Print

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

[Detoxicated]

The perpetual motion machine at it again...



You are right about the freedom part. Dwarf fortress is an abstraction though so maybe we don't need to dig as deep as you suggested.

[George_Chickens]

DF is abstracted, but it's also in its nature for multiple simple things to come together to form seemingly complex relations. So I imagine Toady would have already considered what we've mentioned and probably planned to make it fairly open ended and gameplay specific, in any case.

I wonder what the justice update will look like.

[Detoxicated]

Me too...
Id actually love to see detectives...  Or play one.
Dwarf fortress noir.

Urist Mcbogart had a rough day just like any other. He looked up as a beautiful bearded dwarfette walked in. She was a bombshell of a woman but she had the look of trouble about her...

[GoblinCookie]

Is GC seriously trying to suggest that as soon as one study ever has found a positive correlation then it is the “correct” study and every other study is untrustworthy?

I think so. That is a ridiculously asymmetrical burden of proof. And there's the essential symmetry which belies all non-truth-seeking behaviors: I could make the same argument GC did, with just as much force behind it (if not more). Therefore, wrong statements can be supported with this argument just as easily as right statements. This means that "this argument supports my statement" isn't meaningful evidence toward the statement being true.

No, I never said the authority of 1 positive study was not rather low.  The authority of positive 100 studies is considerably greater than that of 1 study.  However the number of negative studies has no bearing on the situation, simply the relative number of positive studies. 

1 Positive Study: Not much authority
100 Positive Studies: A lot more authority.
1000 Positive Studies: Even more authority

This perhaps *the* most important principle there is.  Rejecting this principle will literally kill people and that is because a general claim "Poison X kills people" reduces to a number of hypothesis as to "How does Poison X kill people?"  The number of ways that Poison X kills people are potentially vast and likely only one of these claims is true.

The methodology of the study will cover only a limited number of these hypothesis.  That means if I have a lot of money to launch a lot of studies *and* I have an interest in continuing to poison everyone else for whatever reason all I have to do so, all I do is keep on testing a specific false model as to how the poison works for a very long time.  The general claim (this is poison) is important, how it works precisely is less important. 

This is not to say that the results of negative studies are unimportant.  They are important because their methodology can be analysed to establish how the poison doesn't work.  The poisonous of the substance in general however, once established by positive result studies is not disputed by the existence of negative result studies and that is to all practical considerations what matters.

[KittyTac]

You provided *one* study. That's what we were saying.

[George_Chickens]

Will you PLEASE for the love of god, stop derailing threads to sate your personal argument ego. It's blatantly obvious that no party is going to concede and actually change their opinions, neither are the people viewing the argument. One thread is bad enough, but to do it in countless is just plain unacceptable.

The argument is blatantly over, everyone involved can throw sources at one another until the cows come home and it will not go anywhere. If it vexes you so badly, why not take it to PMs whilst using the thread for what the OP has outlined?

[Dorsidwarf]

Will you PLEASE for the love of god, stop derailing threads to sate your personal argument ego. It's blatantly obvious that no party is going to concede and actually change their opinions, neither are the people viewing the argument. One thread is bad enough, but to do it in countless is just plain unacceptable.

The argument is blatantly over, everyone involved can throw sources at one another until the cows come home and it will not go anywhere. If it vexes you so badly, why not take it to PMs whilst using the thread for what the OP has outlined?

I mean these arguments are going to happen for as long as people with differing opinions visit and post in the suggestions forum. That’s just how suggestion forums are, even if there’s been a higher tendency to derail and explode into new threads lately

[George_Chickens]

Side-trackedness and arguing is normal in these threads and always has been, that I understand. The derailments into completely unrelated arguments, arguments which have no relation to this section and barely a tangential relation to DF seem pretty new to me, and are technically even against the rules.

This isn't just the common disagreement and side-arguments related to DF, it's the same disruptive users fueling each other over and over and over at the expense of the quality of discussion. It is not an open discussion of a topic, it's the same users trying to prove themselves right and their "opponents" wrong.

It feels less like a simple disagreement derail and more like egotistical slapfighting between people who just have to be right on the internet, regardless of the topic at hand. But if we talk about that we're going to wind up derailing into a conversation about derailing, the philosophy behind derailing, whether or not derailing is justified, etc.

[Detoxicated]

Indeed.

I would actually love to see trade republics with a doge as head. What do you guys think?

[Maximum Spin]

Indeed.

I would actually love to see trade republics with a doge as head. What do you guys think?

SO VENICE

MUCH WOW

[George_Chickens]

Indeed.

I would actually love to see trade republics with a doge as head. What do you guys think?

I like the idea, but if we're going by Toady's development schedule, trade republics would first need some form of class system and of course a total economic overhaul. Republics and city states controlled by wealthy merchants will certainly become a thing later on, but they will require at least two big waits from what I can tell.

I hope your dorfs have taught you the virtue of patience.

[Detoxicated]

Lol yea i am on df for over ten years. I got patience...

A titanocracy would also be quite interesting. Usually they are less affair but they occassionally want virgins to consume...

[Miles_Umbrae]

Here is a list of possible governance types.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_forms_of_government

[Miles_Umbrae]

Fun fact:
I never argued about violence in video games.
All I've argued about is the claim you have made about fictional depictions of violence definitively causes otherwise peaceful people to inevitably become violent.
You have STILL not provided any academic peer reviewed sources on your claim.

[Miles_Umbrae]

But back to an increasing issue I see, why is it that the same user(s) constantly derail threads via cherrypicked arguments and ignoring one another's sources? This is getting crazy, I keep seeing it happen again and again and again, and it's strangling relevant discussion in the crib

It became derailed when one user kept insisting that portrayals of violence, such as slavery or torture, should not be in the game as that is(according to said user) the cause of violent individuals.
Multiple attempts have been made to get the conversation back on topic, but said user kept on bringing up the off-topic subject in their walls of text.
It has gotten to the point that ignoring said user is no longer an option.