the "trust" destroyed by lying is expectation of *loyalty*. see The World's posts on that subject...
(alternatively, if the lying was immoral, it can also just be the person noticing you're acting badly, as with anything else immoral you might do)
thus "don't lie, it destroys trust" is lame
curi42 (5:49:08 PM): this scooter (4 old ppl) store was offering to help u w/ medicare claim and give it 2u free if medicare claim denied
curi42 (5:49:13 PM): v cool
curi42 (5:50:25 PM): good example of humanity of capitalism b/c medicare claim denied is like the central planners saying u don't need that.
curi42 (5:51:18 PM): these ppl who here get free scooters would b screwed under socialism
curi42 (5:58:32 PM): Actually, that's an underestimate of whose who would be screwed.
curi42 (5:59:02 PM): b/c store files claims better than individuals.
curi42 (6:02:03 PM): A critic might say that medicare is itself a socialist institution so it's only socialism that makes this good thing happen in the first place.
curi42 (6:03:36 PM): but the store policy of free scooters would work equally well w/ free market "medicare". some kinda comprensive health/aging insurance plan or whatever
Online, you are what you type. This gives you *explicit* control over every nuance of how you come across. This doesn't mean you'll know what to do with this control and how to come across anyway you like, but you can learn.
IRL, if you focus on what to say, and talk, you will be giving off all sorts of body language and not even know what you've communicated! (And even if you were very still, that would communicate something itself.)
This matters because WRT this issue, you're freer online. There are much lower costs to making choices about how you'd like to come off and changing to do it.
Some may say this allows thieves to be dishonest easier. Yup. Same people like gun control, because thieves can use guns, and crowbar control too. But the truth is tools and freedom help people, and yes helped people, who are better able to live their lives, are better able to do bad, but they are also better able to do good, and in all free societies today, far more people do good than evil.
curi42 (3:05:19 PM): "Why do they absolve the enemies from being responsible for the backwardness of the Arab world?"
curi42 (3:05:33 PM): izzit just me, or did he concede being backward?
curi42 (3:10:16 PM): http://www.memri.org/bin/latestnews.cgi?ID=SD75904
curi42 (3:10:39 PM): it's interesting how the bad guys seem to have more moral clarity and know who's who better tahn the idiotarians
curi42 (3:11:57 PM): if US democrats saw the conflict the way this guy does, they'd flock to our side!
curi42 (3:14:43 PM): he says that neo-liberal Arabs don't know the word "principles". he thinks the world as they want it is drab and grey. :-/
curi42 (3:15:25 PM): "As a matter of fact, some of the neo-lib Arab writers may be found to the right of Sharon, Mofaz, and Netanyahu in their hatred and disdain to Islam and Arabism."
curi42 (3:15:35 PM): thus proving we are too nice
25,000 made me go wow. but 200k!!
no wonder Iraq had such huge weapon's dumps.
click here for amazing article.
so in some events, like soccer, when its down to four teams or ppl, say a b c and d, it can to like this:
a beats b
c beats d
then in finals a beats c
and in bronze match, b beats d
c gets silver, b gets bronze
but look, c and b did not play each other, and had identical records, beating d and losing to a. so why should c get a higher medal? hasn't anyone noticed this?
I like game design quite a lot. I'm going to present one of the major problems in the field. Perhaps one of you will have a suggestion. Even if not it's still interesting.
The best computer game is Warcraft 3, so this will be my example game. It comes with a World Editor program so anyone can create their own maps.
To create a warcraft map of the RPG variety, you using the following main elements: place heroes, monsters, terrain, treasure. Create spells, quests, traps, and possibly a little AI to help the monsters use spells or fight smarter. You can also put in a city with shops and people to talk to.
Most warcraft RPGs I play are way too easy if I play with friends (multiplayer, cooperative). But, surprisingly, playing with random people we usually lose badly. The skill gap between random people and experts is huge, and directly effects survival rate.
So if I make a map of fun difficulty for me, most people will never get anywhere in it. But if it's going to be too easy for me, that's no fun and I won't make it at all.
One solution is difficulty levels. However, those involve either creating separate versions of each fight for each difficulty, or using some general function. The first plan is tons of work. The second has limited use. The simplest way, in warcraft, to set the difficulty at a stroke is to alter the amount of life the badguys have by some factor. However, this has unintended consequences, such as making spells that deal damage very good on low difficulties and bad on high ones.
My current map is too hard for unorganised (bad) players even on easy difficulty, but I can't lower life more because the badguys already die en masse to spells as they have so little life. The issue is that the monsters are threatening, and if they die fast, even really fast, idiots or novices can still die first. The fix would be making the monsters unthreatening...
It just occurred to me to try giving the heroes more life on easy mode. This may help.
BTW the reason I call these people idiots is if they just did the following they'd survive way way more:
- heal between fights
- buy replacement healing potions
- start fights together with everyone ready
- cast some spells like Ice Armor before combat
- run away if losing
- back up if all the monsters are targeting you
Designing difficulties for people who don't get any of those is really tricky...
Anyhow the real balance issue is to make maps interesting they should require some strategy to win. But then people bad at strategy lose. Most players have terrible strategy. And in a four player map, just one bad player can ruin it. So, what do ya do?
A Conversation
curi: I think the notion that taking away freedom from people helps them by making it harder for them to make mistakes is absurd. Even if it did prevent mistakes, it wouldn't be help.
crowd: hmmm
curi: Imagine not being allowed to use computers to help you avoid breaking a computer!
crowd: Yeah!
Lone Voice from crowd: Hey, don't we help children like that?
curi: No!
crowd: Hey, he's right. Yes we do.
curi: I mean we shouldn't do that.
crowd: What!?
Lone Voice: You don't think children should have any rules or boundaries? You're nuts!
curi: I don't think we should make our children unfree.
crowd (not listening to fine points): Lynch him!!!
Why we need TCS: link