Print

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

[TempAcc]

Pssst.

Hey kids
You wanna hear something cool?

Spoiler (click to show/hide)

Power centralization is bad.

Capitalism works marvelously when power centralization is weak. Once the power gets concentrated, thats when shit starts getting out of control. The biggest fault of democracy is that it almost always fails from keeping one group from gaining too much power. Regardless of the political system or the economic model, when power is concentrated, the people lose. This has been proven true in communism, all the variations of fascism, democracy, monarchies, democracies, etc.

Don't take me as some dirty anarchist, though. I don't believe in elves.

[Reelya]

But also, some of the complaints are odd. The people who made free assets that later got added to paid mods. Being in the paid mod did not prevent anyone getting that asset, free or not.

Sure, someone made fast money off that, but it's a trick you can only pull off once, and since it's probably known that you stole that it's not going to be a huge money maker.

And you know what? fight fire with fire, put all the free stuff into your own community modpacks, charge the literal bare minimum for that and give credit plus support to the modders. If the crooks are selling your free mods for a dollar, make a rival pack that costs 25 cents. Drive them out of the market. Then the guy who put your mods together for a dollar is like free advertising for you, you had prior copyrights on the images and models to back you up, and then people see yours is cheaper. If you're not actually trying to make a profit then beating an overpriced thief is in fact easy.

But the thing is, once the "low hanging fruit" is picked, and the free modders get their shit together and start releasing official modpacks of their own in the market (to sabotage thieves), then what happens? The next series of paid mods need to be better than that half-assed one, e.g. they need to have new assets, and the pool of free quality assets is in fact pretty shallow, so people trying to make money then need to start creating

[Rolan7]

Valve was also offering refunds and a decent reporting system.  Content theft was really a non-issue.
As for shared content, it's simple...  If the creator wants to share it, there's absolutely nothing stopping them.  It's exactly as easy as it was before.  *All* this does is offer content creators an opportunity for monetization, if they choose to opt in.

Course, this was discussed to death in the dedicated thread http://www.bay12forums.com/smf/index.php?topic=150273.0
I don't think it'd be inappropriate to necro it, or maybe create a new one if Urist prefers.

[Neonivek]

I think you guys really are over-reacting

I know I am. I actually have criticism instead of just outright being for it.

I mean your arguments are just so solid!

Spoiler (click to show/hide)

Then just don't buy it.

Wow! You mean it is a free market? I had no idea! I am overreacting by bringing up any criticism...

This is not at all what I even meant by "We are the ones paying for it". What I meant was that they are creating a broken system that we are going to be the ones sacrificed until it works.

They are the ones creating the dangerous working conditions... But they are the bosses they don't even have to pay worker comp. We are the ones who actually have to die, and sweat, and bleed... until they change the system.

That will only affect those who make mods as a business, nobody else is going to be affected. Nothing is to stop existing modders still making the same mods they make now, and paid modders will have to compete with free mods which are just as good as free mods are now.

Well, except you know... the system.

No, because that can't be copyrighted since it's an idea, and you can't copyright ideas. If it's a particular image or sound, then you could. Copyrights only apply to things that can be seen or heard

Actually the way copyright works with videogames is that you can copyright the process. It isn't that "Unlimited ammo is copyrighted" in this case, but the specific way it is achieved is.

---

But anyhow I am overreacting by actually being opposed. Unlike you Reelya who is perfectly sane by being for it!

Seriously what is this? American Politics? I am either on your side or I am wrong AND a bad person?

---

Valve was also offering refunds and a decent reporting system

Neither of which were up to the task.

Ultimately I am "EXTREME!" by not agreeing.

[Sergarr]

Pssst.

Hey kids
You wanna hear something cool?

Spoiler (click to show/hide)

Power centralization is bad.

Capitalism works marvelously when power centralization is weak. Once the power gets concentrated, thats when shit starts getting out of control. The biggest fault of democracy is that it almost always fails from keeping one group from gaining too much power. Regardless of the political system or the economic model, when power is concentrated, the people lose. This has been proven true in communism, all the variations of fascism, democracy, monarchies, democracies, etc.

Don't take me as some dirty anarchist, though. I don't believe in elves.

I, uh, don't think this is entirely correct. The core problem isn't power centralization, it's suppression of private initiative, whenever that is being done through abuse of monopolies (in plutocracies) or outright ban (in countries of developed socialism). Some degree of power centralization is actually good, because it's necessary to enforce socio-economic structures required for private initiative to flourish (such as stable currency, banking system and property rights maintenance). As a counter-example, feudalism is decentralized, but it's not good.

[Neonivek]

As a counter-example, feudalism is decentralized, but it's not good

I am not ENTIRELY sure I'd use that as a prime example... Given the absolute monolithic control within those territories from time to time. Making it seem like many strong power centralization instead of a single one.

[TempAcc]

But you see, that is a result of power centralization.
Feudalism itself is an example of centralized power structures which are tied to another, but its still centralization of power, after all, the lord is powerful because he's tied to the king and the other lords, who all support eachother when a threat to their power comes about, IE a form of medieval corporativism.
Plutocracies come about due to ye olde phenomena of the "friend of the king". Rich businesmen with strong ties to the government can basically walk all over the rest of the private initiative because they get unfair advantages in the "free" market in exchange for favors, which is what happens nowadays with many western democracies. Coupled with corporativism, you get a self perpetuating plutocracy that makes sure to keep a facade of democracy by changing faces now and then, while perpetuating an oligarchy, since only members of the leader's club get to have a true chance at office.

Democracy has yet to find a way to properly stop this from happening, but its still better than any of the alternatives, since there's still the chance the people get fed up and change stuff, which is far easier to do in a democracy than in any other political system.

[Neonivek]

Well there is always Anarchy and judging by the Anarchy thread, it 100% stops that easily.

I am not sure how... but apparently it does. I think it has to do with implied altruism and conflict of arms through altruism.

---

Well played four games I was interested in... In a row...

Two were just plain baaaaaaaaaad... One was ok but was the worst in its series... and another was also bad but not phenomenally bad.

[Rolan7]

@Paid mods, I went ahead and replied in the old thread http://www.bay12forums.com/smf/index.php?topic=150273.msg7360704#msg7360704
I think I've said my piece for now, but just so WTF doesn't get any more crowded than usual.

[Flying Dice]

I think you guys really are over-reacting

The immense failures independent of protest efforts last time say otherwise. It splintered the community, saw widespread theft of assets, ideas, and entire mods. Many prominent mods were shut down by their authors either in response to or to prevent theft. The Workshop showed the future: it was almost totally empty of large mods, collaborative mods, and high-quality mods. Even the few good mods that went paid gave their authors pennies.

No profitmongering dicks in modding, GTFO, it'll be like Sims expansions except the content will be shit and won't benefit the creators.

[misko27]

As a counter-example, feudalism is decentralized, but it's not good

I am not ENTIRELY sure I'd use that as a prime example... Given the absolute monolithic control within those territories from time to time. Making it seem like many strong power centralization instead of a single one.

I'm not sure what you mean? Monolithic control? No? No! Not at all! In fact it was characterized by such a lack of control over the resources of the land that it's mindboggling. I don't know where you are getting this monolithic control from at all. Even the most centralized lord would still have to compete with the church, the town, the guilds, ancient systems of rights and privileges...

But you see, that is a result of power centralization.
Feudalism itself is an example of centralized power structures which are tied to another, but its still centralization of power, after all, the lord is powerful because he's tied to the king and the other lords, who all support eachother when a threat to their power comes about, IE a form of medieval corporativism.

That's, not how I would characterize that. Feudal times were truly one of the least centralized times. By definition, it's not centralization if there is more than one center (otherwise you're just making up definitions), and Feudalism was dominated by many centers of power, and not only feudal lords, but also guilds, and the Church, and the town, and the family, and etc. And Feudalism was in general counter to the idea of centralization: feudal lords were the first people to make trouble if there was any notion of their privileges being taken away. And calling Feudalism corporatism when the feudal era was one marked by the least degree of organizing along lines of shared interest is just odd.

So I'll need some sources or evidence on this. I mean this is just entirely new to me. The idea that a system where there exists heavily armed warlords who take tax from the land (and otherwise just leave them be) and all nominally swear allegiance to one warlord or another, and that this is a more centralized system, is hilariously weird. I mean think about it like this: if there exists a group of people with an army who have the ability to challenge your power, is that more centralized or less? Now imagine there's fifty of them; more centralized or less?

I mean look at the HRE for Christ's sake. Does this read "centralized" to you?

Plutocracies come about due to ye olde phenomena of the "friend of the king". Rich businesmen with strong ties to the government can basically walk all over the rest of the private initiative because they get unfair advantages in the "free" market in exchange for favors, which is what happens nowadays with many western democracies. Coupled with corporativism, you get a self perpetuating plutocracy that makes sure to keep a facade of democracy by changing faces now and then, while perpetuating an oligarchy, since only members of the leader's club get to have a true chance at office.

Democracy has yet to find a way to properly stop this from happening, but its still better than any of the alternatives, since there's still the chance the people get fed up and change stuff, which is far easier to do in a democracy than in any other political system.

Look man I'm not here to step on your anarchist theory of society or whatever but if you are going to directly link it to historical circumstances like feudalism, particularly ones that are widely agreed to be a result of decentralization, you are going to need to do some citation. Mind if you had been doing a Marx and using his explanation for things, I'd leave it be (don't agree but it's good logic at least), but as it stands you're going to need to give a little more.

[Neonivek]

In the sense Misko27 that a way to put Feudalism

Is that it was monopolies fighting one another.

The Church had a monopoly on religion... who fought with the guilds who had a monopoly on craftsmen (or more...)... who fought with the lord who had a monopoly on land...

It definitely doesn't feel like the power is dispersed... Heck in many ways it feels more centralized... just not in one location... Which I know is contrarian.

[Baffler]

That's still not really true though. The Church owned lots and lots of land, see the various autonomous prince-bishoprics, and the monasteries. The guilds constantly (but rather unsuccessfully) tried to suppress the activities of independent craftsmen and fought with the city officials over laws stopping certain things from being sold in certain places, or to certain people. The nobility also often took control of the church for their own purpose through investiture or "patronage."

[TD1]

Indeed. You can't separate them into craft, land, or religious monopolies. Really, the only form of monopoly I can think of at the time is monetary, which would include all those mentioned and exclude the "lesser" orders, but even that's not as clear cut as you'd think - how do you class someone who has money, but isn't allowed a title? Or vice versa.

[Akura]

Just walked out of the dermatologist's office after getting a mole on my leg checked out and cut off. He said it didn't look like anything, but he'd have it tested to make sure. I'm putting here because now I'm going to be looking at my leg and expecting to see it.