Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[Criptfeind]

The point is to get the most number of points. Putting in more points does not help you get there. Boom.

[Rolepgeek]

Incorrect. The only way to gain points is to put in points, or other people putting in points. If everyone puts in all their points, we all have equal number of points, and a lot of them. It doubles, remember?

[Criptfeind]

Yeah, but only if everyones puts in points. Why take that risk, the fact that we have just been shown that cheating is easy. Me putting in points does not actually increase the amount of points I have, only other people putting in points does that.

[Rolepgeek]

But again, there is no winning the game.

[Criptfeind]

Uh. So? The point of the game is to get the most points. That is what I am trying to do.

[GreatWyrmGold]

So you can fake.

Which means it is super much more helpful to only put in zero.

Hm, true.
You can PM how much you put in, but don't expect me to accept them.

How so? This means you contribute nothing, and thus can gain nothing if others follow suit. He never once said this was competitive. Thus, we can neither win nor lose. I'm almost certain this is trying to show how socialism works. If everyone is willing to put in? Good things happen. If no one is? Bad things happen. To me, it's like the good man falls farther thing. If it works right, it's super good for everyone. If it doesn't, it's pretty bad for everyone. With capitalism, if it works right, it's good for everyone, and if it doesn't, it's okay for everyone. Since we're people, and as this is showing, people are assholes, it usually goes wrong, meaning capitalism is the bettr choice is most situations. In societies where people are neither lazy nor douchebags(at least most of the time), it would work marvelously. Which is why I suggested the continuous cost.

I don't have anything specific in mind. Political discussions will await a new thread and a better definition of "socialism."
As to the continuous cost: How would that help?

[Rolepgeek]

Just make thing more interesting. If it is a competition, it becomes a very subtle ickery of your opponent, bluff and counter-bluff, trying to get them to put in enough points so you don't get sent to 0, but having to also put in points to do the same.

[Scelly9]

0, again.

[IamanElfCollaborator]

44 points in.

[shadenight123]

No actually. The idea is that the purpose of the game is to 'earn' points.
So it does not matter how many points you have in greater number, in the end everyone gets the same tally (since everyone 'earns' each round the same amount of points)
However if you have all the points, for just one single round you earn nothing. (You just end up giving away points and then getting them back. That's not 'earning' points. While if you have zero points, no matter the amount you 'earn' it)

[Nerjin]

You free riding hippies need to start contributing. Do basic math. You can get so many more points if you contribute.

44 points into the pot

also

Kill Criptfeind

[GreatWyrmGold]

Three more people need to post, by my count.

[Criptfeind]

No actually. The idea is that the purpose of the game is to 'earn' points.

Disregarding the rest of your rant there which I honestly can't tell if it is for or against putting in no points:

The goal is to get as many points as possible.

[GreatWyrmGold]

He's saying that the point is to get many points, not the most.

[Criptfeind]

Yes. Okay I guess. I think other people have said it in clearer ways in the past though. But I guess repeating something is not a crime.