Refining the "Aid" Algorithm

[Salsuero]

Anyone advocating for change is doing so out of self-interest?
.

They are when the reason behind it is something that benefits them directly and that is the impetus for suggesting such a change. If you are doing this for the "greater good," well I'd like to know how many people actually care about placing decos purely for the admiration of the artwork as advertised. This doesn't seem to be an actual problem that needs to be addressed. But by all means, explain to us why everyone needs to be able to build as many decos as you have if it's not for the happiness... but it's also not for the self-interest that we're examining.

 

[DeletedUser32389]

I could be wrong, but I believe there is no play style that is hurt by a slider.

It's not that you're wrong, it's that this defies any logic as a free game device. I've stated clearly that features that allow a persons city to be more efficient as they are makes sense, but as the current ecosystem stands they should carry a price. If the whole thing needs an overhaul, one that effects everyone all the time, that's one thing, for you to grant players a brand new power is another.

I've also stated repeatedly that this isn't as easy as a "slider" No single person here has offered me a link to how the selection really works, and even if it is as easy as a calculation weight, there's the issue of implementation. Many of you blow that off as something the developers have to deal with, but I encourage you to reconsider. Where to put a feature, how people understand it, how you explain it to players, theses considerations are as important as abuse control on the list of things people often overlook. Simplify the explanation and you'll see that (at best) this is a "boost" that you would have to pay for somehow.

 

[lemur]

Anyone advocating for change is doing so out of self-interest?

They are when the reason behind it is something that benefits them directly and that is the impetus for suggesting such a change.

Ah, I see. So by that reasoning, when Martin Luther King, Jr. was advocating for civil rights, he was motivated by self-interest — because of course, he would benefit directly from the changes he was proposing with regard to discrimination on the basis of race. You should contact the Norwegian Nobel Committee and let them know he was just another self-interested person.

This doesn't seem to be an actual problem that needs to be addressed.

I have stated many times what the problem is.

Do you impugn motive much, Sal?

... the self-interest that we're examining.

I seems clear that the answer is, "Yes." Did you know that impugning motive is a logical fallacy? Maybe you did....

You're an absurd man.

But personal attack is so fun! Right, Sal?
.

 

[DeletedUser]

But personal attack is so fun! Right, Sal?

Someone who sees personal attacks everywhere and focuses on that must not be too interested in actually gaining support for his proposal.

 

[DeletedUser14354]

Ah, I see. So by that reasoning, when Martin Luther King, Jr. was advocating for civil rights, he was motivated by self-interest — because of course, he would benefit directly from the changes he was proposing with regard to discrimination on the basis of race. You should contact the Norwegian Nobel Committee and let them know he was just another self-interested person.
.

Are you now honestly comparing yourself to MLK?

 

[Salsuero]

Ah, I see. So by that reasoning, when Martin Luther King, Jr. was advocating for civil rights, he was motivated by self-interest — because of course, he would benefit directly from the changes he was proposing with regard to discrimination on the basis of race. You should contact the Norwegian Nobel Committee and let them know he was just another self-interested person.

Correct. I will get right on that! In fact, all humans act on self-interest. It's built into our core. Just because you can claim to act purely for others doesn't mean it's entirely altruistic if you have a dog in the fight yourself. But you using MLK Jr. as a comparison to yourself... meh.

But personal attack is so fun! Right, Sal?

Yes, it is... especially when one continually does so in our guild threads to people who don't even know what you're talking about. But go ahead. Continue to cry victim here.

 

[lemur]

In fact, all humans act on self-interest. It's built into our core.

Wow ... . I think you're quite wrong. It's good that I flushed that out into the open, as it illuminates what you write on this forum. As I suggested before, the belief that humans are naturally selfish is a result of the indoctrination we receive from the capitalist system that rules this culture.

Debunking the Myth of Human Selfishness

Are humans inherently and universally selfish? When and why do we cooperate?

Two recent books, both by Harvard professors, seek answers to these timeless and essential questions, though they approach them from different perspectives. In SuperCooperators, Martin Nowak, a professor of biology and mathematics, and acclaimed science writer Roger Highfield argue that cooperation is an indispensable part of our evolutionary legacy, drawing on mathematical models to make their case.

In The Penguin and the Leviathan, on the other hand, law professor Yochai Benkler uses examples from the business world and the social sciences to argue that we ultimately profit more through cooperation than we do by pursuing our own self-interest.

.....

In one study where participants played a game in which they could cooperate or compete, only 33 percent of them cooperated when the game was called the "Wall Street Game," whereas 70 percent did so when it was called the "Community Game."​

.

 

[DeletedUser]

Wow ... . I think you're quite wrong. It's good that I flushed that out into the open, as it illuminates what you write on this forum. As I suggested before, the belief that humans are naturally selfish is a result of the indoctrination we receive from the capitalist system that rules this culture.

Debunking the Myth of Human Selfishness

Are humans inherently and universally selfish? When and why do we cooperate?

Two recent books, both by Harvard professors, seek answers to these timeless and essential questions, though they approach them from different perspectives. In SuperCooperators, Martin Nowak, a professor of biology and mathematics, and acclaimed science writer Roger Highfield argue that cooperation is an indispensable part of our evolutionary legacy, drawing on mathematical models to make their case.

In The Penguin and the Leviathan, on the other hand, law professor Yochai Benkler uses examples from the business world and the social sciences to argue that we ultimately profit more through cooperation than we do by pursuing our own self-interest.

.....

In one study where participants played a game in which they could cooperate or compete, only 33 percent of them cooperated when the game was called the "Wall Street Game," whereas 70 percent did so when it was called the "Community Game."​

.

Aside from the fact that this thread is completely off the rails, just because people cooperate doesn't mean they are not acting out of self-interest. In fact, most of the time the only way you'll get people to cooperate is through enlightened self-interest. In other words, when people see that they will ultimately be better off themselves if they cooperate with others.

 

[lemur]

In fact, most of the time the only way you'll get people to cooperate is through enlightened self-interest.

No, you're wrong again. Where is the self-interest in the millions upon millions of men who have died for their country?
.

 

[DeletedUser]

No, you're wrong again. Where is the self-interest in the millions upon millions of men who have died for their country?
.

Perfect example of enlightened self-interest. In fact, I actually thought about mentioning armies and fighting when I wrote that post. If you have an enemy, it is a great example of enlightened self-interest to band together with your comrades and work together (cooperate) against that enemy rather than all run away or, worse yet, each try to fight on their own. The fact that people die in war does not negate the fact that they cooperate out of enlightened self-interest. By that logic, if people carpooling got in a wreck and one of them died, you would think they were not acting out of enlightened self-interest. The pertinent factor is not the results, but the motivation. I know that might be too subtle a difference for you to comprehend, but try anyway.

 

[lemur]

By that logic, if people carpooling got in a wreck and one of them died ...

The expected outcome of carpooling is similar to being subjected to gunfire, mortar rounds, artillery shells, and poison gas? .How much more idiotic can you get? .You're comparing apples to oranges.

Where is the self-interest in being dead?


.

 

[BruteForceAttack]

@Lancer what topic is this?

 

[DeletedUser]

The expected outcome of carpooling is similar to being subjected to gunfire, mortar rounds, artillery shells, and poison gas? .How much more idiotic can you get? .You're comparing apples to oranges.

Where is the self-interest in being dead?


.

You must be trolling, because nobody's reading comprehension skills are as bad as you're pretending yours are.

 

[Lancer]

This thread is getting out of hand. Because of that, it will no longer be open to replies. Still available to view for the time being.