[Kaimetsu]

Originally Posted by busyrobot

That is a huge generalization

No, it's an explanation of the nature of the universe. Billions of variables, too many for you or I to process. When dealing with collective consciousness, it's utterly impossible to reliably track causality.

Poltician nukes the capitol and chaos ensues. Can you track cause and effect in that case?

Yes.

Butterfly flaps wings, hurricane brews in south Atlantic. Can you track cause and effect in that case?

Believe it or not, giving one example of a possible thing does not mean that all similar things are possible.

I am saying when taking drastic enough action as to limit what people can and can not do via a governing body that you need to have some level of evidence to support the need

Which is where the inductive logic comes in. If it is sound, there is no need for direct observations.

I am also questioning the inductive logic in your assertions

Right. So a simple 'yes' would have sufficed.

I am not strawmanning

You intentionally misrepresent my position. I say that you have no reason to believe ¬X. You say that I'm accusing you of being "out of line" for not assuming X. These are completely different things.

Can you outline the dangers you are asserting are a problem so then perhaps, at this late point, we can actually debate if they are well founded or not?

Already tackled this, man. Induction. The only reasonable way for you to argue is to analyse the logic.

We are not talking about proving proof for claims not made, we are talking about your requests that I prove that there is an absense of proof that your points are wrong

You make assertions about the game world. Their relation to my predictions does not define them. You say that the world is in a certain state, but you don't offer to prove it. What value can I give this claim, then? If you base your argument on it then your argument is void.

I, meanwhile, base my argument on generalised reasoning about human nature. It is not specific to any single gameworld.

Yet you have not seen him roleplay, and are assuming he is an egocentric roleplayer because of his background story

I have seen him create an egocentric backstory. Does this not qualify as roleplaying?

I support that just because people can does not mean they do, and that in this regard the community is self managing

I don't think that sentence makes sense. In any case, it is certainly not a proof of your claim about the events on GK.

When the heck did I ever say praise was the only way to encourage somebody?

You argued that ¬praised(x) -> ¬encouraged(x).

All I was saying is the sum effect between encouragement vs discouragement leans very heavily towards the discouragement end

We saw an example of one person with a ridiculously egocentric story, and only one GK player reprimanded him for it. How many GK players posted in that thread without doing the same? And would he have been reprimanded if his story were slightly less grandiose?

Who has endorsed policy at random?

Well, you have argued against making policies based on theory. What else is there?

All it would take is for kingdom leaders to say "you know this has gotten to be a problem we need to rethink this now" and we could leave the mind control rods at home

Because, what, the act of five people thinking about something has the power to instantly rewrite the attitudes of everybody on the server?