Welcome! These forums will be deactivated by the end of this year. The conversation continues in a new morph over on Discord! Please join us there for a more active conversation and the occasional opportunity to ask developers questions directly! Go to the PS+ Discord Server.

Treatment of Conservative Factions Hurts The Game

62 posts / 0 new
Last post
Tue, 2014-12-30 19:13
Panoptic Panoptic's picture
A system of diminishing
A system of diminishing returns would help but I've never seen it referred to in the books. I'm happy to look at references if given though. What if the hab's inhabitants turn off auto-pinging positive rep to people they don't like, regardless of what they do? And then decide that person "owes" society for perceived crimes (e.g. differences of opinion, not towing the group line 100%, etc.)? I think the idea that an autonomist hab simply "wouldn't do that" borders very close to the "no true scotsman" fallacy.
—
On 'IC Talk': Seyit Karga, Ultimate [url=http://eclipsephase.com/comment/46317#comment-46317]Character Profile[/url]
Top
Tue, 2014-12-30 19:40
ShadowDragon8685 ShadowDragon8685's picture
Panoptic wrote:A system of
Panoptic wrote:
A system of diminishing returns would help but I've never seen it referred to in the books. I'm happy to look at references if given though. What if the hab's inhabitants turn off auto-pinging positive rep to people they don't like, regardless of what they do? And then decide that person "owes" society for perceived crimes (e.g. differences of opinion, not towing the group line 100%, etc.)? I think the idea that an autonomist hab simply "wouldn't do that" borders very close to the "no true scotsman" fallacy.
In this case, though, that isn't a true Scotsman. That's a massive violation of the entire principles of autonomism. It's like an allegedly free market, where the government mandates you must buy X amount of expensive goods per year, because the government owns the mines/factories that produces it, or alleged employment where you're promised a livable wage, but then dinged, nickled and dimed with fees, fines and taxes, until you're earning 1/100th the price of an ear of corn per day, and you're only paid in company skrip which is only spendable at the company store. I'm not saying it couldn't happen, but I am saying that it's the kind of thing that, once exposed, would piss off the habitat neighbors and the @-list in general.
—
Skype and AIM names: Exactly the same as my forum name. [url=http://tinyurl.com/mfcapss]My EP Character Questionnaire[/url] [url=http://tinyurl.com/lbpsb93]Thread for my Questionnaire[/url] [url=http://tinyurl.com/obu5adp]The Five Orange Pips[/url]
Top
Wed, 2014-12-31 04:57
Armoured Armoured's picture
Ah, anarchy's laws
ShadowDragon8685 wrote:
Panoptic wrote:
A system of diminishing returns would help but I've never seen it referred to in the books. I'm happy to look at references if given though. What if the hab's inhabitants turn off auto-pinging positive rep to people they don't like, regardless of what they do? And then decide that person "owes" society for perceived crimes (e.g. differences of opinion, not towing the group line 100%, etc.)? I think the idea that an autonomist hab simply "wouldn't do that" borders very close to the "no true scotsman" fallacy.
In this case, though, that isn't a true Scotsman. That's a massive violation of the entire principles of autonomism. (snip) I'm not saying it couldn't happen, but I am saying that it's the kind of thing that, once exposed, would piss off the habitat neighbors and the @-list in general.
Because the Autonomists, with their unified, agreed upon system of governance, is well-known for getting all their members to follow their common laws. (/sarcasm) Basically, autonomist principles seem like they will only work only if absolutely everyone follows them, and noone tries to game the system. Recorded human history indicates that this is a hard problem to solve. Ultimately this is why many autonomist groups grate me for being so Mary-Sue perfect; somehow in an otherwise crapsack setting, this one social group (historically utterly unsuccessful) can all be happy friends and successful and awesome all the time!
Top
Thu, 2015-01-01 10:55
Kremlin K.O.A. Kremlin K.O.A.'s picture
That actually hits the core
That actually hits the core of the problem. Societies have ideal states, and failstates. For example, in an Ideal state Representative Democracy, the people would be educated and informed. They would know which reps have which ideas and they would choose based on what they want to see happen. These Reps would then keep their election promises. Clearly that hasn't happened with any real Representative Democracy. Thing is, in Eclipse Phase, the AA is shown as if it is existing in its ideal state. After 10 years, parts of it should have fallen into some forms of failstate. As another Example. The ideal state of Anarcho Capitalism is a wonderful place. Nobody creates cheating contracts, because the various Law Enforcement and justice providers ensure that contracts are clear and simple. In addition, everyone knows the skills to examine contracts. This means there is no exploitation. The failstates you see in the real world fall somewhat short of that ideal. A good example of a failstate would be: "What happens if 67% of a hab's population regularly ding behaviour X, where X is something they dislike, but is otherwise harmless?" Such a behaviour might be having 'Christian' on their Meshbook public profile description. If most of the people in this hab think of Christianity as an arm of Bioconservatism, they might have their muse ding this person every time they pass.
Top
Thu, 2015-01-01 15:18
Redroverone Redroverone's picture
I think muses obviate those objections
Muses are a great workaround to your objections all these systems. Your muse essentially acts as your 'Man Friday' and can automatically sort through legal mumbo-jumbo, policy, data, etc. before you even see it. Anarcho capitalism probably works much better when every citizen has at their beck and call a legal advisor who not only can grok the law inside and out before you even see the contract, but can also flag exploits in a helpful manner. I also think part of the problem with discussing failstates like your last example is that we expect all humanity to make everything public. Secrets are harder to keep in the panopticon, sure - but certainly not impossible, especially about something like religion where no one actually sees you going into a church. The only citizens with perfect public knowledge would be those who actively put all their information in public - the equivalent of Facebookers who share EVERYTHING. People's muses would probably filter out too much information as quickly as possible, so you may never know who does what or why, simply because it's not interesting to you, your muse knows it, and doesn't care to fill up his time with random gossip about neighbors. That's how I see it, anyways. YMMV.
—
The dog ate my signature
Top
Thu, 2015-01-01 18:48
ORCACommander ORCACommander's picture
except muses can either be
except muses can either be highly generalized or very specialized. not all muses are going to be front loaded with the equivalent of a 40 years partnership in a law firm
Top
Fri, 2015-01-02 09:32
Redroverone Redroverone's picture
Perhaps not, BUT
there are going to be very few vulture lawyers in autonomist space, I'm guessing. After all, disagreements that turn fatal tend to be a popularity contest, and the guy who's all 40 years of law school nitpicking over contracts is probably not going to head anyone's Homecoming King list. Not to mention the absolute problem it would be to be a jackleg lawyer in a place where Yelp and Amazon reviews are not only legal, but legal currency that you need to do anything besides feed yourself in a hab.
—
The dog ate my signature
Top
Fri, 2015-01-02 12:31
ShadowDragon8685 ShadowDragon8685's picture
The Morph Recognition Guide
The Morph Recognition Guide has a good call-out on why exactly trusting your muse to be your legal advocate is a [i]Bad Idea[/i].
Morph Recognition Guide wrote:
Ruqinzhe:Last time I tried to get a ghost, I got a lesson in how less reputable skin joints try to screw you. I reserved in advance, paid up front, and went with a shady body bank to keep my profile low. After sleeving what I thought was a ghost, I had a nasty shock when I was jumped by some punks and the morph didn’t perform as expected. I had a genesplicer I know run some scans, turns out I had been given a splicer with some aftermarket mods. I took it back to the clinic, where the customer service AI politely told me to fuck off. Turns out that my muse had dropped the ball and contractually I’d agreed to a morph with certain parameters; the one they’d given me met those parameters (barely), and they called this special package a “ghost.” It apologized for any confusion but would not offer a refund. Fucking Extropian contracts.
And that's a [i]very simple[/i] legal fuck-up that could have been avoided by demanding to know the body bank's exact definition of a "Ghost" beforehand. When you get to actual sharkish lawyers, your poor muse doesn't stand a chance in hell. Hell, even most lawyers are basically bumbling and inept outside of their own areas of specialty, preferable only to employing an absolute layman - don't ask the same guy you had handle your financial dispute with the bank handle your criminal defense, unless you like the idea of a nice long stay behind bars.
—
Skype and AIM names: Exactly the same as my forum name. [url=http://tinyurl.com/mfcapss]My EP Character Questionnaire[/url] [url=http://tinyurl.com/lbpsb93]Thread for my Questionnaire[/url] [url=http://tinyurl.com/obu5adp]The Five Orange Pips[/url]
Top
Sun, 2015-01-04 13:41
Redroverone Redroverone's picture
Thanks for the excerpt
It reminded me to pick up the MRG; I still hadn't yet. I will say, though, that he evidently knew in advance he was going to a shady dealer. I think the quotes are both 'Caveat Emptor' and 'If you wish to sup with the devil, bring a very long spoon.'
—
The dog ate my signature
Top
Sun, 2015-01-04 22:15
ShadowDragon8685 ShadowDragon8685's picture
Yeah, but again: that was an
Yeah, but again: that was an [i]amateur[/i] "screw the customer" move. "You asked for a ghost. We provided you with the package that we refer to as a Ghost. It was your fault you didn't double-check to make sure your idea of a Ghost and our idea of a Ghost were one and the same." That's an easy one to spot if you suspect any shady dealings at all - and as he knew in advance he was dealing with a shady body bank, his muse should've done the due diligence on getting an exact definition of Ghost. That it didn't speaks volumes.
—
Skype and AIM names: Exactly the same as my forum name. [url=http://tinyurl.com/mfcapss]My EP Character Questionnaire[/url] [url=http://tinyurl.com/lbpsb93]Thread for my Questionnaire[/url] [url=http://tinyurl.com/obu5adp]The Five Orange Pips[/url]
Top
Fri, 2015-01-09 02:45
Erulastant Erulastant's picture
redroverone wrote:
redroverone wrote:
I also think part of the problem with discussing failstates like your last example is that we expect all humanity to make everything public. Secrets are harder to keep in the panopticon, sure - but certainly not impossible, especially about something like religion where no one actually sees you going into a church. The only citizens with perfect public knowledge would be those who actively put all their information in public - the equivalent of Facebookers who share EVERYTHING. People's muses would probably filter out too much information as quickly as possible, so you may never know who does what or why, simply because it's not interesting to you, your muse knows it, and doesn't care to fill up his time with random gossip about neighbors.
So it's fine to hold beliefs contrary to the hab, so long as you never express them? I'm not seeing this as an improvement...
—
You, too, were made by humans. The methods used were just cruder, imprecise. I guess that explains a lot.
Top

Pages