Our rules have been updated and given
their own forum. Go and look at them! They are nice, and there may be new ones that you didn't know about! Hooray for rules! Hooray for The System! Hooray for Conforming!
Our new Indie Games subforum is now open for business in G&T. Go and check it out, you might land a code for a free game. If you're developing an indie game and want to post about it,
follow these directions. If you don't, he'll break your legs! Hahaha! Seriously though.
[Mini-Phalla] of Brass: The Philosopher Kings (God Save The Queen: Cultist/Templar Win)
Posts
You really shouldn't read that much into it.
Support
Assertion: I am not programmed to follow your requests, meatbag.
Proposition: If you would vote for someone else, I can power down the spinlasers locking onto your frontal lobe at the moment.
Interrogatory: Have you heard of lasik?
Amazon Wishlist for any secret santa hintings
Ashe Swiftclaw in Jdarksun's World's Largest Dungeon 4e Campaign
funniest character Bioware has ever made
edit: or at least tied with Minsk and Boo
Closest thing to a grudge vote I have.
Disappointment: You are not familiar with the HK-series, meatbag?
I support this one. I would really love to debate in general, and I think I am in a unique position to dispute this one.
This is structurally identical to the problem of levels of abstraction (or, as it is sometimes called, the individuation of maxims) in Kantian ethics!
That is why I specifically picked you!
Support
Between seeing Phyphor in action in the last rule game, and knowing that invictus usually lays down incredible analysis posts, i think this will be the most fun debate to watch.
No, I was unclear.
You say: "All players are treated the same, so long as they meet certain conditions."
MrT says: "But wait, we can frame almost any difference as a matter of meeting certain conditions, like here's one: 'All players that have a victory condition of outnumbering the village shall have their identities announced in narration.' "
I say: "The problem MrT has highlighted is structurally identical to a problem faced by Kantian ethics!"
The problem Kant faces is that his theory critically depends on the framing of particular rules; for example, if someone steals some bread, which of the following rules are they following?
a) Steal if it is convenient.
b) Steal if you need to in order to eat.
c) Steal if it is convenient and your hair is dyed blonde and you have a middle name with seven letters and you live in Ohio and you prayed first.
Per the rest of Kant's theory, if the thief was following a), the action was plausibly impermissible; if the thief was following b) or c), the action was plausibly permissible. What makes it the case that c) is not a legitimate framing of the rule?
So, when you were the host for the last game, and the final mafia rule was anyone who declared peace got removed etc. etc., why did you judge the way you did?
1. Lots of that stuff can be changed. I can actually do the exact same point just in terms of living at a particular address, which can obviously be changed, and still the point retains its force.
2. Why does that difference matter?
3. As a matter of fact, Kant is committed to a very thin notion of personal identity, such that the move you're trying to make is not really open to people who go in for his view.
I am not sure exactly what you mean. I am happy to answer you, once I'm a little clearer on the question, but I'm a little concerned you're importing into a particular context the broad claims I've made about the arguments around a moral theory. My reporting these arguments here ought not be understood as an endorsement of those arguments as being decisive.
EDIT for clarity.
Support only so I can teach the village something about "Game Theory".
Skyrim
GT/Twitter: Tanith 6227
Skyrim
GT/Twitter: Tanith 6227
Honestly, I think i may have done that. Carry on.
As far as the Kant stuff goes, i think the difference is that i am considering personal identity where it shouldn't really be applied. I'm sort of making the discernment as states that are reach by a player as a result of their actions or actions of others vs. conditions reached solely by what their roles are (their inherint identity, I guess). Anyways, clearly out of my league here, but it was interesting because i know so very little about the subject.
If you are in fact interested, here is a short article by Onora O'Neill, who is the best contemporary author at summarizing Kant's ethics.
It will be exceptionally difficult to effectively earn points on an increasingly elaborate proposal.
This is easier for me to spreadsheet and I don't care about other people.
Ineligible debates will not be debated.
Everyone else: zero
:P
Looks right to me!
But will an eligible debate be debated?
Lets get the madness off right.
Clarification
denied.