Jump to content

jerdge

Members
  • Content Count

    4,667
  • Joined

Everything posted by jerdge

  1. I didn't say that this stuff is valid - in fact I don't care about it - I said that, with your past behaviour (which you admitted to and apologized for, after having been caught red handed), you're among the people that should least go around commenting about what's true or false, like you were the final authority or some gospel of sorts. You're not credible, that's all my point.
  2. I have never considered you a buffoon, I tend to find it easy to respect what you say. Incidentally, according to my philosophy of life I should have written "those friends of him that also behaved as buffoons"... but I slipped.
  3. That behaviour from bros was really bad, in game shenanigans are OK and they can be really funny, but unethical behaviour as a RL webmaster is totally unacceptable. It's absurd that he still comes here to say what would be true or false, even expecting to be listened to by anyone that was around in those days (except maybe those friends of him that were buffoons as well). Just go away and don't come back, despicable crook.
  4. @Mogar - I am not sure that I get what you meant (in the locked thread). There's no reason to think that IC neutrals didn't donate to the game (in fact there were people who did it).
  5. I don't know if you're asking to me specifically - I guess you're not - however I'm not going to bother answering either way. As for the land stuff, the part about the providing party having to be on their way out is clearly absurd, and in no way it could be justified as a requirement. The staff never ever protected any nation from harm for any reason, they didn't even reimburse those that had been hit and damaged by gangs which were operating with illicitly amassed tech. The requirement you cite would have been utter bullcrap.
  6. I once reported myself, does that count? (I hadn't gone mad, it was half jokingly and because I had inadvertently grave-dug a thread, which I was asking to please lock.) More seriously, not reporting friends is compatible with reporting people indifferent to you without IC second reasons. We're way off topic anyway, and this issue is boring, thus I'll stop here.
  7. I more or less agree, except where you said that "we all used to use the mods as a weapon". Not everyone (of those that actively filed reports) did that, I know for certain of at least one player doing it 100% honestly.
  8. I know that it's not what you meant to write, but still... This made me smile. Years ago a Mod told me that Pacifica was controlling the Mod team (by means of having many Mods among their members). Bear in mind that it was their own personal individual opinion, that I was never shown any evidence or document, thus this is basically hearsay. You'll also have to decide if I can be trusted. Nonetheless, I know for a fact that the WTF used to DoW on their inactive members, and AFAIK they never suffered any serious consequences for it. After pages of unchecked discussion of cheating and Mod bias, we can probably conclude that the staff almost completely abandoned this ship some time ago. I actually expect them to pop up sooner or later, though. It would be nice if they did something (anything) to keep this board a minimum tidy, in fact, but years of death wishes, harassment and abuse, racist, discriminatory and hate-inciting comments with little to no consequence convinced me not to hold my breath. It indeed is against the rules, there are precedents about it. Although, well, see above about rules enforcement. (It has to be said that stuff must be reported first, for rules to be enforced.) (I might add that I stopped reporting because the Mod team is as responsive as a ghost town.)
  9. Is the boy in this picture actually Terminator?
  10. I would guesstimate that you've vastly overestimated the number of people that actually read/pay any attention to any post on this board.
  11. Congratulations (and obligatory condolences), Stewie.
  12. From a strictly OOC point of view Canik is basically mostly correct: senior players that stopped contributing to the game long ago have very little ground to stand on to blame newer players, whatever path these last decided to follow (as long as it was not in direct breach of the game rules, or blatantly unfair). I totally understand who decided to stop caring because of rampant unchecked cheating and/or lack of accountability about it, and also because of the excessively conservative play of many/most power clusters (the two things are connected TBH), but "stop caring" means that one, you guessed it, stopped caring. It also isn't justification to blame someone that (AFAIK, at least) had nothing to do with the dynamics that deteriorated the game (either player or admin -driven/allowed). AFAIK Canik actually did more than most to keep the game alive in the last few years. From an IC point of view I'm strictly neutral about any event, entity or debate featured in this thread. Please carry on.
  13. Except that Shakespeare is entertaining, and a couple hundred other differences TBH.
  14. IIRC they sold down and that was part of their plan for such a situation. I'm not going to comment about your war record and/or what helped you get to your current rank. I'm only talking of the history surrounding Hime's fall.
  15. That would be a refreshing development!
  16. I'd like to remind everyone that this is an OOC forum. As such, posting propaganda makes you look silly (posting an honest, albeit opinionated critique of the current state of affairs doesn't count as propaganda, but remember that it's a narrow path and it's easy to slip into dumb mode). Also, this is the "actually a dick" part of this board: being a dick here qualifies you as a Genuine CN Dick (as you can imagine, some are even proud of it, but don't you be the trash).
  17. Too many friends everywhere may render coalition opsec virtually impossible.
  18. I don't even know if I will actually start the operations (and finish them) with this "survey" project. The result might convince me (or others) that something interesting could be tried... or not. What might be attempted would at least be based on a sample of the actual interests and desires of the entire playerbase, which would be something really new for CN. (Should such a survey provide a clear indication of something the playerbase would like to see implemented in the game mechanics, that would be forwarded to the staff as well, for sure. Maybe at least one question about that would be warranted, after all.)
  19. Well I'm not out of ideas for CyberNations and I'm not looking for new ideas, I would "just" like to know what the other people would like to see. As Imperial Emperor noted on page 1, the last change to the game mechanics was 4 new wonders in July 2014: over five years ago. I don't think anyone will implement any changes to the game anymore. Exactly for this reason, my intention is to ask for ideas that the players can implement by themselves. Nothing is going to effectively change in the game, we already know that - see above. If you disagree, try to convince admin/the mods to change something in the game: we have a Suggestion Box forum for that. But be aware that that forum as well has been idle since one year ago, and the last suggestions that had a significant discussion (replies) actually date back to 2016. Because by then the majority of players had already realized that they weren't listened to anymore.
  20. With 2.8k people receiving the link to the survey, we'd probably (hopefully) have hundreds of replies, and aggregating hundreds of essays would be impractical. I thus imagine checkboxes, where the last one could be "other, please specify" and the encouragement not to use it if at all possible.
  21. This is a brilliant question, thank you.
  22. To easily void your objection MV would just have to limit himself to go down to a very small but adequately less microscopic scale. At that point the probabilistic nature of quantum mechanics that you mentioned, together with the law of large numbers, would help him to preemptively invalidate "any" objection about his model being inadequate because not formally informationally complete. I'll go out on a limb and also say that your objection is void also because quantum mechanics working doesn't in any way demonstrate that it's also "true", i.e. reality doesn't need to be really probabilistic for the theory to be valid (useful). This simply because science isn't about finding "true" models of reality, it's about explaining how stuff happens, as far and deep as we can (and with pride!) but also remembering that we don't know everything - and "probably" it's literally impossible to know everything. (I'd accept the objection that it's impossible to prove that my approach to the validity of science is correct, but only because I reject "truth" as a useful concept, thus I don't care if my approach is "true". I instead point out that my approach can't be used against itself, i.e. it's coherent, because I don't need to consider it true to use it to my advantage. I call this the Taoist Approach to Debates on Science and Truth, or TADST - long name I know.) Projecting our lack of knowledge as a feature of reality is a mistake. MV is fully justified in believing that it's theoretically possible to deterministically know reality (if this is what he believes, of course), without being labeled as irrational or ignorant or "wrong" or anti-scientific. Because science (and therefore physics) isn't about what reality is. Physics is not metaphysics (here etymology and semantics help and clarify, for once!) I for one don't believe that pondering about reality makes sense - I accept that reality is somewhere out there, but science (physics) is inadequate at investigating it and metaphysics is a joke - thus I'll spend my time in something else. Back again to normal conversation, MV's previous post instead displays a big contradiction where he says both that "it's not predestination as we clearly make decisions", and that, having enough information, he could predict my next post. The two things aren't compatible IMO.
  23. Your hint to your theory reminds me of a conversation I had with a math teacher well over thirty years ago. He didn't reconcile well the astronomical knowledge of the time with the natural evolution theory and the role of God as the one that created and that oversees humanity. I convinced him that the whole could be consistent because God could know - actually set - everything down to the position and speed of each subatomic particle, and that from the beginning of time, and calculate everything from that point onward... and thus be omniscient (and omnipotent). I was eleven years old or something like that, at the time I was a believer... Now too many years passed and that teacher died a lot of time ago. He was a good, old style man. Oh well.
  24. Technically everything has probably already happened.. but I digress into temporal mechanics far to deeply for this thread. If I get what you're alluding to: according to that body of theories the past and the future wouldn't actually make sense and there would be no time. "Everything would have already happened" would be a bad wording of it, though (although, convenient for you 😉) and it would be better to say that "neither of our posts would have meaning". All of that sounds cool, at least for some, however that body of theories would also necessarily imply that all you and me "ever" thought, did etc. wouldn't actually be anything we really thought, did etc. "simply" because neither of us would really exist as a sentient being making any decision. There wouldn't be decisions in the common sense, only events "in the real world" that are in a certain "geometric" relationship with events "in our brain(s)"... And our language (even the language of someone (literally) infinitely (literally infinitely, I'm not joking) better than me at talking about this stuff) would be actually totally inadequate to talk about this matter. Or of anything, from a "true" point of view, for that matter. However, physicists are humans too, and they too can go on a collective mass delusion. When they start sounding like drunken Buddhists it's probably just a sign that they ventured outside the boundaries of their field (really far outside them). Even the best physicists can also be totally oblivious of what physics (or science) "is" about. If we take "science" (and physics) to be more or less what gets done with what's generally accepted to fall under the expression "scientific method" - and here really lies some (semantic) irony - science is about understanding how stuff works, and theories are validated when experiments match prior predictions. lol... OK: we can remove the irony (but on it we lose on aesthetics, IMHO - OK it's frivolous) if we reword it by saying that science is the events "in our brain(s) and documents" that match other events in some specific "geometric" relationships "in the real world", and that explain how some "real world" events curiously match other "real world" events. Which last part, "translated", more or less reads that science is the theories that actually explain real events, and the theories upon which lie the experiments that provide meaningful results (in terms of the other real stuff we observe). I could even accept this description of science (but not of "reality"), but only at the condition that we agree and realize that nothing about said description says anything about "being" (meaning: the very being/existing of anything, and what "being/existing" would... be), or "sense/meaning", or "truth/true". Which is the same of saying that all of them - what is "being", what is "meaning", what is "true" (and in fact any expression like "what is...") - are outside the scope of science. Science's mission would not be about explaining reality (hence why I don't accept said description of reality) as it would be inherently inadequate to answer to any "what" and "why" -kind of question... but only to the "how" ones! Concluding, it may "be" that time is just the name we give to a property of our perceptions (it seems fitting, actually), but we don't know ("scientifically", and we can't - scientifically - know) what gives form to stuff. Saying that the common-sense meaning of time is fundamentally useless in physics (which I agree with), that it can't be reconciled with the physics we know (on this I pass, I have no idea, but I admit it can be like that, and I am very inclined to trust it is), doesn't explain in the slightest why events are the way they are, with the mutual relationship they have, and neither it explains how ever (and if) we could take advantage of the criticism of the laymen concept of time to actually better understand the relationships between events (translated: "travel in time"). This is natural once one accepts that science is not to answer to "why" kind of questions, and it leaves us with the doubt that the relationships between "events" are indeed explained (or rather, they can, maybe, be explained) with laws that - you guessed it - could be aptly named "Time". (And which could imply - why not? - that no, we won't travel in time, ever.) Back to your reply and to normal talk, no, the idea that "time is not (real)" doesn't support you in claiming that it still makes sense to aim towards your goals because time hasn't ended yet... (nonetheless: thanks for having opened that Pandora's Box, my respect for the reference)
  25. For a decade, actually. Fact is, the Cybernations's demise already happened.
×
×
  • Create New...