I've been gaming as long as TNP.
I never understood why people wanted the Unfindable flag unless they wanted to hide from a player that was harassing them. And if that's the case, the proper method to address this is to go staff. And if they don't do shit, you're playing on the wrong game.
I find it delightfully appropriate that the above conversation is in the topic "RL things I love."
@ThatGuyThere said:
I dislike the unfindable flag on principle but I use it, because it might just be a few bad apple but boy are they bad.
That's actually a good argument for disabling it. It helps you locate bad apples. It's much better to learn of them this way than after you've inextricably linked your PC to them.
@Luna said:
Basically just knowing that I used to be an oWoD changeling wiz says it all.
That'll do it. With us, if we use the phrase "don't believe me -- just watch," something horrifying will happen.
Some people learn. People like me merely confirm their suspicions.
@VulgarKitten said:
At this point I've got enough on my plate with RL schoolwork to go pulling up more links for you.
Dear God, don't. Fishing for relevant economic papers is more fiendish than case precedents on the doctrine of exhaustion of administrative remedies. You've jogged my interest in economics again, for which I and my hardly-used graduate degree thank you.
@VulgarKitten said:
Population growth isn't a cure-all, but in the present economic situation it's likely to make the resolution of a range of problems much easier.
For Japan, maybe. For the United States, I doubt it. Last time I checked, the majority of theorists believe that there will be a huge economic problem in the near future as the baby-boomers become decrepit, productivity per capita drops, and we suffer another recession.
However, here's where I (and my research) differ from the converse school of thought: Kremer and other more recent theorists (Galor and Weil, Sorel) have stated and empirically confirmed that larger population is associated with higher population growth rates and faster technological development. Technological development, then, becomes a consequence of population growth, leads to an increase in labor productivity, per capita income and improvements in living conditions, and increased capitalism.
I can concede that larger populations will, by and large, have higher population growth rates and enjoy greater technological development, but I'm not willing to concede a reversal of causation, as suggested by your second comment.
Regarding Galor and Weil, this this paper by Lagerlof confirms my original criticism. In it, the author hypothesized:
"We also show that these cycles are not an artifact of the two-period life setting: allowing adults to live on after the second period of life with some probability does not make the oscillations go away. Rather, the cycles are driven by fertility being proportional to per capita income minus the parental subsistence requirement. When population is large, and per-capita incomes close to subsistence, fertility is therefore sensitive to changes in population levels."
This suggests that fertility -- or population growth -- is sensitive to the difference between per-capita income and subsistence income. Further, per-capital income flatten to subsistence as overall production reaches its demand-based limit. So, I'm not seeing population growth as a good thing at all, or that the relationships are more than observational.
That said, I don't intuitively see where population growth any causal connection to technological growth. My understanding is that technological growth is tied directly to investment into education and research. Larger populations tend to have the public income necessary to fund technological growth, but I don't think the population factor has a direct relation.
As for Japan, its country faces somewhat unique circumstances. It's difficult to suggest that any "traditional" or "general" fix would apply to it.
@BetterJudgment said:
However, for population growth and capitalism, I'd use someone far more current and with some quantitative chops.
That sums up my response.
This isn't to say that population growth is a facet of the growth of a capitalist economy, but it presumes a great number of things. There's a reason why Adam Smith didn't consider it in his original writings, and why Malthus' writings have been consistently opposed and proved incorrect.
Since you clearly have an understanding of economics, consider the following. What is the effect of technology and distribution on an population-growth-to-resources model? Modern theorists are demonstrating that distribution and the acceleration of production through technology are far greater influences on post-industrial economies than population growth. Hence, the focus of modern economic policies has been to address distribution and technology issues.
Capital growth is a more important indicator of economic success than labor alone. Capital growth is best predicted by wealth distribution in a population, as well as competition.
So, I politely disagree. But your sources are interesting.
@VulgarKitten said:
I disagree. Overpopulation is bad for a capitalist economy. Population growth itself is necessary for a capitalist economy.
No, it's not.
Overpopulation is a result, as scarcity is a provable presumption. Population growth is not a necessity.
I internet-challenge you to point to a credible study that says otherwise.
@VulgarKitten said:
People with children 'grow' the economy (or at least the capitalist economy) better than those who don't, because they're supplying the future cheap labor.
That's actually incorrect. Population growth is actually bad for a capitalist economy, especially if technology is not improving (it's not).
For those who object to how TANF altered the nature of social welfare, we can all thank Bill Clinton and his Congressional Republican blackmailers.
@Misadventure said:
Peeve: Friend gets married. Friend buys house with no support from spouse. Spouse is same seniority in same field with same pay. They divorce. House is underwater. Spouse wants to sell house to be given money.
Marriages are like partnerships. If you invest everything, be prepared for your partner to abscond with at least half on a whim.
@Tempest said:
I will admit this may be a flaw on my part, but personally, I'm always leery of random 'I will run stuff!' things from people (players on the game, not staff) I don't know/haven't played with before, because you have no idea what you are possibly jumping into. I imagine that might be the reason for a low level of reaction.
This is why I put up the IDs of my old and current alts, and my MUSoapbox name with my post. To get further back into history, I staffed as Inferno @ St. Pete's, Wagner @ HM, Zealot @ Denver By Night, and CyberSix @ Due Rewards.
Without sounding too parental, if you don't give it a shot, then you'll never know. If only one person shows up, I've done my part, and I will make that person's time as fun as I can.
@Thenomain said:
You might disagree, but if you read the OP threads on these you'll find out that I'm not alone in reading it this way.
I don't agree with your interpretation or the interpretation of others, but I do concur that the new system seems to rein in the creative-freedom that existed in C:tL 1e.
@VulgarKitten said:
The law is one thing, and reality is another. I get this. I've been there with the ex and the kidlet. I'm sorry you have to be in this situation. You don't deserve it.
That's actually why I dislike this area of the law. Because it's divorced from reality, and not in an ironic way.
RfK's political system fits the vampire game, and it generates its own RP to a certain extent. Even if nothing's apparently happening, a PC can modify their territory, or another's, or get favors to be used later, and so on. There's something to do because the mechanics for generating your own reasons to RP with others exist.
Contrast this with most other games, and you simply must have players or staff generating that activity. This can be done many ways, such as: (1) asking to RP with others; (2) inviting others to RP with you and/or others; (3) forming social groups; (4) running plots; (5) participating in plots; (6) acting on bits of IC information given to you; and (7) referring people IC or OOC to other people that can assist them or RP with them.
I did not try as hard as I could on Reno to do this. For about a week, every time I came on, I loudly announced I would run things or RP with people. Startlingly few took that invitation.
So, I am doing something similar on Eldritch, and threw out the ID of some of my old and current alts, and my handle here. My hope is that I can get some activity going. But when the overwhelming majority of players are loitering in OOC areas, history tells me that they are of a passive nature when it comes to RP.
@Roz said:
There's also a problem with not being able to listen to someone's venting without trying to solve it.
I don't solve other people's problems unless I'm paid to do it. What I do is think of solutions to problems. What I'm being asked to do is to sit there, listen, and not be myself, which is a problem-solver.
The other thing I do when people vent at me is to laugh at them. Laughter is my mechanism of coping with an uncomfortable situation. What I'm uncomfortable with is knowing that, no matter what I say or how plausible or feasible my solutions may or may not be, you are unlikely to take that advice.
When it comes to relationships, my usual response is: "the common denominator of your shitty relationships is you." And then I laugh. And if the other person doesn't laugh, chances are we're not friends and never were.
@Luna said:
I have to be up in 3 hours to drive across town and back to take my kid to her dads because he's too lazy to come get her for his weekend and I have a dentist appointment. At 8 am.
Around here, if you're the custodial parent, the non-custodial has to get the children. Your only duty is to make sure they are available and ready to go.
Did I ever mention that I fucking hate domestic relations law? Frankly, I'd be happy if every marriage or custody issue ended in a duel to the death. With paper.
@VulgarKitten said:
Thank you for your brilliant observation and critique about how to fix my mental issues, and for your dismissive, superior attitude.
The converse: if you don't believe that my advice will help fix your issues, then please avoid telling me as I'm conditioned to suggest solutions when people bring problems.
Not accusing you of foisting your problems on others, but I work in a field where people do this. And then, they don't listen to me or others when we're really trying to help them.
@Royal said:
I should probably play that game sometime. I hear good things.
My opinion is personal, but, based on my personal experience, I can say with no hyperbole that the story in The Last of Us is the best I've ever played through. Ever.
If you don't mind a little spoiling, watch this. Then go play through it.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_SZraQWjMdY
(Disclaimer: my obsession with this game is well-documented; however, if you're going to be obsessed with a game, it should be worthwhile (as opposed to fucking FF7).)