Shireroth

Jake... STFU. I'm just going to stop being polite. Stop trying to spread angst and discontent everywhere you go.

I'm moving this to the Shrine.

Although our piety has indeed decreased of late...

*Prepares a sacrifice to Almighty B'caw*

(Sigh)

No, I will not "stfu".

One man's angst and discontent is anothers preaching in the wilderness. If there is no room for some angst and reform, (or a counter-reformation, if you will) if we are all supposed to be good little pieces on a chessboard and do what we are told, then the country is indeed shriveling.

It's your creation, but benkern, spangle, Jonas and I saved it from the trash can and, indirectly to be sure, begat the Fourth Age.

Half of these are now gone. If there is no room for opposition and discontent, if this is to be a Command-simulation, then say so and I will go. That may be better, and then those content to obey can remain in shackles. (Or move to Askenataza for shekels ).

I'll always remember the fun times, and always have a warm place in my heart for Shireroth, and honor you for your vision of what was, mourn its loss, and hope for is resurrection.

I think "preaching in the wildnerness" kind of implies not doing it loudly to as many people in the country as possible.

Start a Shireroth blog or something. I did that for a while. It was a great stress reliever.

Harvey Steffke wrote: Start a Shireroth blog or something. I did that for a while. It was a great stress reliever.

You did?

This annoys me for the same reason Erik's flag stuff annoys me.

I'm all for coming up with a devious plan to get what you want.

And if you have a lot of support, I'm all for you using the unofficial democratic system called rebellion to kick out a Kaiser disliked by most of the population and install a new, more popular one, like we did with Leto.

And if you want to give up and call it a day, that's cool too.

But if you don't have a lot of support, and you don't have a plan for getting any more, then just complaining really loud is going to annoy people without doing any good.

If you admit that most Shirerithians prefer the House system, and the Kaiser prefers the House system, then why should we switch back the Duchies? There's no democratic argument for it and there's no feudal argument for it. We risk becoming an annoyocracy, where policies are set by the most annoying because everyone else eventually gets tired of listening to them complain and so eventually gives them what they want.

You have a lot of different ways you could go here. You could get someone to propose a Landsraad re-establishing the Duchies, which would be big political egg on the Kaiseress' face if it passes albeit not legally binding. You could figure out some sort of compromise that keeps what you like about the Duchies while also satisfying the House people. You could make really good, convincing arguments in favor of the Duchy system no one's ever heard before. You can support my sphere of influence proposal, get influence over all of former Yardistan, and unilaterally establish the Duchy and dare anyone else to stop you. And if you don't want to do any of those, I'm totally happy with you grumbling quietly in the corner and making a post about it any time someone else brings it up, same way as I do about for example the forum colors.

But the "try to be annoying about it" route is just going to make everyone else upset without necessarily helping your cause.

I would be really surprised if the House system were genuinely causing you as big problems as you make it sound like. Forget about the principle of the thing and just have fun.

I've usually dismissed these seemingly melodramatic 'end of shireroth' rants from all of you lot when I've checked the forum for the past three-ish years on and off. However, this 'flag' and 'house' thingy (I don't know the details) seems so bloody serious - are some of you REALLY thinking of leaving?

Forget about the principle of the thing and just have fun.

...Coming from the person who tried to read game theory into diplomacy and who tried to give a sincere ethical justification - with great seriousness and gravitas - for simulationalists to wear fake cardboard crowns and bedsheet flags.

Aster wrote:

Forget about the principle of the thing and just have fun.

...Coming from the person who tried to read game theory into diplomacy and who tried to give a sincere ethical justification - with great seriousness and gravitas - for simulationalists to wear fake cardboard crowns and bedsheet flags.

OH MAN, HE PULLED THE GAME THEORY THING ON YOU TOO? I THOUGHT HE WAS JUST TRYING TO CONVINCE ME HE KNEW WHAT HE WAS DOING.

Read game theory into Diplomacy? You realize that Diplomacy is totally 100% about game theory, right? (if you honestly don't I could try to explain, but it might be boring unless you already understand the concepts involved) And that game theory is fun?

Also, where did I do this cardboard crown ethical justification? I've said that micronations should be more about fun and less about stupid pissing contests between people with slightly different visions for the hobby, and that if people have fun by making themselves cardboard crowns then we shouldn't go out of our way to antagonize them.

Also, you may be mistaking my posts for "gravitas" because they're usually more than four words and don't involve pictures of people's assholes, but that might just be you setting your bar for "gravitas" too low.

Scott of Hyperborea wrote:Read game theory into Diplomacy? You realize that Diplomacy is totally 100% about game theory, right?

IT'S WEIRD, WATCHING YOU PLAY I THOUGHT IT MIGHT BE MORE ABOUT MAKING SECRET MICRONATIONAL CONTRACTS IN A NON-MICRONATIONAL GAME, AND GETTING YOUR SHIT KICKED IN BY GERMANY OVER IN ANTICA.

IT'S WEIRD, WATCHING YOU PLAY I THOUGHT IT MIGHT BE MORE ABOUT MAKING SECRET MICRONATIONAL CONTRACTS IN A NON-MICRONATIONAL GAME, AND GETTING YOUR SHIT KICKED IN BY GERMANY OVER IN ANTICA.

...wha? You seriously don't understand how making a contract in a different domain might be an example of game theory? That tactic comes straight out of game theory. Heck, the Wikipedia article on PD specifically mentions that "in the single-instance prisoner's dilemma, meaningful prior communication about issues external to the game could alter the play environment by raising the possibility of enforceable side contracts."

As for Antica, what can I say? I guess that I just can't stand up to a Germany with competent leadership.

I think "preaching in the wildnerness" kind of implies not doing it loudly to as many people in the country as possible.

Scott of Hyperborea wrote:

IT'S WEIRD, WATCHING YOU PLAY I THOUGHT IT MIGHT BE MORE ABOUT MAKING SECRET MICRONATIONAL CONTRACTS IN A NON-MICRONATIONAL GAME, AND GETTING YOUR SHIT KICKED IN BY GERMANY OVER IN ANTICA.

...wha? You seriously don't understand how making a contract in a different domain might be an example of game theory? That tactic comes straight out of game theory. Heck, the Wikipedia article on PD specifically mentions that "in the single-instance prisoner's dilemma, meaningful prior communication about issues external to the game could alter the play environment by raising the possibility of enforceable side contracts."

As for Antica, what can I say? I guess that I just can't stand up to a Germany with competent leadership.

...EXCEPT THAT THE SITUATION IN QUESTION ISN'T REALLY ISOMORPHIC TO PD.

WHAT DID YOU STUDY IN COLLEGE, AGAIN?
3b75bcd0ca2e0d89772d2da1a0b6917c7ab22ee99f240150a9ddafb1bd8342bc

Read game theory into Diplomacy? You realize that Diplomacy is totally 100% about game theory, right? (if you honestly don't I could try to explain, but it might be boring unless you already understand the concepts involved) And that game theory is fun?

I wouldn't say I have a sufficient understanding of the theory - no, but just the raw elements of it. I wasn't debating, from that basis, that the game is based partially on game theory. What I find amusing is how you used it to justify what was essentially a rage quit. If you're no longer in the game - if you stop playing, if you stop actually contributing and get up and go, as you did, that's not game theory - that's withdrawing from the game. Thus you can hardly argue that your withdrawal from the game on the basis of game theory is going to be beneficial from the game...which is somewhat obvious...as you've withdrawn from it.

...Add to that, on a different note, the assumption (both in the above quote and in Antica), that nobody else knows what game theory is, and the snobbish arrogance this reveals is equally repulsive.

Also, where did I do this cardboard crown ethical justification? I've said that micronations should be more about fun and less about stupid pissing contests between people with slightly different visions for the hobby, and that if people have fun by making themselves cardboard crowns then we shouldn't go out of our way to antagonize them.

I didn't say that they should be antagonized - in that debate Moshe was merely trying to make the simple point that, because simulationalism is almost entirely represented on a computer, when it's turned off, it's off. Successionists integrate it into their live, and give their micronation(s) a physical manifestation which can't be 'turned off' like a PC. Again, I find this amusing - you missed the point here, and took recourse in a stream of philosophical jargon that you knew/thought that nobody else would understand to avoid the obvious fact that you just got the wrong end of the stick.

Also, you may be mistaking my posts for "gravitas" because they're usually more than four words and don't involve pictures of people's assholes, but that might just be you setting your bar for "gravitas" too low.

I'm enjoying this. A cheap generalisation based on my blatant and admitted trolling of Shireroth for fun over the past few weeks. Yet again, we see Scott's assumption of superiority rear it's ugly head. Unlike you Scott (ho-ho-ho), I use the internet as a bit of escapism after hard, intense days of study (that's right, other people are students here as well) - I don't use it, as I suspect you do - as a tacky ego crutch and method of total escapism.

Humility and hard work is my motto (well, I try to follow that maxim - it's doesn't always work (look at Green thunder lol)) - I don't know if you neglect the latter, but clearly the former.

@Icebreaker:

Situation's totally isomorphic to PD. Consider the situation of me and Harvey promising to both divert our forces away from our mutual border to attack you. If we both cooperate, we have lots of forces to take over Germany with and we both get a bit of Germany territory (call this payoff 10 for both of us). If we both defect, then we end up glaring at each other's armies across our border and don't gain any territory at all (call this payoff 0 for both of us). If Harvey cooperates and I defect, then my forces can overrun his undefended border and I can take over all of France with minimal effort (call this payoff 20 for me, -20 for Harvey).

So the payoff matrix is:

C D
C 10,10 20, -20
D -20, 20 0, 0

Which makes it the prisoner's dilemma.

\:

WAS REALLY HOPING THE BARB AT THE END WOULD PROVOKE A LONGER RESPONSE. TOOK A GUESS AT WHAT THE HASH WAS FOR?

I don't presume to have an understanding of game theory sufficient to comment in any way on your above post, Scott. However, you seem to have seen the Antiplomacy game as a dichotomy between following a crude 'sense of honour' to see it through to the end, or an adherence to game theory throughout. We both know the rules of the game - we both know that there can only be one player in command of the board. Your application of game theory to the Antican game almost seems to spill away from the game somewhat - if it was, as I get the impression, via game theory, logical for you to concede and leave the game, then that's fine. What I found amusing and irritating was that you say the game as a split between those who adhered to some kind of neanderthalic sense of honour, and the application of game theory. I find this dubious - the only sense of 'honour' in that game was the desire to win - to get the highest possible outcome - intrinsic to all games, and obviously the object of them. I can't believe you would participate in such a game with an eye to practicing your practical application of game theory. You similarly had a desire to 'win', which, in your own poliarised thinking, would surely be the same 'misguided sense of "honor"' that you accused those who decided to continue with the game supposedly possessed. Thus, you essentially maligned the whole reason to partake in any such game when you were losing. Naturally, if you had been in a stronger position, you wouldn't have felt the need to ridicule that very basic element required in the participation of any game. It is NOT your application of game theory itself that I am reacting against.

Regardless of logical game theory, that pact we made turned the game into a living hell for me and I never want to do it again or generally cooperate with you in any serious fashion. I guess having a reputation for that sort of nonsense is the downside to that angle of game theory.

Okay, Aster:

I wouldn't say I have a sufficient understanding of the theory - no, but just the raw elements of it. I wasn't debating, from that basis, that the game is based partially on game theory. What I find amusing is how you used it to justify what was essentially a rage quit. If you're no longer in the game - if you stop playing, if you stop actually contributing and get up and go, as you did, that's not game theory - that's withdrawing from the game. Thus you can hardly argue that your withdrawal from the game on the basis of game theory is going to be beneficial from the game...which is somewhat obvious...as you've withdrawn from it.

Number one, I am in the game. I've sent in moves every turn since the game began. And number two, since I'm going to be playing lots of games with people, it's an iterated game theory problem and things I do now can benefit me later.

More important - about your constant accusations of me being arrogant. WTF? When you make fun of me, you no doubt say it's trolling or good humor or something. When I make fun of you (like the gravitas remark) it's me being arrogant. When you try to lecture me on something, like on how you think I'm arrogant all the time which you apparently NEVER STOP SAYING, I suppose it's "for my own benefit". When I lecture you on anything, I'm being condescending. When you try to tell me why I'm wrong about something like game theory, I suppose that's okay. When I try to tell you why you're wrong about something like game theory, suddenly I'm "assuming you don't understand it".

Look. I talk with multisyllabic words and overanalyze everything. That's how I am. If you met me in real life, you'd know that's how I talk in real life too. It's not me trying to be condescending or arrogant or anything. It's just how I talk.

Maybe I think you're kind of arrogant and condescending to constantly follow me around and constantly correct the way I talk or debate while explaining to me why everything I'm doing is wrong and you happen to know a much better way to do it, but that's the way things are.

Finally - we're getting somewhere.

Maybe I think you're kind of arrogant and condescending to constantly follow me around and constantly correct the way I talk or debate while explaining to me why everything I'm doing is wrong and you happen to know a much better way to do it, but that's the way things are.

The only thing I've presumed to do is point out your attitude (or at least my perception of it) - I don't think I've actually objectively tried to criticise much of the stuff that you've done.

Look. I talk with multisyllabic words and overanalyze everything. That's how I am. If you met me in real life, you'd know that's how I talk in real life too. It's not me trying to be condescending or arrogant or anything. It's just how I talk.

Fair dos. I also share some of these traits - I apologise on that basis.

More important - about your constant accusations of me being arrogant. WTF? When you make fun of me, you no doubt say it's trolling or good humor or something. When I make fun of you (like the gravitas remark) it's me being arrogant. When you try to lecture me on something, like on how you think I'm arrogant all the time which you apparently NEVER STOP SAYING, I suppose it's "for my own benefit". When I lecture you on anything, I'm being condescending. When you try to tell me why I'm wrong about something like game theory, I suppose that's okay. When I try to tell you why you're wrong about something like game theory, suddenly I'm "assuming you don't understand it".

I haven't ever asserted that my critique of your attitude is 'trolling'. As is evident from the posts above, I am serious about it (although I think we're reaching some kind of understanding here) Again, the 'no doubt' - interpolating my possible reaction out-of-persona based on a few small encounters over the internet is hardly sufficient to justify the use of 'no doubt'. But I'm splitting hairs. I see your point, and I duly apologise.

Number one, I am in the game. I've sent in moves every turn since the game began. And number two, since I'm going to be playing lots of games with people, it's an iterated game theory problem and things I do now can benefit me later.

I wasn't aware of that.

SCOTT, IF IT HELPS I'M SUPER ARROGANT TOO - I'M PRETTY SURE I'VE GOT TWICE THE INTELLIGENCE OF ANYONE ELSE IN SHIREROTH, SAVE MAYBE ARI - BUT PEOPLE DON'T REALLY HATE ME FOR IT.

MAYBE TAKE NOTES?

Yeah, your technique seems to be to be so over the top condescending and jerkish that people just assume you must be faking it for comic effect. That never seems to work for me. Maybe it's the lowercase letters.

Icebreaker wrote:SCOTT, IF IT HELPS I'M SUPER ARROGANT TOO - I'M PRETTY SURE I'VE GOT TWICE THE INTELLIGENCE OF ANYONE ELSE IN SHIREROTH, SAVE MAYBE ARI - BUT PEOPLE DON'T REALLY HATE ME FOR IT.

lol

You're fun to hang around with, I'll give ya that.

It's his humility that I'm in awe of.

=D

I think some of us - myself included - have destroyed this thread...

...

...

lol.

OH ALSO, SCOTT: YOU GONNA BE HOME AT ALL DURING THE SUMMER?