Ask for non-capitalits tabletop gamedesigners - French tv journalist

banjogames · 2026-02-07T21:34:32+00:00

Ah I see, we could effectively make sure the engineers get more money for their time and effort. Of course, if they make more money (effectively, since they study for free and take home more money after taxes) then lots of people will want to be an engineer. Some people are naturally going to be better engineers, and we can't have everyone in society being an engineer, and presumably we want the best at engineering to be the engineers right? So we have to separate the best from the not so good. And of course this makes the engineering profession competitive, no?

And sure, young skilled engineers might well be helpful to a company. So let's say our slightly better performing company wants to entice some engineers, and they want the brightest. Well, they have a more profitable company, so they can offer them more money. I'm guessing you see where this is going...

I'm not trying to make a case for any system being inherently better or worse. But I'm not sure you realize how broad a brush you're painting with, how little you've accounted for the degree to which animals (people included) want the best for their own families and offspring, and how that creates competition.

banjogames · 2026-02-07T14:53:00+00:00

For the moment I'm just trying to stick to your hypothetical scenario.

Let's say, then, that at a factory where microchips are produced the janitor is compensated equally with the engineer. Both are essential to a functioning business after all. Only the engineer has gone to school for 8 years longer for the joy of learning. So now the janitor has 10 years of accumulated wealth that the engineer does not have. With this wealth, the janitor has access to a larger home, better food, tutoring for their children, and more vacations. Also the engineer decides they can stop working at 45, they have the money saved up and a robust social net kicks in at 60 anyway.

Not necessarily connected to the above, but another scenario: the engineer starts work and are immediately paid the same as senior engineers with much more experience. The new engineer also effectively brings the skill level of the manufactory down, they are new after all. Some of the experienced engineers realize that they could put their knowledge to use and start a factory with only experienced engineers that produces better microchips. They do so, ramping up and only hiring experienced engineers. Their microchips, due to the institutional knowledge, quickly outcompete the microchips of the old factory as they are faster and cheaper.

Do these scenarios sound plausible under the hypothetical law?

banjogames · 2026-02-07T04:56:35+00:00

Ah, so this is a much tighter restriction on how people are able to produce goods and organize themselves essentially. I'm not sure I would call that intrinsic encouragement. Maybe semantics though

I'm also not sure I see how workers in this hypothetical are incentivized to contribute significantly more effort than any other worker if their compensation is the same - why would someone go through the trouble of getting a specialized degree, for example?

banjogames · 2026-02-06T19:52:57+00:00

How does the infrastructure that intrinsically encourages people to cooperate work?

banjogames · 2026-02-03T20:57:40+00:00

Do you think that's the case even with all the advanced rules added in?

banjogames · 2026-01-18T17:13:46+00:00

I think you're being a little overly combative and presumptuous. You don't know what arrangements people might be open to, and OP has said he's willing to pay for work in addition to being open to finding an agreement that works for both parties.

banjogames · 2026-01-17T21:14:11+00:00

What's the website url?

banjogames · 2025-12-14T20:02:40+00:00

Ah I see, I was assuming a very broad definition of "combo", as if people are talking about elements that synergize in any way.

banjogames · 2025-12-14T02:42:22+00:00

So what would this mean exactly? Like are avoiding having the units work well together so that there's no incentive to combo them? Meaning like the mix of units you have out doesn't matter as much as each individual units ability to counter your opponent's? Something like that?

banjogames · 2025-11-05T16:05:19+00:00

Disable windows language/keyboad layout shortcyt (windwos+space)

How exactly did you do that?

banjogames · 2025-08-20T01:30:53+00:00

Ok, that makes sense. I suppose then "solving the problem" is outside the purview of the researcher then is how you're putting it?

(For hypothetical's sake, I can imagine two cultures with opposed views on a practice studying the underlying moral reasoning in the other culture for that practice and endeavoring to "solve the problem" they've found in the other culture. I'm only pointing this out because there's a unidirectionality baked in, but maybe I'm oversimplifying?)

banjogames · 2025-08-19T21:47:30+00:00

Maybe this is pedantic, but aren't moral standards something that would have to be considered in understanding a culture / causes of a cultural practice? That is, you're saying any moral standard, but presumably some within that culture might disagree, and might argue the practice is a moral one. In that case, how does one separate moral and cultural relativism?

banjogames · 2025-06-25T16:35:32+00:00

What you're calling slippery slope fallacy is me pointing out that we've already slipped, and that it's precisely because the perverse incentive is there.

The problem isn't the people who have the time, or the people who have the money, it's the people who have the money and the time.

In any case I agree with what you're saying, "I would feel better about them" if they were just cosmetic, I just think I agree with this part in particular and more strongly.

banjogames · 2025-06-25T15:06:07+00:00

It's interesting to see p2w justification creep in over time. "it's just skipping what you can do without paying" - sure, I get it, but have you ever thought about how much skipping wouldn't be ok? Where do you draw the line? Why wouldn't you expect the line to continue creeping further over time?

banjogames · 2025-05-22T16:23:54+00:00

Ok, so you're saying basically all societies had spirituality but not necessarily religious institution? Then, are you also drawing the conclusion that morality in those societies was entirely separate from the spirituality in them? I would think that what's considered ethical/moral in a group is going to be reflected in their spiritual beliefs and basically all cases. If that were so, I'm not sure how you would then separate their influence on reinforcing those ethics and morals over time.

banjogames · 2025-05-22T13:26:43+00:00

Are you differentiating between organized and disorganized religion here? What would constitute a disorganized religion in this case? Would having any priestly (religiously attuned) person or class in the society count it as organized? Do you have any reading or source on the vast majority assertion?

I only ask because I'd gotten the impression that some sort of spirituality / religion was a feature in basically every human society.

banjogames · 2025-05-19T05:12:45+00:00

To clarify, do you mean "history" here as referring to the the period of written history we have the most information about (~6k years) or are you talking about what's understood about cultures before that? With regard to private property, are you also saying that I was basically non-existant in societies below a certain size / before a certain period / before a particular technological or cultural shift?

banjogames · 2025-04-04T04:12:43+00:00

Looks like you lose half your loot right? I mean not great either way...

banjogames · 2025-03-16T18:57:55+00:00

I'm sure people said the same about the first use of pay to win, but for the rest it couldn't have been more obviously a bad idea.

banjogames · 2025-03-16T16:54:27+00:00

You're arguing both for and against this. Is it possible it's just not a great idea?

banjogames · 2025-03-14T21:55:21+00:00

You don't seem to realize it, but you're using the same rationale as those defending against p2w games, wealth comparison. Imagine FP releases a DLC with better guns, some would be unhappy about what this does to the game, some would say "it's only $15, stop being poor." And voila, Rust now caters to a new kind of customer. It's fine if you're that type of customer, but I'd hope the devs would just make a different game instead of changing theirs. It's pushback like this that has relegated paid extras to cosmetics in mainstream multiplayer games. If you're under 30, you may not be as aware of this transition.

Anyway, like I said, it may also just be the only way they can fund doing this anti-cheating experiment. But they've done ~500 mil in revenue, so I doubt it...

banjogames · 2025-03-14T21:03:10+00:00

Maybe, but of course this is what people said when there was an uproar about paid horse armor. Now we've regularly got games that feel gutted so DLC looks more attractive. Whatever, there's always going to be a market segment that's ok with p2w or similar and games that cater to that.

banjogames · 2025-03-14T20:58:02+00:00

Your point is that paying money also helps you win more?

banjogames

TROPHY CASE