Governments, OF and [LIA]

[Mark_Brown]

Can I just comment?

I'm not part of the [LIA]- high command, so all those that think I'm in it for the gov. I stepped down, I don't get a boner over 1's and 0's (data power)

Got-cha, pretty much sums up all the arguments to 0.

I'm a member now, [LIA] was made official and I told Rayne I'd help him make it happen. Shame LIA can't work with LibGov but that's how they wanted it. Now they can't use the reason "it's because of you"

Bellck.

[Karlotta]

yes i am a grand force of regression in the human race
it's a video game

You alone? No. The views and mentality you put forth (in your posts here and also in places like discord), when held and put into practice by many people, in society and not just video games? Unironically yes. But that's not the point I was making, as I was talking about this gaming community and not societey in general.

As mentioned earlier and being the point I am making, these views are also a main contributing factor when it comes to this community's inability to solve the "social" problems they have in this video game.

I dont have enough time to adress the root of the problem which led you to conclusions like "social politics are dumb", but I will adress what seems to be your main point of "ciriclejerks will always exist".

cool then you shouldn't mention what you aren't addressing because it can be made abundantly clear in work that you aren't addressing something by simply not addressing it, referring to the idea that you are not addressing something only works when the topic is contentious and there is a likely misconception applied to the work, typically derived either from the title or the topic

I'll mention what ever I please, thank you. If you have trouble understanding why I would say this, it's because elaborating on everything I said fully would open a whole new can of worms, involving things that happened in the past, which still affect you in disco without you even being aware that they were ever a thing. I can go ahead and explaina small part of it though, as I got a little more time now, especialy since Gardarik touched on some of them anyway.

Mentioning "Lord of the flies" which shows how a human society can degrade under pressure, the troubles of post-war kids in England, and how easily cults (be it religious or of a person) can be created is also veeeeeery to the point of circlejerking.

The book is actually less about "humanity degrading under pressure", but rather about how the accomplishments and merits of the past (the knowledge and discipline to question and resist your primal urges, which the kids on the island dont have) are necessary to keep society functioning at the level it does. Without it, we revert to savagery. It's actually a very good analogy to disco, and to the "who cares about trying to keep circle jerks out of power, caring for all members, or sticking to the rules we agreedon earlier, lets do what we want" attitude in particular.

About Oceania and "1984" I will not even waste the breath - the link to circlejerking on Disco is obvious.

Not the circlejerking explicitly, but the "having power for the sake of power", and "deciding what the truth is depending on what is must convenient for our circlejerk" aspects of criclejerking, which are integral parts of it. I could tell you episodes of the past where this becomes more clear than it might be to you right now, but that would be kind of boring and repetetive. I'll just say certain people in power said some pretty dystopian things very similar to "all animals are equal but some are more equal than others" when it came to passing OP gear to their favorite factions (such as PHantoms and Keepers), and like "2+2=5 if the party says so" (sounding like "if admins dont say its a rule violation, then it isnt, and when they say it is, then it is"). It's quite possible that you have no idea what I'm talking about right now, but its none the less true that disco is still "under the spell" of those people, because they started the "conspiracy" memes all the idiots here are still evoking, they wrote the rules that no one after dared to improve, and they put in place the circlejerk type recruitment that is still used today in disco.

Let me begin by saying I am not at all oposed to circle jerks in general.

and i did not mention that you were, though you seem to believe that there are certain "terribad" circlejerks that need to be removed

And I didnt say you mentioned I was. The line is there to put what I say at the end into context.

You wanna take your group of friends that all think alike and dont give a toss about anyone outside your group, and do the best you can to destroy da enemy? By all means, give it your best shot. I have always oposed those here that say "noob groups and friend groups that arent integrated in disco only cause problems and should be forced to submit to the vets". That's draconian, toxic, counterproductive, stuck up, ignorant, and mean. Everyone should be able to have their circlejerk in which they can do what ever they want as long as they stick to the rules. Make your unoffical faction, stay an indy, and knock yourselves out. Declare war on 95% of the community, and fight with them to the best of your ability. Go for it, I'll defend your right to have that circlejerk with my last breath, and god knows I have done so many times in the past, to the ire of the circlejerk in power.

you're the one putting words in my mouth chief, i only care about noobs when they start doing actively dumb things (a very frequent occurrence, mind) that are counterproductive to things like, i dunno, roleplay. you also wouldn't defend me in the slightest because you're already presenting me as an objectively antagonistic force and asserting that i just hate new people by default (which is verifiably false)

I'm not putting words in the mouth of you or anyone specifically.

Saying "if you want to do that, I will support you" doesnt even imply that you want to do it. It just says I would support you in case you did.

Saying "I have opposed people who say noob-friends-groups are bad" doestn even imply I was talking about you.

So you were putting words in my mouth there.

But what we actually DONT need is for Game MAsters, Admins, Developers, House Governments, and Official factions that have additional powers over people outside their circlejerk to become a circlejerk. Those guys can NOT go to war or disregard 95% of the community. If the reasons for that arent obvious to you, I point to what happened to Louis XVI, the brit in murica, and Muammar al-Gadfafi. And to the fact that those nations that undertook stringent measures to keep circle jerks out of their governments always overtook all the others in the long run.

yes and you don't realize that, among other things, you're talking about changes in government and not social cliques. governments are not, in fact, cliques on their own. cliques are frequently things like an aristocracy, a political party, or upper management in a company, and if you're looking for a more viable comparison i can point you to standard oil in the united states, and how anti-monopoly laws only constructed a system wherein standard broke into various companies (like exxonmobil) that now cooperate to achieve the same overall goal of controlling the market via special interest groups, lobbying, and other things most people don't hear about, because they want to. just as much as people want to play a video game with their friends and exclude things they don't like because that harms their own perceived fun.

I'm talking about leaders who appoint their successors and co-leaders without tolerating desenters in their midst. But sure, go ahead and refer to one case in which breaking a monopoly didnt work out as intended.

Yes, circle jerks will always exist, and if you keep them out of one place they will jsut move to another. But there are definately certain places (governments, police, judges, juries, and bridge safety commissions) where it is ABSOLUTELY worth it to keep them down, if not out.

let me break this down for you really easy

person wants to do something (influence liberty government)

person joins group of people that want to do the something (joins libgov)

group is discouraged/rendered incapable of doing thing they want to do, or from removing something they do not wish to deal with via legislation (like, say, keeping certain people out of libgov due to theorized rules being put in place)

they find a loophole, or means to do the thing without raising suspicion, or just flat out become malicious (say, voting against a person to nullify their desired influence)

they keep trying to do thing (exclude the person from influencing libgov processes)

red tape just means people find a way around it, and again, this thread is a waste of keystrokes, particularly yours

Dude wants to murder another dude.

Murder is made illegal.

Dude finds a way to murder the guy and get away with it anyway.

Let's legalize murder!

You can replace what you said with literally anything. You're invoking a "nirvana fallacy" pretending that just because a solution isnt 100% perfect, it's not worth it. Something that people in disco tend to do a lot when it comes to defending the indefensible in order to shift the odds in their favor.

1. Write down how you want Officials Factions to behave, concretely. Make acting responsibly inside a house government part of it.

2. Apply those criteria when granting officialdom.

3. Write down how you want House Governments to behave, and make sure they do, instead of keeping them some vague "you can do what you want but not always" circlejerk that only accepts people who fulfilled god-knows-what criteria to please current members.

It's not that hard.

---

User was banned for: https://discoverygc.com/forums/showthrea...tid=200950
Time left: (Permanent)

[Gardarik]

Mentioning "Lord of the flies" which shows how a human society can degrade under pressure, the troubles of post-war kids in England, and how easily cults (be it religious or of a person) can be created is also veeeeeery to the point of circlejerking.

The book is actually less about "humanity degrading under pressure", but rather about how the accomplishments and merits of the past (the knowledge and discipline to question and resist your primal urges, which the kids on the island dont have) are necessary to keep society functioning at the level it does. Without it, we revert to savagery. It's actually a very good analogy to disco, and to the "who cares about trying to keep circle jerks out of power, caring for all members, or sticking to the rules we agreedon earlier, lets do what we want" attitude in particular.

The book can be interpreted in different ways, different topics being the primary ones for different readers. Besides, discipline and ways of treating circlejerks have nothing in common. Circlejerks can be treated as a naturally formed institution with its own rules and regulations and it is natural that an institution, say a university or closer to disco reality - a faction, decide whom to admit and whom not to. Because RP is quite vague and difficult to evaluate objectively, I see no issue with the circle deciding by vote whether they want a new member or not following a discussion.

About Oceania and "1984" I will not even waste the breath - the link to circlejerking on Disco is obvious.

Not the circlejerking explicitly, but the "having power for the sake of power", and "deciding what the truth is depending on what is must convenient for our circlejerk" aspects of criclejerking, which are integral parts of it. I could tell you episodes of the past where this becomes more clear than it might be to you right now, but that would be kind of boring and repetetive. I'll just say certain people in power said some pretty dystopian things very similar to "all animals are equal but some are more equal than others" when it came to passing OP gear to their favorite factions (such as PHantoms and Keepers), and like "2+2=5 if the party says so" (sounding like "if admins dont say its a rule violation, then it isnt, and when they say it is, then it is"). It's quite possible that you have no idea what I'm talking about right now, but its none the less true that disco is still "under the spell" of those people, because they started the "conspiracy" memes all the idiots here are still evoking, they wrote the rules that no one after dared to improve, and they put in place the circlejerk type recruitment that is still used today in disco.

Certainly, without the context like you present I cannot treat the reference adequately. However, the issue of not letting LIA in Libgov is not about the "pixel power for the sake of pixel power" but about an institution having the rights to decide upon its membership. They are not imposing some "truth" as it was in "1984". I do not see the abuse of pixel power if they decide following a vote that a new member will not contribute to their activity in a positive way.

1. Write down how you want Officials Factions to behave, concretely. Make acting responsibly inside a house government part of it.

2. Apply those criteria when granting officialdom.

3. Write down how you want House Governments to behave, and make sure they do, instead of keeping them some vague "you can do what you want but not always" circlejerk that only accepts people who fulfilled god-knows-what criteria to please current members.

It's not that hard.

While criteria for a faction to be included on "the gov" can be beneficial, it will just impose more burden on the OF who certainly are now not worth being OF. There are no substantial benefits or perks being OF while more and more constrains and burdens are suggested to be imposed on them.

As for the rules for inclusion on the Gov, I suppose it would be beneficial if the existing govs themselves RPed the requirements to be put on the gov. It will reflect the differences between the Houses and other factions with the govs (obviously, criteria for Maltese gov are different from criteria for LibGov). Besides, "too many cooks spoil the broth", so the number of people and/or factions on the gov is also something better to be limited lest we want to have the situation like with the devs who have some sort of chaos because of too many people involved.

[Lemon]

Again

There is an issue with who decides that. When I asked why is it that libgov's tone sound more like The Core than The Core itself I got the answer that one person does most of the work and the gov RP defacto IS that person because others aren't willing to contribute.


Will the people that don't contribute enough be booted and replaced by new OF representatives that are fresh and would put in the work?

No, because again - they have a say if they stay or not, and are heavily incentivised to vote "no" for new OF reps so they keep their influence at little work.

Imagine you are a faction that has done all the work - and you get OF. And you want to improve the house laws, contribute to gov RP from the inside . But you get rejected because of "too many cooks" by the existing cooks that aren't pulling their own weight in the first place.

[SnakThree]

Again

There is an issue with who decides that. When I asked why is it that libgov's tone sound more like The Core than The Core itself I got the answer that one person does most of the work and the gov RP defacto IS that person because others aren't willing to contribute.


Will the people that don't contribute enough be booted and replaced by new OF representatives that are fresh and would put in the work?

No, because again - they have a say if they stay or not, and are heavily incentivised to vote "no" for new OF reps so they keep their influence at little work.

Imagine you are a faction that has done all the work - and you get OF. And you want to improve the house laws, contribute to gov RP. But you get rejected because of "too many cooks" by the existing cooks that aren't pulling their own weight in the first place.

DSE and IC was added to LibGov after votes. So your rhetoric how LibGov is only about keeping "power" to themselves is pretty much void.

Edit: And you can improve house laws from outside if you have the aptitude to provide feedback on what can be improved.

---

[Lemon]

I'm talking about the system that provides the strong incentive for people to keep their circlejerk to themselves, which shouldn't be possible for a house gov imo. The argument was made about too many cooks - but will the existing ones really vote to boot themselves off to make space for new fresh ones?

That libgov's voted for them despite the system that incentivised them not to is nice - doesn't mean the system shouldn't be improved

[SnakThree]

I'm talking about the system that provides the strong incentive for people to keep their circlejerk to themselves, which shouldn't be possible for a house gov imo. The argument was made about too many cooks - but will the existing ones really vote to boot themselves off to make space for new fresh ones?

That libgov's voted for them despite the system that incentivised them not to is nice - doesn't mean the system shouldn't be improved

What if the cook has shown complete lack of competence to provide delicious food to community and still wants to enter LibGov's kitchen? Why would the restaurant want to dilute their well oiled kitchen and induct this cook?

---

[Lemon]

That's another thing - Rayne is the 1IC for LIA, you don't know how he will be. He obviously works hard and would bring fresh ideas - but because the system incentivises bias heavily you dismiss the entire faction and chance of people that would contribute helping because of antipathy against one person that is in the faction you don't like.

I just feel like when devs gave governments to players
They should also set rules for the governments and who gets to be in them to avoid incentivising biases like this

[SnakThree]

That's another thing - Rayne is the 1IC for LIA, you don't know how he will be. He obviously works hard and would bring fresh ideas - but because the system incentivises bias heavily you dismiss the entire faction and chance of people that would contribute helping because of antipathy against one person that is in the faction you don't like.

I just feel like when devs gave governments to players
They should also set rules for the governments and who gets to be in them to avoid incentivising biases like this

You fail to notice that LIA is making their own image know via in-game or forum and that's what people see. Maybe that's why at least 10 people out of 13 voted against LIA. You want a collective decision to be legit, then why are you against the idea that such collective decision might also prevent someone from joining.

---

[Karlotta]

The book can be interpreted in different ways, different topics being the primary ones for different readers. Besides, discipline and ways of treating circlejerks have nothing in common. Circlejerks can be treated as a naturally formed institution with its own rules and regulations and it is natural that an institution, say a university or closer to disco reality - a faction, decide whom to admit and whom not to. Because RP is quite vague and difficult to evaluate objectively, I see no issue with the circle deciding by vote whether they want a new member or not following a discussion.

"The Hunters" in Lord of the Flies are a typical circlejerk. It doesn't really become a problem until the point when the circlejerk takes power from the "democratically" elected leader. The typical circlejerk features they have: internal criteria for "ranks" based on their own rather outside values (the choir guy who can sing the highest becomes leader), excluding and ostrasizing people that deemed "unworthy" (piggy, simon, the smaller children), basing the course of action on who wants it rather than rationally setting priorities, appealiing to internal rituals and feeling of togtherness rather than reason. All of that can be found in disco circlejerks too, and its not a coincidence.

However, the issue of not letting LIA in Libgov is not about the "pixel power for the sake of pixel power" but about an institution having the rights to decide upon its membership. They are not imposing some "truth" as it was in "1984". I do not see the abuse of pixel power if they decide following a vote that a new member will not contribute to their activity in a positive way.

I'm not talking about LIA specifically, but about disco's failure to create procedures for OFs and governments that actually work without circlejerks dominating them, thereby inevitably becoming ripe with personal biases, hypocrisy, cliquelancing, and double standards. Ciricluejerks exert the power as a means to keep power, keep it away from their adversaries, instead of using the power to create mutually beneficial solutions together with their "adversaries". One way they do that is to dominate the narative (shaping "the truth") with appeals to authority ("we are leader materials and those who dont agree with us are not"), destroying potential rival groups (pick one of the multiple intances of bashing of player groups here), removing opposing voices (banning and censoring on forum or discord), repeating their narrative over and over coming from multiple members of hte circlejerk (spamming discussions with memes), and then using appeals non existant majority ("98% of people here hate you" when its actually just the ciriclejerk concensus that someone must be hated).

While criteria for a faction to be included on "the gov" can be beneficial, it will just impose more burden on the OF who certainly are now not worth being OF. There are no substantial benefits or perks being OF while more and more constrains and burdens are suggested to be imposed on them.

Increasing the burden of and decreasing the personal gain from officialdom will keep the wrong kind of people out and get the people who arent in it for personal gain in. If a faction doesnt want to take greater responsiblity for people outside their fact, the have no reason to be official anyway.

As for the rules for inclusion on the Gov, I suppose it would be beneficial if the existing govs themselves RPed the requirements to be put on the gov. It will reflect the differences between the Houses and other factions with the govs (obviously, criteria for Maltese gov are different from criteria for LibGov). Besides, "too many cooks spoil the broth", so the number of people and/or factions on the gov is also something better to be limited lest we want to have the situation like with the devs who have some sort of chaos because of too many people involved.

RPing inclusion rules is pointless because house governments are oorp at the core and only irp on the surface.Same as for player factions.

Not every cook needs to be as active as the others, some will only vote and form a line of defense against excesses from gorups and individuals.

Disco inability to organize their "departments" has more to do with their inability to define rules and boundaries and stick to them, and less to do with the number of people in them. The most important rule and boundary that would help is "dont be a circlejerk that does what it wants and doesnt listen to outsiders".

---

User was banned for: https://discoverygc.com/forums/showthrea...tid=200950
Time left: (Permanent)