tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9053637695029086997.comments2023-10-15T04:05:48.289-07:00Philosopher GamerCallan S.http://www.blogger.com/profile/15373053356095440571noreply@blogger.comBlogger243125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9053637695029086997.post-15399333945777789052015-06-21T21:06:36.622-07:002015-06-21T21:06:36.622-07:00I see you are from Ballarat - I guess I will see w...I see you are from Ballarat - I guess I will see whether our education system in Victoria and the valuation of originality over thievery for progress is intact. I have had two local teachers expert on picking plagiarism to look at it and they agree with me.Anonymoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14612283941807324298noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9053637695029086997.post-86420493601945206892015-06-21T21:03:31.144-07:002015-06-21T21:03:31.144-07:00I saw your post at Conscious Entities and decided ...I saw your post at Conscious Entities and decided to give you a reminder about my work noted in posts between August & October last year - http://1drv.ms/1tnKM6f<br /><br />I have already accused Graziosi directly of being a thief trying to use my Design for anatomy as his basis for human intentionalty, but you can make up your own mind about that.<br /><br />Pathetic, and its not the end of my exposure of that thievery, just the beginning, so stay tuned.Anonymoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14612283941807324298noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9053637695029086997.post-9058974244547522002014-05-06T19:49:25.237-07:002014-05-06T19:49:25.237-07:00Those should be sent through. NP, Kitten!Those should be sent through. NP, Kitten!Callan S.https://www.blogger.com/profile/15373053356095440571noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9053637695029086997.post-89274216997205819502014-05-05T11:59:23.593-07:002014-05-05T11:59:23.593-07:00"Bad Mother Kitten" Thank you ever so mu..."Bad Mother Kitten" Thank you ever so much :D :D :DAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9053637695029086997.post-76397912544900377032014-05-04T22:37:18.948-07:002014-05-04T22:37:18.948-07:00"Pseudogenesis" thanks a bunch : ^ )"Pseudogenesis" thanks a bunch : ^ )Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9053637695029086997.post-47370997500212124662014-05-04T17:45:44.501-07:002014-05-04T17:45:44.501-07:00Thanks for comments, all. Yeah, I clicked on submi...Thanks for comments, all. Yeah, I clicked on submit a link in reddit, gave the link, then clicked on text and assumed it would give the text and the title as a link - a false assumption on my part! Me so good at interwebs! Anyway, unless I've screwed up payments somehow as well, I've sent them out, so congrats!Callan S.https://www.blogger.com/profile/15373053356095440571noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9053637695029086997.post-29613419417642466812014-05-04T10:04:36.095-07:002014-05-04T10:04:36.095-07:00I could've made a throwaway to put the link up...I could've made a throwaway to put the link up I guess, I just don't like associating accounts with each other.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9053637695029086997.post-1383966203490291492014-05-04T09:57:51.792-07:002014-05-04T09:57:51.792-07:00"elmoss" Thank you so much, I'm surp..."elmoss" Thank you so much, I'm surprised more people aren't here, you really should put the link in a post instead of just the comments.... just saying, thanks BroElmosslavehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03943089776376892166noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9053637695029086997.post-60565853315768128492014-05-04T09:30:36.124-07:002014-05-04T09:30:36.124-07:00"Lee Corwood" and I gotcha. I'm put..."Lee Corwood" and I gotcha. I'm putting the link in there now.Anonymoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05945597359402260780noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9053637695029086997.post-31814965174209242552014-05-04T07:44:46.563-07:002014-05-04T07:44:46.563-07:00"Niccolo deLuce" You should link to thi..."Niccolo deLuce" You should link to this blog on your reddit post, you'll probably get more traffic.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9053637695029086997.post-25189796170609192002014-02-23T14:53:04.692-08:002014-02-23T14:53:04.692-08:00Hi Strain of Thought,
I agree on the pattern you&...Hi Strain of Thought,<br /><br />I agree on the pattern you're talking about - it's kind of an agent Smith effect, where a bunch of them bully someone into being like them, then that person contributes toward bullying someone else to being like them and so it repeats and expands that way.<br /><br />But I was thinking more about the actual designers of the game doing the hazing through their design - they design something that will neg you - just keep lowering your self esteem as you get killed over and over and 'want to get back at them'. With no sense of humour or comraderie behind it - just repeated negging over and over. It's specifically a creation of the game designer - they are making this happen. The players aren't really relevant in this case - they are just going to fall into patterns that the designer determined in how they play, and those patterns are ones that are designed to beat at self esteem.<br /><br />To a degree I don't mind some of that in a game where the designers care about you as a player. How one defines that exactly, I don't know. But in dust 514, with the clinical, nihilistic environment you're put into and the many pathetic deaths you'll face, there doesn't seem to be any designer sympathy there.<br /><br />But your run down of gamer culture and along with the online disinhibition effect get so nasty, is really spot on!Callan S.https://www.blogger.com/profile/15373053356095440571noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9053637695029086997.post-32491113654290270252014-02-15T19:34:44.713-08:002014-02-15T19:34:44.713-08:00I think it depends strongly on whether hazing has ...I think it depends strongly on whether hazing has to be a conscious act, or whether it can be something engaged in reflexively. I've definitely encountered online PVP environments where there seemed to be a tremendous exuberance in treating new players with excessive hostility, sometimes to a bizarre and frankly horrifying extent. And, in some of these environments, there's definitely been an element of inculcating local norms into the new players; "play like us, act like us, talk like us, or suffer."<br /><br />But there's no hint it's organized; after much thought, what I decided was going on was just a natural extension of a game design that inherently incentivized cruelty, and what these players were doing was each choosing individually, without cooperative planning, to inflict excess pain upon new players in order to create a warped justification for the way these veteran players chose to play- or rather that they chose to play at all, after at least unconsciously realizing what sort of behavior the game was going to demand of them in order to maximize their wins. The justification follows essentially as A) these newbies have to learn how the game is really played some time, so by griefing them you're actually helping them improve, and showing by example how it is appropriate to act and B) showing mercy to the newbie simply leaves the veteran on weaker footing when confronting other, equally vicious veteran players, who will certainly not refrain from punishing the newbie just because some else has chosen too; thus the newbie cannot truly appreciate mercy shown, and the mercy comes as an inordinate price to the veteran, who will never see it repaid.<br /><br />What, in my experience, is truly twisted about these norms, is their Randian asperations. I don't mean they are adopted politically; the players may consider themselves libertarian, but they don't see their play as being political in the least. What I mean is that the ideal these norms propogate is analogous to the most extreme interpretations of the Objectivist philosophy: "If you want to join in the playing of this game with us, you have to be good enough to be able play in spite of our attempts to stop you from participating at all." My experience has been that what you are postulating as a form of hazing, is these veteran players testing new players to see if they can be excluded from playing outright. These veteran players do not have a coherent culture that they benefit from adopting new members into; they are not like senior students at a university who must pass on legacy to new students when they leave. The ideal, as they see it, is for the metaphorical "school" to have no students but themselves, and a selection of plebes for them to wail upon. They are not going to be moving on and up; there are no positions they are vacating that need to be filled; they are not building relationships with their hazed peers which will potentially last for many years.<br /><br />Again, where I have seen this phenomenon, I believe its entire cause has always been that the game design incentivises it, at least over the span of individual game sessions- this behavior being toxic to the long term viability of the game is not a concern to those who practice it.Strain Of Thoughthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02662205214513400553noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9053637695029086997.post-28731935752026238932013-12-02T07:44:10.355-08:002013-12-02T07:44:10.355-08:00I feel for your post loss - I hate losing posts (t...I feel for your post loss - I hate losing posts (there's an add on for firefox called lazarus to help with that). But it seems you can post?Callan S.https://www.blogger.com/profile/15373053356095440571noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9053637695029086997.post-90273336119943799172013-12-01T23:02:14.229-08:002013-12-01T23:02:14.229-08:00Gah! Lost my reply! Too many scripts in this page,...Gah! Lost my reply! Too many scripts in this page, it can't work with NoScript....Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9053637695029086997.post-65036344083972643562013-12-01T21:57:26.118-08:002013-12-01T21:57:26.118-08:00Gah - just clarifying my sentence
(well, mostly do...Gah - just clarifying my sentence<br /><i>(well, mostly do - the less the mechanics say what mechanics will be used <b>next</b>, the closer it gets to Parpuzio, I'd say)</i><br />Callan S.https://www.blogger.com/profile/15373053356095440571noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9053637695029086997.post-40657266695389078722013-12-01T21:33:14.207-08:002013-12-01T21:33:14.207-08:00Hi Moreno, thanks for commenting.
you don't h...Hi Moreno, thanks for commenting.<br /><br /><i>you don't have only that avenue to play.</i><br /><br />What's the other avenue you're refering to?<br /><br />I've refered to play where it's not entirely based around convincing the GM, only partially (ie "Rather than simply considerably less of it/play does not soley revolve around convincing the GM."). I might be refering to the same thing as yourself - the other avenue I refer to is just flat out boardgame mechanics, and ones which dictate which boardgame mechanics will come up next (well, mostly do - the less the mechanics say what mechanics will be used less, the more Parpuzio it gets, I'd say)<br /><br />I have to say though, I really didn't see what your saying in the definition you gave on the adept press forum?<br /><br />But anyway, what is the other avenue you are refering to?Callan S.https://www.blogger.com/profile/15373053356095440571noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9053637695029086997.post-74476666831485669162013-11-27T21:35:08.715-08:002013-11-27T21:35:08.715-08:00Hi Callan!
The difference is that, in Parpuzio, t...Hi Callan!<br /><br />The difference is that, in Parpuzio, the ONLY real way you have to accomplish ANYTHING in the fiction is to convince the GM to give it to you.<br /><br />You want to marry the princess? You have to do what the GM says: roll dice, play the wooing like a method actor,... and in any case it doesn't matter a bit if the GM is not convinced.<br /><br />Because if the GM is "god of the world, above every rule", what happen in the fiction is decided by his whim, and his whim only. To "win", expecially in gamist games, you have to convince HARD: complain when you can, always, make the GM that decide against you has a social cost, threaten to go away (better if the group play at your home).<br />It's not a game anymore, is a social tug of war.<br /><br />A game, instead, is something where every player (so even the GM) can talk and try to convince anybody about anything, but it's not the end of the world if you can't, you don't have only that avenue to play.<br /><br />Do you even played Primetime Adventures, or Trollbabe? Try it, you will easily see what I mean.<br /><br />In the same exact situation where in D&D I would have continued to discuss about a pint for hours, in Primetime Adventures I said "I don't agree but who cares? It's not important in the game".<br />I these games you can easily get what you want even if the GM doesn't agree. It's really another world.<br /><br />Play games like these for a while, and you see how what gamers usually call "how you play in rpg" is only a very small specific case used only with a very specific little game: Parpuzio. Une specific case over thousands of possible different rpgs where everything they believe "always happen" in rpgs, never happen.<br /><br />- MorenoAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9053637695029086997.post-32597582484904664102013-08-16T17:47:01.946-07:002013-08-16T17:47:01.946-07:00Hi Benjamin,
I should have explicitly said it'...Hi Benjamin,<br /><br />I should have explicitly said it's not you, it's me - I have an issue with the post length. It was supposed to mostly be a disclaimer for anyone reading 'I can't keep up with the length of the post'. I am going to read that back and forth with Scott - though many of Scott's sentences have me reeling. Not that that means much, but for context its worth noting.<br /><br />I'm not sure I understand your second paragraph, but I think the third gets into the subject. But again, at the skinless level! What's at risk - yes, exactly some primitive societies can perform actions based on myth - when/while there's nothing at risk if they do so. I can think pixies are responsibile for lighting up traffic lights if I want - will that get in the way of regular traffic flow? Of course not (as far as we can tell for the time being)! Ie, nothing at risk! All sorts of notions can bloom when there is no risk of ruler coming down over knuckles, and yet the basic actions of them can still work out in a predetermined way.<br /><br />I would say in regard to 'what do <i>we</i> mean when we say that science best answers all legitimate questions?' that there is no 'we', when one side has no skin in the game but the other side does. I could say one sports team will win - you could argue that for eternity. But if you were to place a bet on one of the teams, I imagine the discussion will be considerably shorter. And mostly likely ending on less discussion and more a focus on 'lets see how the match/the test resolves itself'Callan S.https://www.blogger.com/profile/15373053356095440571noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9053637695029086997.post-62619210502662540162013-08-15T07:46:53.198-07:002013-08-15T07:46:53.198-07:00I hate to present you with more long posts on my b...I hate to present you with more long posts on my blog, Callan, but you might be interested in the long dialogue with Scott Bakker I just posted. We had that dialogue in response to my recent article on mechanists and transcendentalists and we talk more about scientism. Most importantly, though, I think we really clarify each other's views and their relations to each other. <br /><br />As for your point here, that those who speak of scientism are trying to muzzle science when they have too much to lose to let science do its work, I'm struck by the similarity between this defense of naturalism and the postmodern style of criticism. The postmodernist says that every statement is just an expression of political or gender bias, that even scientific theories can be reduced to cultural biases, power games, and so forth. You're implying, in turn, that something which science can figure out is responsible for absolutely everything, that all legitimate questions reduce to scientific issues. In each case, we seem to have a very reductive view of the questions we can ask.<br /><br />You make it a little too easy for yourself when you ask whether it would be wise to bet against a *scientific experiment* about the capillary motion. You're sort of begging the question here by calling the issue a scientific one. Of course science can handle scientific issues. The question is whether science can prove that science is the only reliable source of knowledge. Is reliability a scientific issue or a cultural and a normative one? There are primitive societies that rely on nonscientific myths. So what are the criteria for reliability and can we arrive at them by doing scientific experiments? If reliability isn't entirely scientific, what do we mean when we say that science best answers all legitimate questions?Benjamin Cainhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00661999592897690031noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9053637695029086997.post-50164896735503874862013-06-26T17:23:53.075-07:002013-06-26T17:23:53.075-07:00Oh yes! It's become one of those unquestioned ...Oh yes! It's become one of those unquestioned words that people, kind of like the emperors new clothes, they don't ask questions because they think they'd look stupid to do so. So the word keeps floating around, carrying some sort of credibility that it doesn't deserve.Callan S.https://www.blogger.com/profile/15373053356095440571noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9053637695029086997.post-8144234918795636092013-06-24T06:59:05.120-07:002013-06-24T06:59:05.120-07:00Yes, it is the latest must-have word. Once it had...Yes, it is the latest must-have word. Once it had actual meaning. Something in "the cloud" implied, among other things, that it was hosted at multiple redundant locations so that there was no single point of failure.<br /><br />Now "the cloud" has come to mean anything not on the end-users computer, which is as good as having no meaning at all.Wilhelm Arcturushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07033496821708933394noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9053637695029086997.post-74609492041602563682013-04-12T21:52:37.725-07:002013-04-12T21:52:37.725-07:00thanks so much for posting this!thanks so much for posting this!Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9053637695029086997.post-28286419881558685702013-03-19T23:49:37.606-07:002013-03-19T23:49:37.606-07:00Interesting points, Ricky. Thanks for your comment...Interesting points, Ricky. Thanks for your comment.Callan S.https://www.blogger.com/profile/15373053356095440571noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9053637695029086997.post-38595383454903001372013-03-18T12:26:34.547-07:002013-03-18T12:26:34.547-07:00Out of the 4, I would consider him the statistical... Out of the 4, I would consider him the statistically weakest, yeah. But in my time playing, I played with the skill 'Many Must Fall' and found a lot of success. Using his back attack damage and a bladed revolver, I was able to move fluidly through the battlefield to get a kill shot here and there and keep myself invisible.<br /><br />It didn't work every time, obviously, as sometimes the decoy is in the line of fire and you wind up getting hit with a rocket or something, but I'll admit, a degree of tactical precision is totally necessary to use him to full efficiency.Ricky Nelmshttp://facebook.com/with.no.wingsnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9053637695029086997.post-63932670376412817792012-08-25T05:09:36.024-07:002012-08-25T05:09:36.024-07:00thanks, saved me loads of timethanks, saved me loads of timeAnonymousnoreply@blogger.com