is with yourself. As Wooden would say: often the other team outscored us but we rarely lost.

Initially, there was no "rule" about betting on baseball, or throwing games/fights. It was dishonest nevertheless.

you asked a specific question: "When was the last time you saw a Nation unite because NOTHING got blown up or NOBODY got killed or a school shooting DID NOT happen." The answers included Woodstock, the moon landing and the '72 series. Of course those were not the last occasions: the list is very long, and often overlooked.

That these events took place in the context of a world which included bombs blowing up, wars and political repression is not surprising. The world is that way. It always includes these things. It is always possible to create links.

My general attitude is that very few important, constructive, movements concern opposition to "evil villains". Hence, in our world, the question of whether a player is an "evil villain" is of no interest to me.

Ideas are another matter altogether. Militarism, Jingoism, Imperialism, Consumerism, Feminism, Sophism, Maoism and a whole bunch of other "isms" have attracted ardent people on both sides. Jinah built a country banging on an old typewriter. Ideas are important. You will note that my article talks about the opportunity cost of an idea (and behaviour)- "accomodating to chronic pervasive dishonesty", -not about an evil player.

I don't need a villain. And if you still can't think of a transforming experience that was "all good", go look at the kids and remember. 🙂 That is what Woodstock was about: love each other, in eCandyland.

BUT, there is something in the whole "villain" thing. Maybe another aricle, but not about Frankenstein. Regards friend

For a second I thought this was written by Derrida, or at least zombie Derrida, since he's been dead for six years.

olivermellors

even YOU need a villian...

Ever taken a look at your own newspaper? How many of your articles are about me, or insinuate me in the text due to some wrong I had a part in that you want to right

I appear to be the only reason you have anything to write about, thus the only reason you play...

rolo: you will have to go back 18 articles, to March 31 in order to find an article about you. It was your sentencing, which I was reporting as Chief Justice.

With respect, you are not of great interest to me. I don't need a villain. I am quite interested in the evolution of the community however. I have commented about events and judgements and ideas. You are active in the community so have not gone unnoticed and have played a role in many of the events which I find problematic. But, really, it isn't about you. Especially that series about the vainglory chess championship.

“A world at peace. There had to be a sacrifice.”

Any discussion about villains, heroes, and national unity in eCanada may as well begin there. Adam Sutler put those words out in his last shout, and still his last, I believe, despite his recent return. To me, the quote summarizes the argument put forward by Acacia and may even be traced through all the shenanigans leading up to now.

So has the sacrifice been greater than the opportunity cost? Hmmm, tough call, since we do not keep stats that record the silent departure of players from eCanada, nor track the withdrawal of those who feel they are on the butt-end of most pranks. One way or the other, I believe it is all guesstimation. Common sense would say that unless someone laughs along with the prank after it is pulled, you’ve just harmed that relationship. Even then, those that stick around are too wary of what trick will come next or are only sticking around to see what the next big trick will be. Thefts, lulz attacks, and political subterfuge produce entertainment in some and wariness in others. The benefit is that you foster a prankster community that thrives on drama. eCanada has done well to feed that niche demographic. On the other hand, the serious gamer who just wants to gain stats, increase wealth, and win wars detaches from the community because “it’s just not his thing,” while the earnest social-political gamers become apathetic or annoyed. I believe that is the common understanding of how eCanada is structured and has been formed ~ but could easily be mistaken.

I’m thinking there are few players on the polar extremes of what I just described. Most fall in the middle ~ they want to win but also want the game to be a bit spontaneous and fun. They don’t want to get screwed over or feel out of the loop, and can put up with the occasional outburst of trouble but overall want to feel that their time spent in the game creates something beneficial not just for their citizen but also for the team (whatever they feel their team is ~ the identity is getting more splintered as we go on).

So, last take on villains in eCanada. They are both entertaining and destructive. As time goes on, more players will claim the villain is entertaining and beneficial if that aspect of the population is being fostered (a number of reasons why there), while fewer players will advocate against the prankster-thief-machiavellian since they have long ago left or resorted to silence.

Hey so, all this preoccupation with villains leaves me to wonder why we aren’t more involved in discussing heroes. Battle Heroes and CPs have the medals to demonstrate their game mechanic prowess. Somehow that has lost priority ~ at least in the media discussions. To me, a hero would be a player who inspires others to improve their play in a way that fosters pride and a desire to keep doing better. I suppose pranksters take pride in their work and find ways to outdo each other or themselves. The question you should ask when debating the “hero vs. villain” dichotomy (oops, my bad) is “What actions escalate as a result of his/her behaviour?”

A system can only handle so much of the shock response caused by escalating crises before it shuts down. Bigger, badder, more surprising has its limits and its goals are short-range. The slower, steadier process of building trust and solidifying a common goal may seem dull in the moment, yet the rewards will be incrementally greater.
I’ve written silly shock articles for the immediate satisfaction. It doesn’t compare to the grunt work put into creating something like WGC, even if it did not last as long as it could have. That’s my ‘takeaway’ from eRep.

Plugson

Do you want to celebrate my Heroic efforts against the PTO?

or my Campaign and Battle Heroes

By all means, feel free...

I took a celebratory sip of scotch.

Funny, it tasted like the one before it and might be same as the next drink.

Villains can be heroes and vice versa. Most people don't try to play at both extremes because some actions (like protecting the country from PTO) contradict others (like not protecting the country from PTO until an ATO opportunity presented itself) which causes confusion in those who lose the ability to tell A from B, and just assume that the punchline went over their head.

Eventually, the game will become all about the medals and heroes will be counted more easily. Sometimes I wonder if Rolo is doing a service to people by hastening this evolution, but that is over my head to figure out.

"How interesting/enjoyable would the game be if everyone did as I am arguing it was good for me to do?"

I find that question a helpful way to distinguish actual arguments in favour of my actions from self-motivated rationalizations.

The central failure of this "we need an enemy" hogwash is that the game naturally provides enemies in huge quantities. We have in part been limited in our ability to take them on by our (uneeded) internal enemies, who have cost us resources, members, morale, and energy. A house divided against itself cannot stand.