Book 2 – Epilogue 02 – Jack Decrypted

Page by page discussion of the comic.

Re: Book 2 – Epilogue 02 – Jack Decrypted

Postby Kreistor » Fri Aug 23, 2013 5:15 pm

I'm sorry, 0beron. My last post to Marbitchow was the end game. Or so I thought.
http://www.erfworld.com/wiki/index.php/TBFGK_1 Here you can find all comic pages written as text for convenient quoting.

http://www.erfworld.com/wiki/index.php/Erfworld_Mechanics The starting page for accessing all known Erfworld "rules".
User avatar
Kreistor
 
Posts: 1075
Joined: Thu Apr 30, 2009 6:59 pm
Location: K-W, Ontario, Canada

Re: Book 2 – Epilogue 02 – Jack Decrypted

Postby Lilwik » Fri Aug 23, 2013 5:41 pm

Kreistor wrote:I'm pretty certain Rob doesn't invent a bunch of speculation and then choose from them when he determines his story.
Really? What you say Rob doesn't do sounds exactly like having a bunch of ideas and choosing the best one. That's what I do when writing stuff, but of course Rob is in a totally different class than any mere amateur writer, so I won't claim to know his exact technique.

Kreistor wrote:There is an old RPG admonishment: do not play a character smarter than yourself.
Rob is smarter than the vast majority of people, so playing Parson is probably not as big a stretch as you make it sound, even without strategy game experience.

Kreistor wrote:One trick is to just use a huge amount of time to consider as many solutions as you can, but great "anythings" have inspiration that others never receive, so that can only go so far.
Naturally since he has the time he should make the best use of it that he can, and Rob is a great writer who is surely getting many of those inspirations that others never receive.

Kreistor wrote:His most popular trick is to hide the rules from us. This achieves a second goal, BTW. In order to leave future storylines as flexible as possible, define the minimum you require to write the current story. So, he doesn't define caster Disciplines until he needs a caster to do something, then he chooses from them. Many will have some basic def'ns, but anything he doesn't tell us about can change, and we'll never know.
I'm sure that's not right! Rob doesn't tell us all the rules only because he's protecting the story from getting caught up on some trivial little snag based on mere numbers, like a gwiffon having one less move than it needs to make the plot work. The rules all exist in almost perfectly finalized form somewhere and Rob has no intention of ever changing them, except for tiny changes as necessary to smooth over any troublesome spots.

Kreistor wrote:For instance, the page where he describes Dirtamancers can put out infernos. The moment you see that rule, you know that there will be an inferno and Sizemore will need to put it out.
Rob didn't make that rule up when it was revealed. That rule already existed, probably since the start of Book 1, but it just wasn't revealed to us because until there was an inferno it wasn't important.

Kreistor wrote:I call it meta-thinking a comic that by necessity must be minimalist in information disclosure. Consequently, my selection of the Throne move was grounded in a recognition of Rob's technique, and so I needed to have a theory where Sizemore could get to Spacerock.
From the way you were talking before, I thought you'd use Occam's razor to make that guess and just got lucky. It's interesting to know that you actually did it by getting into Rob's head.

Kreistor wrote:It is not an assumption. It is Statistical theory, tried and true, pure mathematics. Used by everyone that uses Statistics for a living.
That's interesting. Go ahead and teach me, if you care to. If I give you a 6-sided die and you use your statistical theory to declare that each side has a 1/6 chance of turning up, but the die is actually weighted so that the 4 side turns up half the time, how exactly are you not wrong? It doesn't take training in statistics to see which side comes up most often, but apparently if you are going to cheat at gambling your best victims are people with training in statistics because they have theories that tell them that cheating never happens and all unknown distributions are even.

Kreistor wrote:No, Occam's is a technique you use when you don't know enough about the probabilities. If you know the probabilities, you can calculate accurate odds of all proposals, and choose the highest probability.
That's right, of course. The only problem comes when you use your statistical theory to pretend that you know the unknown probabilities and therefore think your use of Occam's razor tells you which theory is most probable. Maybe the person who proposed the theory has better insight into Erfworld than you do and the probabilities of the assumptions are better than even. In that case Occam's razor isn't fair to use and you just don't realize it.

Kreistor wrote:And it is useful for Speculation, because there is equally no actual way to determine the odds of any one assumption being what is in Rob's head.
Except that you knew the odds were high that Dirtamancy would be used to fight a fire, so you must know that the probability of certain things being in Rob's head can be estimated.

Kreistor wrote:Your opinion may guide you to conclude one Speculation is grossly unlikely, because one assumption is absurd. It's perfectly acceptable to exclude that proposal from your use of Occam's, but you need to be prepared to provide evidence of your estimation to those that contradict your estimate.
Getting into someone's head isn't a matter of evidence and neither is predicting the rules of Erfworld. You knew that Dirtamancy would be used to put out the fire, but what evidence could you possibly have cited to support that? We are also sadly incapable of performing experiments in Erfworld to gather real evidence to support our speculations, so we are forced to partially rely on what seems most natural and fits with themes that we've seen developing. Real evidence is always to be preferred, but people also need to judge assumptions on more intuitive grounds.
Lilwik
 
Posts: 1325
Joined: Sun May 19, 2013 5:55 pm

Re: Book 2 – Epilogue 02 – Jack Decrypted

Postby wih » Fri Aug 23, 2013 6:27 pm

There is no end-game to arguments on the internet.
wih
 
Posts: 196
Joined: Fri Feb 15, 2013 5:07 am

Re: Book 2 – Epilogue 02 – Jack Decrypted

Postby Shai_hulud » Fri Aug 23, 2013 7:50 pm

Lilwik wrote:That's interesting. Go ahead and teach me, if you care to. If I give you a 6-sided die and you use your statistical theory to declare that each side has a 1/6 chance of turning up, but the die is actually weighted so that the 4 side turns up half the time, how exactly are you not wrong? It doesn't take training in statistics to see which side comes up most often, but apparently if you are going to cheat at gambling your best victims are people with training in statistics because they have theories that tell them that cheating never happens and all unknown distributions are even.

Did... you just try to claim statistics is not a useful field of study? Do I need to find a Willy Wonka macro or something?
Shai_hulud
Pins Supporter!
Pins Supporter!
 
Posts: 700
Joined: Sun Jul 08, 2012 11:57 pm

Re: Book 2 – Epilogue 02 – Jack Decrypted

Postby Lilwik » Fri Aug 23, 2013 8:30 pm

Shai_hulud wrote:Did... you just try to claim statistics is not a useful field of study?
Not at all. If the study of statistics has proven that all unknown distributions are uniform then that's hugely useful. It means you know that all dice are fair without testing them, because an untested die has an unknown distribution. I think that's wonderful; I'm just curious for more details about how it works.
Lilwik
 
Posts: 1325
Joined: Sun May 19, 2013 5:55 pm

Re: Book 2 – Epilogue 02 – Jack Decrypted

Postby Kreistor » Sat Aug 24, 2013 3:46 am

Lilwik wrote:
Kreistor wrote:I'm pretty certain Rob doesn't invent a bunch of speculation and then choose from them when he determines his story.
Really? What you say Rob doesn't do sounds exactly like having a bunch of ideas and choosing the best one.


Not on point. You claimed he told his stories such that the fewest assumptions speculations were false. You suggested he was choosing to screw with Speculators, not the "best" option. You have failed to defend you claim, and instead diverted to a different claim. Point for me.

Lilwik wrote:
Kreistor wrote:There is an old RPG admonishment: do not play a character smarter than yourself.
Rob is smarter than the vast majority of people, so playing Parson is probably not as big a stretch as you make it sound, even without strategy game experience.


Being smart does not make you good at any particular thing. Parson is the "Perfect" Warlord, which requires being the absolute best. It is an enormous, and foolish, claim to make for a character, unless you are aware of your own superiority. Here's another admonishment: Write about what you know. It tells you the same thing.

And, no, Rob is not a good strategist. Lots of people have demonstrated greater capacity than he. Rob requires his tricks in order to give the illusion Parson is good. Here's a good one: Stanley took to being present when cities were built in order to have them use GK's production table. There is no known advantage to having units of like type together, so this was a foolish choice and Parson should have been stopping him. He has cut off options, while flexibility and unpredictability are important for armies. Sun Tzu tells us to "Know ourselves and our enemies, and we will never lose." Making our forces predictable allows our enemy to know us. We did see that applied correctly at the Battle for Exposition Bridge, when Ansom came with unexpected forces, and Parso sent in scouts to "know" his enemy, but it's not applied at the production level. This is an oversight on Rob's part, or he has a Rule to reveal to make it strategically reasonable. Such a Rule, at this point, would be evidence of hiding rules to make Parson seem smart.

Lilwik wrote:
Kreistor wrote:One trick is to just use a huge amount of time to consider as many solutions as you can, but great "anythings" have inspiration that others never receive, so that can only go so far.
Naturally since he has the time he should make the best use of it that he can, and Rob is a great writer who is surely getting many of those inspirations that others never receive.


How do you evaluate "great"? Erfworld is not a particularly popular comic; ergo, he is not a great author. Oh, it's a fun comic, with cool reveals and lots of unknowns to play with (which is why I still read it), but it isn't really all that great. As for inspiration... most of the good speculators around here would hand him his rear end at a gaming table. He's an author, not a strategist. Parson doesn't really use loopholes in the rules that well, but part of that is because the rules are largely unwritten and so the loopholes not created. The danger of creating them is that there are great gamers reading this, and they'll find them with experience nearly instantly.

Lilwik wrote:The rules all exist in almost perfectly finalized form somewhere and Rob has no intention of ever changing them, except for tiny changes as necessary to smooth over any troublesome spots.


Sorry, but Rob has stated the complete opposite. He has a loose outline of Rules that he made to write the outline for B1, and has never completed anything he didn't need to. He described his writing process long ago, so you'd have to track it down. Might be on Word of the Titans.

Lilwik wrote:Rob didn't make that rule up when it was revealed. That rule already existed, probably since the start of Book 1, but it just wasn't revealed to us because until there was an inferno it wasn't important.


No, Lilwik, I am sorry that you believe that misconception, almost everyone does when they start here, but Rob has clearly stated that few Rules are written down, and little he doesn't need is settled.

Kreistor wrote:From the way you were talking before, I thought you'd use Occam's razor to make that guess and just got lucky. It's interesting to know that you actually did it by getting into Rob's head.


I still made assumptions. Not all were probability skewed. But I did use the Occam's Razor in my discussion with the Parson Side Faction, which treated it like an assumption for argument's sake.

Kreistor wrote:That's interesting. Go ahead and teach me, if you care to. If I give you a 6-sided die and you use your statistical theory to declare that each side has a 1/6 chance of turning up, but the die is actually weighted so that the 4 side turns up half the time, how exactly are you not wrong?


Not wrong about what? I know Rob doesn't weight the die. Occam's succeeds regularly, so I do not need to consider your weighted die problem at all.

As for Stats lessons, I'll answer specific questions, if you have them.

Kreistor wrote:The only problem comes when you use your statistical theory to pretend that you know the unknown probabilities and therefore think your use of Occam's razor tells you which theory is most probable.


Two problems. First, Stats can tell you what probability to use, in the face of unknown probabilities. Generally, the answer is 50%, but a little knowledge can shift it.

Second, Occams does not use probabilities, but does increase the chance of being correct by reducing the number of chances of being wrong. It reduces risk, which is exactly the same as increasing probability of correctness. That math has already been demonstrated, so go back and read my old posts. Search for "0.70x".

Except that you knew the odds were high that Dirtamancy would be used to fight a fire, so you must know that the probability of certain things being in Rob's head can be estimated.


I used that to eliminate solutions that excluded Sizemore clearing the fire. There were proposals such as Red Dragons forming fire breaks, flooding the city with the nearby river, and so forth. While Sizemore clearing the fire was not an assumption to me and I did not count it as one for my own Occam's purposes, other aspects of the Throne Shift had assumptions, specifically that Stanley would agree to it. He had no motive to, and we all acknowledged that before the page where Stanley initially denied the request.

You knew that Dirtamancy would be used to put out the fire, but what evidence could you possibly have cited to support that?


Experience. I noticed the trend during Book 1 and the Summer Updates. I also know that it has been pointed out by many about other authors, and has been noted as a writing method. Anything that gets mentioned is going to get used.

Real evidence is always to be preferred, but people also need to judge assumptions on more intuitive grounds.


Not to those that believe in Objectivism, and I agree with it in this aspect. Rationality is all that counts for the final selection. Intuition with no rationality to verify it is just blind luck. Any method will be true sometimes, so that intuition sometimes gives the right answer is not evidence that it should be used instead of a rational choice. And, besides that, the only intuition you would accept is your own, so it's not a consensus method. Head on down to the casino and see how well people's intuition loses them money. Noticed that the House always wins in the long run? Intuition is a terrible selection method, but it's perfectly fine if you then use your rationality to determine why your intuition is telling you something. Intuition can be an indicator that your conscious mind overlooked something that your subconscious detected, and you need to think about the problem differently before going with the rationally chosen option. But it can also be a bit of rotten beef in your sandwich that is really making you uncomfortable, so only trust intuition if you can figure out why you had it.
http://www.erfworld.com/wiki/index.php/TBFGK_1 Here you can find all comic pages written as text for convenient quoting.

http://www.erfworld.com/wiki/index.php/Erfworld_Mechanics The starting page for accessing all known Erfworld "rules".
User avatar
Kreistor
 
Posts: 1075
Joined: Thu Apr 30, 2009 6:59 pm
Location: K-W, Ontario, Canada

Re: Book 2 – Epilogue 02 – Jack Decrypted

Postby Lilwik » Sat Aug 24, 2013 5:45 am

Kreistor wrote:How do you evaluate "great"? Erfworld is not a particularly popular comic; ergo, he is not a great author.
Being popular has nothing to do with being great. The greatness of an artist can only be judged by the quality of the work, and I view Erfworld and subjectively judge it to be among the greatest works I have ever witnessed. I expect that the only thing holding it back from enormous popularity is lack of publicity.

Kreistor wrote:He's an author, not a strategist.
You may be right about that. I'm in no position to judge his strategic ability, but as a great writer I'd expect him to be able to hide any lack of ability well, and so far I think he has.

Kreistor wrote:Sorry, but Rob has stated the complete opposite. He has a loose outline of Rules that he made to write the outline for B1, and has never completed anything he didn't need to. He described his writing process long ago, so you'd have to track it down. Might be on Word of the Titans.
It's not in Word of the Titans, so I've no idea where to track that down, but it would be very interesting to read. Of course it actually makes Rob even more impressive because it means that he's writing a story that seems very well planned without actually planning, which is naturally far more difficult. If he is really making up the rules of Erfworld as he goes, he's doing a remarkably good job of making them seem like they were all this way from the beginning. Perhaps he's got them all planned in his subconscious and isn't fully aware of how well planned it all is.

Kreistor wrote:Not wrong about what? I know Rob doesn't weight the die. Occam's succeeds regularly, so I do not need to consider your weighted die problem at all.
Rob does weight the die. The analogy is a bit hard to follow, but the point is that Rob's decisions are not random, much like a weighted die. Assumptions don't have probabilities of 50% because Rob is working based on his understanding of Erfworld, not by flipping coins to make decisions. Whether he plans everything in advance or not, he still must know much more about Erfworld than we do, and these underlying secrets are what truly shapes the probability of any theory. Just like a weighted die, we don't know all the details of how the outcome is determined, but we know it's not uniformly random.

Kreistor wrote:As for Stats lessons, I'll answer specific questions, if you have them.
Thank you. Let me try to rephrase the question and remind you what I'm asking about.
Kreistor wrote:
Lilwik wrote:
Kreistor wrote:I gave you 7 dice types. The odds of any particular die being a D100 is, then 1/7, unless I also provided a distribution, which I did not.
In other words, you are assuming that if no distribution is given then none exists.
No. It is not an assumption. It is Statistical theory, tried and true, pure mathematics.
Simplifying the situation a bit, instead of random dice in boxes, consider just one 6-sided die, but it's not necessarily fair. So in other words, I'm not providing a distribution for how the sides of the die will turn up. Therefore you conclude that each side has a 1/6 chance of turning up.
Kreistor wrote:In the absence of a distribution, there are an infinite set of possible distributions. When you have a set to work with, you use the mean average of all possible distributions, which is trivial to calculate in this case. It comes out to the inverse of the number of possible selections, or 1/7.
Or in the die example, 1/6. You seem pretty sure of your reasoning here, so I don't see how there can be any doubt about it. You even said that it's not an assumption, so then it must be a fact that you've learned from studying statistics and careful reasoning.

So my question is this: When I give you a weighted die that turns up 4 every time, do you have no choice but to declare that each side has a 1/6 chance of turning up? Remember that you don't know the distribution of this die that you've never seen before, so you have to consider all possible distributions. Remember that this 1/6 chance you declare is not an assumption, so it's a fact determined by reasoning, and so you don't get to change it later when you see 4 come up again and again. If you admit that 4 has a greater than 1/6 chance, that means you were wrong initially. Are we to conclude that the endless string of 4's is just a bizarre fluke of probability and 4 really has a 1/6 chance of coming up?

Kreistor wrote:First, Stats can tell you what probability to use, in the face of unknown probabilities. Generally, the answer is 50%, but a little knowledge can shift it.
And when you are using Occam's razor to evaluate the probability of a theory you are always using 50% probability, when you should be trusting that the people who came up with the theory had reasons to make the assumptions that they did. Maybe they aren't reasons that they can put into words, but they are based on experience and understanding of Rob's writing and the themes of Erfworld. Using Occam's razor to evaluate someone else's theory for probability is just ignoring all of that. That's why Occam's razor is usually not considered a tool for evaluating probability.
Lilwik
 
Posts: 1325
Joined: Sun May 19, 2013 5:55 pm

Re: Book 2 – Epilogue 02 – Jack Decrypted

Postby drachefly » Sat Aug 24, 2013 6:44 am

LIlwik, in the matter of priors, Kriestor is right and you are wrong.

If you don't have any evidence about the die, then the probability of receiving any of the six possible results on your first roll is even, even if the die is biased, because the die could be biased towards or away any of the results by an equal amount. It all cancels out.

As you roll this die, you may find that it is biased, and that will change your estimates of individual future rolls.
User avatar
drachefly
Print 2 Draw 3 Supporter!
Print 2 Draw 3 Supporter!
 
Posts: 1646
Joined: Wed Jan 05, 2011 11:36 pm

Re: Book 2 – Epilogue 02 – Jack Decrypted

Postby Lilwik » Sat Aug 24, 2013 6:53 am

drachefly wrote:As you roll this die, you may find that it is biased, and that will change your estimates of individual future rolls.
Are we talking about estimates? Kreistor says it's not an assumption; it's actually true. "It is Statistical theory, tried and true, pure mathematics." As an estimate, of course I agree that you should guess that a die will be fair. Anyone would make that guess. You start to go into areas that I consider suspect when you take the leap to declaring that the odds of any side is 1/6 without doubt, not by assumption but by pure mastery of statistics.

On the other hand, if we can all agree that considering the possibility of weighted dice, the assumption that the dice are fair is just the best possible guess that you can make given your limited knowledge, then we also admit that it's just a guess and not an established matter of fact, not carefully considered, and certainly not something that you can use as evidence to shoot down people's theories.
Lilwik
 
Posts: 1325
Joined: Sun May 19, 2013 5:55 pm

Re: Book 2 – Epilogue 02 – Jack Decrypted

Postby Tonot » Sat Aug 24, 2013 3:44 pm

In any encounter with dice that someone else has been holding, the wise man does not assume they will be fair. People are not wise, generally, about things like dice, and a whole passel of fellas have made a good living out of that fact, come these many years. :D :P
Tonot
 
Posts: 193
Joined: Sun Aug 04, 2013 1:06 am

Re: Book 2 – Epilogue 02 – Jack Decrypted

Postby Kreistor » Sat Aug 24, 2013 5:39 pm

Tonot wrote:In any encounter with dice that someone else has been holding, the wise man does not assume they will be fair. People are not wise, generally, about things like dice, and a whole passel of fellas have made a good living out of that fact, come these many years. :D :P


The problem is that in this world, there are more than just dice: in this world, we may have no choice but to choose despite unpredictable or maliciously controlled options. A boss may demand a decision on something you cannot determine the probability of, and choosing not to solve the problem can lead to your dismissal for incompetence, where just being wrong but with a great explanation for why you chose the incorrect solution at least demonstrates your capacity to analyze the unknown. (There's a biblical parable in which three employees are given money to invest, and the one that takes no risk is dismissed.) Or you may be trapped in a burning building, where failure to choose means death. Just because the arsonist may have controlled where the fire is, that doesn't mean we will live by not leaving the building.
http://www.erfworld.com/wiki/index.php/TBFGK_1 Here you can find all comic pages written as text for convenient quoting.

http://www.erfworld.com/wiki/index.php/Erfworld_Mechanics The starting page for accessing all known Erfworld "rules".
User avatar
Kreistor
 
Posts: 1075
Joined: Thu Apr 30, 2009 6:59 pm
Location: K-W, Ontario, Canada

Re: Book 2 – Epilogue 02 – Jack Decrypted

Postby Lilwik » Sat Aug 24, 2013 7:01 pm

Kreistor wrote:The problem is that in this world, there are more than just dice: in this world, we may have no choice but to choose despite unpredictable or maliciously controlled options.
That can happen in many parts of life, but when we are thinking about Erfworld it only happens on the betting thread. No one demands that we limit the contents of the wiki to what we estimate are the most likely theories and there is no pressure to try to deny as many theories as we can when they are proposed on the forum. On the contrary, we should only do those things when we have something meaningful that suggests there is a problem with a theory, even if it is only experience or intuition.

Therefore, let me suggest an alternative to Occam's razor that I think makes more sense. When you use Occam's razor to determine probability, you are naturally giving each assumption a default probability of 50%, but that probability is nothing more than the probability that statistics says we should use when we know absolutely nothing about the assumption; it means we have no evidence either way, or what evidence we have seems to perfectly balance on either side, so all we can do is shrug and take a wild guess. If that is your situation, then I suggest that you have nothing meaningful to contribute to the discussion and you shouldn't try to refute the theory on the basis of that assumption. So instead of choosing a default probability of 50%, choose a default probability of 100% by assuming that the people who propose the assumption know something that you don't.

Remember that all you need to do is prove that even one of the assumptions is unlikely. If one assumption has a probability of 3%, then the whole theory can be discarded even if you've given all the other assumptions 100% probabilities. By doing it this way, you discarded it because of some real knowledge or experience that you contribute to the discussion, not just because you knew nothing and gave each assumption a default probability of 50%, and then counted that there were 3 assumptions and discarded the theory because you blindly estimated it had only 12.5% probability.
Lilwik
 
Posts: 1325
Joined: Sun May 19, 2013 5:55 pm

Re: Book 2 – Epilogue 02 – Jack Decrypted

Postby Kreistor » Sat Aug 24, 2013 8:04 pm

Yes, Lilwik, there is a reason. It's called "Nonsense." People will say anything they can, sometimes, in order to have other people look foolish. Your standard makes you a potential victim of malicious taunting, as anarchists use the Wiki to subvert not just the contributors, but Rob himself

Your presumption is that all Spec is created in good faith. I know from experience on this forum that it is not. Some is created specifically to screw with other posters. Setting a limit to such foolishness creates a professional appearance to the Wiki, and rejects content that is created in bad faith.
http://www.erfworld.com/wiki/index.php/TBFGK_1 Here you can find all comic pages written as text for convenient quoting.

http://www.erfworld.com/wiki/index.php/Erfworld_Mechanics The starting page for accessing all known Erfworld "rules".
User avatar
Kreistor
 
Posts: 1075
Joined: Thu Apr 30, 2009 6:59 pm
Location: K-W, Ontario, Canada

Re: Book 2 – Epilogue 02 – Jack Decrypted

Postby Shai_hulud » Sat Aug 24, 2013 10:58 pm

Kreistor wrote:Yes, Lilwik, there is a reason. It's called "Nonsense." People will say anything they can, sometimes, in order to have other people look foolish. Your standard makes you a potential victim of malicious taunting, as anarchists TROLLS MWAHAHA! use the Wiki to subvert not just the contributors, but Rob himself.
Fixed text in blue, original in red. Everyone on the internet just calls abusive and socially destructive individuals trolls I think.
Shai_hulud
Pins Supporter!
Pins Supporter!
 
Posts: 700
Joined: Sun Jul 08, 2012 11:57 pm

Re: Book 2 – Epilogue 02 – Jack Decrypted

Postby Kreistor » Sat Aug 24, 2013 11:34 pm

A troll is someone that argues/debates in order to provoke an emotional response or to feed his own ego. A troll is looking for a contest of minds, in order to feel superior. Some people accuse me of being a Troll. It was chosen due to its similarity to the word "trawl", because the troll fishes for unwary victims in newsgroups, forums, and now blogs.

But someone that maliciously modifies a publicly accessible site for personal goals can be a Hacker, an anarchist, or just a jerk. I used small 'a' anarchist, because Rob promotes users to do whatever they want, which leaves the door open to vandalism by anyone with any motive.
http://www.erfworld.com/wiki/index.php/TBFGK_1 Here you can find all comic pages written as text for convenient quoting.

http://www.erfworld.com/wiki/index.php/Erfworld_Mechanics The starting page for accessing all known Erfworld "rules".
User avatar
Kreistor
 
Posts: 1075
Joined: Thu Apr 30, 2009 6:59 pm
Location: K-W, Ontario, Canada

Re: Book 2 – Epilogue 02 – Jack Decrypted

Postby Tonot » Sat Aug 24, 2013 11:47 pm

Kreistor wrote:
Tonot wrote:In any encounter with dice that someone else has been holding, the wise man does not assume they will be fair. People are not wise, generally, about things like dice, and a whole passel of fellas have made a good living out of that fact, come these many years. :D :P


The problem is that in this world, there are more than just dice: in this world, we may have no choice but to choose despite unpredictable or maliciously controlled options. A boss may demand a decision on something you cannot determine the probability of, and choosing not to solve the problem can lead to your dismissal for incompetence, where just being wrong but with a great explanation for why you chose the incorrect solution at least demonstrates your capacity to analyze the unknown. (There's a biblical parable in which three employees are given money to invest, and the one that takes no risk is dismissed.) Or you may be trapped in a burning building, where failure to choose means death. Just because the arsonist may have controlled where the fire is, that doesn't mean we will live by not leaving the building.



No, I think the problem is much simpler, and closer to home for you. It seems as if you can't read an obviously joking post, that has a laughing and a razzing smiley following it, and perceive it is a joke.
You take an obvious joke so very much to heart, that you quote the mustiest of all the musty old nonsensical store of stories in the bible, in an extremely earnest, if not to say pedantic, and certainly thoroughly sententious response.

I mean, go to, be at it, by all means, if it makes you happy. However, (and I say this in the perfect spirit of friendship, I truly do) I think you would be a happier person if you didn't take everything so seriously, that it means you miss when people are making a light hearted, comradely joke. And it really did make me see you just for a second, as less of a comrade, and more of, say, a ringpiece, as the locals in Sydney phrase it. I am sure you are no such thing, I am just telling you what you have, I hope, inadvertently portrayed yourself as.

Oh, and just for your information, I am 50 years old, have been twice around the world, fought, built, sowed, reaped, and milked a quarter of a million cows*. The point is I don't need another school-master. I do welcome your talking to me as an equal though, and hope you will welcome me doing you the same respect. Stop and sniff the Roses, some of them are jokes your friends are making to you.

*An Aussie would smile and add "I was in Baghdad when you were in your Dad's Bag" but they are crass, so I won't, however.
Tonot
 
Posts: 193
Joined: Sun Aug 04, 2013 1:06 am

Re: Book 2 – Epilogue 02 – Jack Decrypted

Postby Kreistor » Sun Aug 25, 2013 12:47 am

Tonot wrote:No, I think the problem is much simpler, and closer to home for you. It seems as if you can't read an obviously joking post, that has a laughing and a razzing smiley following it, and perceive it is a joke.


What you wrote was 100% truthful. Italicizing the portion you did accentuates a section that has to do with the premise, which, if there's a punch line, diminishes it. In a joke, you italicize the punch line. And I don't see a punch line, anyway. Humour has its foundation in pain, but instead of going for the pain of gambling problems, you point at the success of Casinos, which isn't even indirectly painful. Casinos being profitable isn't funny, just a basic truth.

People put smilies into everything, and they have multiple meanings, not just "This was supposed to be funny, even if you don't get the joke." I ignore them as meaningless. If it's funny, I'll laugh without them.

"McDonalds made $5 Billion last year."
Everyone laughs?
"McDonalds made $5 Billion last year. :)"
Now is it funny?
http://www.erfworld.com/wiki/index.php/TBFGK_1 Here you can find all comic pages written as text for convenient quoting.

http://www.erfworld.com/wiki/index.php/Erfworld_Mechanics The starting page for accessing all known Erfworld "rules".
User avatar
Kreistor
 
Posts: 1075
Joined: Thu Apr 30, 2009 6:59 pm
Location: K-W, Ontario, Canada

Re: Book 2 – Epilogue 02 – Jack Decrypted

Postby Tonot » Sun Aug 25, 2013 1:17 am

*Throws hands up in the air*

Mate, if you were not trying for irony there, your mind has an obvious perception problem when it comes to human interaction.
Tonot
 
Posts: 193
Joined: Sun Aug 04, 2013 1:06 am

Re: Book 2 – Epilogue 02 – Jack Decrypted

Postby Shai_hulud » Sun Aug 25, 2013 11:59 am

I just assume most people I talk to are actually stray neural nets loose on the internet. Makes everything more sensible.
Shai_hulud
Pins Supporter!
Pins Supporter!
 
Posts: 700
Joined: Sun Jul 08, 2012 11:57 pm

Re: Book 2 – Epilogue 02 – Jack Decrypted

Postby Tonot » Sun Aug 25, 2013 1:52 pm

:D

That is actually very helpful. Instead of being depressed/angry, one can be encouraged at progress.

"Wow, that one almost passed the Turing Test that time!"
Tonot
 
Posts: 193
Joined: Sun Aug 04, 2013 1:06 am

PreviousNext

Return to Reactions

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Framistan, Justyn, NastySasquatch and 3 guests