Recent posts by retsamerol on Kongregate

Flag Post

Topic: Tyrant: General Tyrant Discussion / [Dev] Status update

 
Flag Post

Topic: Tyrant: General Tyrant Discussion / Lock all TU related topics and remove their content

Originally posted by Gravefill:
Originally posted by retsamerol:

What policy would it be against?

I’m gonna stand on my 1st amendment right to incriminalize myself for not understanding what the US constitution says or means.

Not trying to be obnoxious, but not all of us are from U.S of Apprehensive. Free Avtomat Kalashnikova for everyone!

Huh, I’m not ’Murican either. I hope that helps contextualize my post.

 
Flag Post

Topic: Tyrant: General Tyrant Discussion / Lock all TU related topics and remove their content

What policy would it be against?

I’m gonna stand on my 1st amendment right to incriminalize myself for not understanding what the US constitution says or means.

 
Flag Post

Topic: Tyrant: General Tyrant Discussion / [Petition] Get rid of TU advertising

-1

Discussion re: T:U compensation package is inherently advertising (with incentives!) and inextricable from Tyrant or its eventual closure.

Also, devs can cross advertise in Tyrant if they felt like it. If they can do that in-game, Kongregate would be hard pressed why they couldn’t advertise their other game in their own forums.

Nice try though.

 
Flag Post

Topic: Tyrant: General Tyrant Discussion / [After Tyrant] What New Game Should One Play?

Originally posted by Shieru:
Originally posted by ladolcevita:

What’s so good about hearthstone?

Unless of course you are the easily amused type.

I am the easily amused type. Life is so much better this way.

 
Flag Post

Topic: Tyrant: General Tyrant Discussion / What's a suitable punishment for exploiters of the multi-legendary bug?

http://www.thisamericanlife.org/radio-archives/episode/522/tarred-and-feathered

 
Flag Post

Topic: Tyrant: General Tyrant Discussion / Let's make sure it goes full circle... Need some help

Originally posted by Holfti:

Like I told Pip over PM, if I see Prex legitimately giving the top 10 a run and roaring (rawring?) up the rankings, I’ll go back home. Leaving Prex was the hardest decision I ever made in Tyrant, but it was a very valid one given how much the faction had died and for how long. Good luck, dinos… hope to see you back at the top where you belong – and to come back. <3

I confirm that her decision was reasonable given the circumstances.

 
Flag Post

Topic: Tyrant: General Tyrant Discussion / [Dev] Status update

Money isn’t the only consideration when it comes to business decisions.

Like top factions and well-received television shows, the developers may want to bow out while they have a relatively successful product. A game that hasn’t been updated in years tends to give developers a bad reputation.

There may also be considerations like whether WMT is competing with T:U over user base. There’s been not a few T:U users who have commented that WMT has better game play and they wish they discovered it earlier. A persistent WMT may negatively impact T:U monetization.

I really have no idea what motivated the devs to pull WMT, but just because the devs can do something, doesn’t mean it’s a good business decision to do so.

 
Flag Post

Topic: Tyrant: General Tyrant Discussion / [After Tyrant] What New Game Should One Play?

Hearthstone.

 
Flag Post

Topic: Tyrant: General Tyrant Discussion / Let's make sure it goes full circle... Need some help

Hope springs eternal in the human breast;
Man never is, but always to be blessed:
The soul, uneasy and confined from home,
Rests and expatiates in a life to come.

-Alexander Pope
“An Essay on Man”, datalinks

 
Flag Post

Topic: Tyrant: General Tyrant Discussion / P. rex policy discussion

Originally posted by Supercharged44:

I dont think, no, I damn well know nobody cares about a faction that is extremely boring.

Thank you for being one of those who care enough to read my question and post your opinions, just as I requested. And by golly, this is one of the most active threads on this forum. I suspect that your opinion may not be supportable with the available evidence.

It slightly concerns me that you think a faction would need to cheat in the game in order to not be boring. But who am I to tell you what you should consider interesting.

 
Flag Post

Topic: Tyrant: General Tyrant Discussion / P. rex policy discussion

Originally posted by purei:
… christ, naglaw was doing net damage numbers by hand in 2014.

Don’t tell them our secret! They’ll try to poach naglaw.

 
Flag Post

Topic: Tyrant: General Tyrant Discussion / P. rex policy discussion

It’s really grounded in equality, and my favourite approach to questions of equality is through John Rawl’s “veil of ignorance”.

To determine whether a potentially exploitive action is moral, consider the following thought experiment: how would a player who does not know whether they will ever stumble across the potentially exploitive action, feel about it?

To answer this question, I would think that the player would consider the availability of the action and the ramifications of the action.

For example, the fansite is highly available, because almost any player-to-player interaction would direct a newbie towards it. It also significantly impacts how a player approaches the game. On balance, its availability overcomes its impact because it shifts it.

Fishboner1234’s speedhack, is relatively available for anyone motivated enough to find it, but few would have thought to go looking for it. While in most circumstances it would have limited impact, paired with WB-stamina refills, it had a large impact. On balance, it would be too exploitive to condone.

I hope that helps. I’m sure there’s other ways to go about, but I like this approach.

 
Flag Post

Topic: Tyrant: General Tyrant Discussion / P. rex policy discussion

Nice backpedal yeasy, but your statement didn’t mention possibility reaction at all, only that this is something bad.

Your statement of exploring every possibility is ridiculous. Oh look, there’s the possibility that malicious fae may impersonate a member and veto an otherwise acceptable candidate, and therefore it’s a bad plan. The inquiry needs to be circumscribed to a reasonable scope.

My problem with your statement is that your malicious assumptions presume that members of P. rex are petty and vindictive. If you’re going to suggest this, why not come out and state it directly, rather than through innuendo?

Based on what I’ve read of yeasy’s posts, I’m fairly confident that yeasy is an unreasonable person who merely pretends to be reasonable. Alternatively, yeasy may not even recognized their own unreasonableness. Consequently, I would advise anyone who reads yeasy’s posts to keep that in mind.

 
Flag Post

Topic: Tyrant: General Tyrant Discussion / P. rex policy discussion

Originally posted by Sighaknight:

I think we should just go by pip’s 3 questions. Play for fun, don’t cheat now, don’t be a douchebag.

Yes, I think I like Pip’s articulation more too. I just wanted to clarify the whole “don’t cheat now” point.

Originally posted by yeasy:

Still, it doesn’t change a fact “forgiving" doesn’t apply to everyone, thus double standards.
You “forgive” only when it’s beneficial or when person who cheats isn’t someone you hate?

You’re making multiple unfounded assumptions here.

First, you seem to assume that we hate anyone. This seems contradictory to good sportsmanship to me.

Second, you appear to assume that under my proposed policy, if you disliked someone, that would be determinative if a veto would be made. In my opinion, that is untrue. Instead, I believe that an assessment of an individual’s credibility, especially on whether they will employ exploitive tactics, will be determinative. It’s true that a player’s character will contribute to an assessment of credibility, but it is not the only factor.

So what is your issue yeasy? Why do you make these presumptions in what appears to bad faith?

 
Flag Post

Topic: Tyrant: General Tyrant Discussion / P. rex policy discussion

Originally posted by yeasy:

Sure.

Sounds more like comfortable excuse-like policy.

Good luck tho, but I think double standards will destroy you.

This would depend on the discretion exercised by P. rex members and how frequently the member veto is invoked. If it isn’t exercised at all, your criticism evaporates. Similarly, if it’s exercised reasonably then your criticism is undermined. I think your criticism, like your climax, is a bit premature.
Besides, it may be changed to warmhamster or officer veto only. Boo never did get along with Edwin.

Originally posted by SeanDougherty86:

so you admit to prex having a sordid past

I refer you to this analysis. Wait, is that your name 3 posts down? I’m sure there’s a reasonable explanation why you remain obtuse. It would be amusing to see you become a cute member of P. rex though.
I hope you don’t really think we’re a slave to PR?

Originally posted by crazyeye2011:

You’re playing a ccg, not running a presidential campaign…

Character is what you are in the dark. (Lord John Whorfin from The Adventures of Buckaroo Banzai Across the 8th Dimension.)

Originally posted by darkfang77:

@ rets, if I join Prex, can u ask Devs to insta-give me 3k LP so I can get 8 tokens a day, not rebuilding my LP pool again thx ?

Of course I can ask, but that doesn’t mean I’ll get a reply ;) Of course you would need to abide by Pip’s third law:

Originally posted by TheRealPip:

3. While forum trolls are ok (especially if funny), do you promise not to be a dick/ass hat/whatever or generally mean to members in or out of the faction?

 
Flag Post

Topic: Tyrant: General Tyrant Discussion / P. rex policy discussion

Introduction

I think the vast majority of those who question P. rex members commitment to fair play and sportsmanship are making a ethical analysis categorization error. I adhere to it because we believe it is the right thing to do, rather than because I believe it give us an advantage.

This type of situation gets to the very heart of social contracts. If the world was ending tomorrow, would you start looting and murdering? Assuming an absence in a belief in an aftermath, would you rape and pillage knowing there are no consequences because the world is ending?

The members of P. rex answer with a resounding no. We adhere to the social contract because we believe in the principles it was founded upon, not because of the threat of force by a sovereign that keeps our actions in check.

Background

Broadly speaking, there are two modes of ethical calculation that humans engage in, which map onto two ethical theories: consequentialism and deontological ethics. Consequentialism (most frequently manifested as utilitarianism) places emphasis on the consequence of actions, and at its most extreme is “the ends justify the means”. In contrast, deontological ethics places emphasis on an action’s adherence to a principle.

I want to state clearly that humans intuitively use both ethical systems and they are not mutually exclusive. Easy ethical choices arise when the two modes of calculation are in agreement or when one mode is more applicable to the inquiry. Hard ethical choices arise when the two modes of calculation conflict and neither mode is more applicable. (See the last episode of M*A*S*H for an excellent example.)

Analysis

Under a consequentialism analysis, fair play and sportsmanship can be beneficial for the purposes of achieving specific goals such as increasing recruitment, social prestige on a forum populated with anonymous users, or avoiding the wrath of admin/developers. In short, you avoid exploitive behaviour because you benefit from avoidance.

In the context of the game ending in one year, the incentives to be assess under a consequentialism analysis would shift toward against adherence to fair play and sportsmanship because the value of recruitment, prestige and wrath avoidance have all decreased.

Under a deontological analysis, commitment to fair play and sportsmanship are categorical imperatives, which are principles worthy of adherence. In short, you don’t do it because it’s wrong.

In the context of the game ending in one year, a deontological analysis would not shift the behaviour. The end of days does not affect the belief that these are principles worthy of adherence. Therefore, there is adherence to fair play and sportsmanship even if there is only less than a year remaining.

Conclusion

Those who challenge our adherence to fair play and sportsmanship given that there is only one year left are clearly employing a consequentialism analysis.

My belief is that the principles of fair play and sportsmanship are categorical imperatives, and consequently my adherence to these principles will not be altered by the impending end of Tyrant. I believe that the majority of my faction mates feel the same.

I hope that answers your questions.

 
Flag Post

Topic: Tyrant: General Tyrant Discussion / P. rex policy discussion

Originally posted by ralkkdillon:
Originally posted by ladolcevita:

I’m in prex and I’m considered to be disreputable in numerous ways.

But for some reason I’m against disreputable and high-drama players joining.

So then I am out :(

Read the bolded part of the OP. :)

 
Flag Post

Topic: Tyrant: General Tyrant Discussion / P. rex policy discussion

Originally posted by Chief_Keef_:

Sorry but P rex has no chance at getting number 1 spot or even top 5

This is irrelevant to our policy discussion. Please refrain and take it to another thread.
Also,

 
Flag Post

Topic: Tyrant: General Tyrant Discussion / P. rex policy discussion

Originally posted by ladolcevita:

I’m in prex and I’m considered to be disreputable in numerous ways.

But for some reason I’m against disreputable and high-drama players joining.

Ah, but are you disreputable for employing Cheaty McCheaterson cheating tactics? Nay, your wit and sense of humour is what you are infamous for.

 
Flag Post

Topic: Tyrant: General Tyrant Discussion / P. rex policy discussion

Pwnersaurus Rex has been committed to fair play and sportsmanship since its inception by Phoenix00017.

As individuals who frequent this forum know, TheRealPip has been leading an effort to elevate P. rex to the number #1 spot.

However, as a wise player has noted:

Originally posted by ralkkdillon:

First of all, I would loooooooove to see this happen. However, if we are being honest, to get to #1, Prex would have to fill itself with top players. I’d say close to 90% of top players come with some kind of not-so-great reputation (real or fabricated). Regardless of how you go about doing this, drama will follow it, just keep that in mind going forward Pip. Anything I can do to help you though, let me know, you know where to find me!

So what is a faction to do?

Well, I propose the following policy, to be considered by the Elders of Pwnersaurus Rex:

Players with a disreputable past may be accepted into the faction, provided:
1) The player affirms they will not use exploits or third party software (not generally available to Tyrant players) to gain an advantage over other players.
2) No current P. rex member voices an objection to the player joining.

Effectively, it would be a “forgiveness” policy, where even players who have previously been embroiled in accusations of cheating can have the opportunity to participate in P. rex’s climb, provided they refrain from engaging in the activity during their stay.

So I have two questions, one addressed to the Elders of P. rex and one to the playerbase:

Are we interested in a forgiveness policy such as this?
Are there players who may be interested in joining P. rex but are concerned about how their reputations may prevent them from joining?
Would the community at large think that such a policy would make P. rex a less reputable faction?

 
Flag Post

Topic: Tyrant: General Tyrant Discussion / Let's make sure it goes full circle... Need some help

Feathers

 
Flag Post

Topic: Tyrant: General Tyrant Discussion / [Official] (gossip) Crazy Tyrant Leaders

Originally posted by Provokes:
Originally posted by Provokes:
Originally posted by Holfti:
Originally posted by ladolcevita:

awalters


i think he’s an asexual unicorn

You could almost say he was quacky. Do you remember that incident with the noodle?

 
Flag Post

Topic: Tyrant: General Tyrant Discussion / Puzzle

I meant “original account”. For the sake of simplicity, let’s assume that no new players will join.

(Sorry for not answering more frequently, this is why I removed myself from moderator nominations. My forum checking is expected to be spotty.)

 
Flag Post

Topic: Tyrant: General Tyrant Discussion / Puzzle

Originally posted by TheRealPip:

This reminds me of that logic puzzle where there are people of different color eyes on an island with no mirrors and on a certain day all the blue eyed people realize they are exiled and leave the island.

-Pip

http://xkcd.com/blue_eyes.html

They all simultaneously leave the island the 100th evening after the pronouncement.

The blue-eyed islanders know the following:
(1) the guru called out 1 person with blue eyes (potentially me).
(2) there are 99 other islanders with blue eyes.
(3) there has been insufficient information for the blue-eyed islanders to depart for the first 99 days.
(4) blue-eye islanders will leave once there is sufficient information to determine their own eye colour.

Upon reaching day 100, the blue-eyed islander will realize that if there were only 99 blue-eyed islanders, they would have all departed on day 99. Because it has reached day 100 and the islander can only see 99 other blue-eyed islanders, they themselves must be blue-eyed.

All blue-eyed islanders come to the same conclusion on the same day and simultaneously depart.

Fun note: the guru would not need to go, because she sees 100 blue eyed individuals, and would have departed on the 101st day had her eyes been blue.

But what’s weird is why does the guru need to say anything at all? Wouldn’t the villagers already know there is at least one villager with blue eyes if they can see everyone else’s eyes?