Forum
So is this is how it really works?
|
woodcubed wrote
at 5:17 AM, Sunday February 27, 2011 EST
I just read the post by Fiero600. Suffice it to say I find it most revealing. Not the part about people abusing moderator status... not the pga crap at higher level tables... not any of that. I knew all of that. Now, for me, I am a casual player, I have never placed, I have my share of people who say they hate me but probably don't remember me. Really I am just mediocre at this game I figured. Yes, I have had a kdice account, the same and only account since I first signed up for this game in its first year, and I have maybe once gotten to the 5,000 tables Honestly i only try to get points so I can escape the zero tables and for really no other reason. So what is this post about? I will tell you.
Fiero600 says in his goodbye post that the luck for an individual player is affected by whether you have an account. If this is true, I need to think long and hard about whether I should even bother playing. This whole post is a response to this idea, and if it is not true that luck is a manipulated figure, please disabuse me of the notion. I don't spend any time usually in this forum so I would not know if this had come up before. You see I had thought luck was simply an accounting of how you did, not a variable in the equation itself. Do you know how much stress it causes me, and to other players I am sure, to lose and lose and lose even when I darn well better know the strategy by now? How I will lose, on my first turn, every single attack, even 5v2, and be killed off instantly before the game has even begun? And this is not to say that can''t happen, but seriously. I always figured there was some random number generator somewhere combined with my own mistakes but if there is a thumb on the scale then is there is no point to any of my effort is there? And do I even want to pay to get an advantage over other players that would amount to cheating? In most games with paid perks, you get some magic armor, or a points boost, or another helping hand. But if it is true that paid subscribers get BETTER LUCK or heck even just a privileged few, than what you are telling me is more equivalent to paying not for a stat boost but instead to paying someone to give your opponents a handicap. I play this game because i figured it was a game of strategy mixed with luck and a way to procrastinate occasionally. But apparently it is a game of fixed statistics and politics. I don't care what goes on at the top of the leader boards. I don't care how rampant the cheating is up in the clouds, and I don't give a crap about point boosts for people who pay for them (because they paid so they should get what is advertised). The only thing i care about, or rather, the only thing i get worked up about, is a basic fairness that comes from true random probability. And if there isn't that one thing, that one most essential component to a game about and centered on the rolling of DICE, then there is no point to any of this, you have causing me small bursts of massive stress for the last 5 YEARS, and I think that anyone who would implement such a system of punishment is a lousy sadist, and ought to be ashamed as a maker of games. If this is true. And please, tell me I am wrong, if i am, because part of me right now sitting here, writing this wants this not to be true, does not wish to believe that i have spent 5 YEARS as the pawn of a sadistic PLOT to provide entertainment for, as fiero600 again so kindly reveals, a "cabal" of special people. This is not about me though, this is about ALL of the people who come to this site and play a game or two for free in their downtime, or have been doing so with some frequency and wonder occasionally how they could lose so badly, or so quickly, or why the same people always seem to breeze through games unscathed. The very people Fiero mentions, whom I have played with many times having been here as long as I have. So I guess we are nearing the end of my rant. I don't tend to write long whiny rants, but I just want to know, Ryan, or moderators, or whomever is in charge: Are you punishing me? Are you causing me suffering? Are you cheating us at a fundamental level? This has always been a timewaster for me (in an ok way) but are you wasting my time? I just want to be honestly unlucky- or nothing at all. |
|
dasfury wrote
at 8:52 AM, Wednesday March 2, 2011 EST Actually Alan's #3 echos other posts in this thread.
Thrax makes a great point Veta. Your ideals are all well and good, but seem to be too heavily based on theory and less on the results of generations. |
|
|
dasfury wrote
at 9:00 AM, Wednesday March 2, 2011 EST forgot to include:
Some of the unfortuante that are presnted with the opportunites do turn them into success, yet the vast majority that have the same chance let it slip away. The recent documentary Waiting for Superman shows the sad truth about public education in this country. And yes, the shortcomings are to blame on both the system and those populating the system. But there are those few that found success and even fewer that have made it their goal to create their own system (charter schools) apart from the norm that actually works. |
|
Boner Oiler wrote
at 9:34 AM, Wednesday March 2, 2011 EST Thanks for input das. As someone who experienced both private school and public school I hope you'll take my opinion for what it's worth. Public schools in Texas (even the best public schools) are terrible. Private schools range the gamut from indoctrination schools (like most protestant private schools) to secular nonprofits trying to prepare students for the real world. I went to neither, I went to a private Catholic school. And I have to admit, aside from the four years of theology, I probably got the best high school education of my friends in college.
That being said, I think charter schools are a great idea and I think that citizens should be given the option of what schools their tax money goes to. We (the United States) actually used to allow citizens to choose what schools our taxes went to but this was abolished by protestant politicians trying to undermine Catholic schools. Ironically a lot of protestants want to also undo this law today because it undermines their own schools. Canada still does this by the way, you're allowed to choose whether your money goes to a charter school or a public school there. Anyway, as far as my ideals being based off of literature and not reality I would beg to differ. My favorite President is probably FDR and the reason is, he shares most if not all of the ideals I have for society on a macroscopic level. Arguably the reason the governments of western europe (and japan and taiwan) are so socially democratic today is because of the constitutions FDR's cabinet helped their denizens draw up after WWII. So you see countries like Belgium, Italy, Germany, Austria, etc with universal health care and free education. Unfortunately FDR died before his time and these policies were never enacted into law here in our own country. I have a documentary somewhere going over this very subject if anyone cares to watch it, it's pretty informative. Anyway, most of my ideas and definitely anything I have brought up on KDice is not radical in any sense. There are literally more countries doing things the way I suggest (health care, educations, etc) than the way they are here in the US. That is to say, they are tried and proven, and that is why I respectfully disagree with you Das and Thraxle. Now the notion that the US is too different or unique from the rest of the world is a discussion I might entertain another day, but for now I'd just like to reiterate: everything I have suggested here is most definitely tried and proven. |
|
|
dasfury wrote
at 11:07 AM, Wednesday March 2, 2011 EST I never said that your ideas were radical. Nor did I mention any basis on literature. I too have much respect for the ideals of FDR. I too had the benefit of a parochial education (catholic elementary school). I too believe that a public school education needs to be founded on a common ground so that no matter where a student enrolls they encounter the same opportunities presented elsewhere. But when you learn that public schools are free to operate on their own agenda with separate goals (i.e. ?tracking? students for certain career paths ? Kehoe, you get the math classes to be an engineer, Meagles, you get science to be a doctor, trendz you get art to be a hippie) you quickly learn that this is not the case.
Public Schools attempt to provide opportunities to all who attend. The opportunities provided to students vary from region to region, state to state, county to county, district to district, neighborhood to neighborhood and block to block. Sadly, because of the inner workings of state and local bureaucracy and teachers unions reforming the public school systems to provide ?equal? opportunities to all is not feasible in practice while it may be in theory. The ideas you preach are based on a theory that does not apply to the scale of public education in the US nor does it account for human nature or societal effects. I agree with Thraxle's point about people not accepting the help/opportunity/challenges they are given is the major detractor when applying the theory. You need to recognize the human factor in the application of a broad theory. I think this is the realization that you are reluctant to acknowledge. In fact, charter schools are a specific example of one in action that is achieving positive results. There just isn't enough room for all the applicants and they must resort to a LOTTERY to accept students. And there is much evidence supporting the truth that even with when provided the opportunity to excel students are held back by an inefficient system or even a societal influence to reject school by the high school age. It would be ideal if every individual is given an equal opportunity to succeed. In practice not everyone is as receptive as the theory suggests. Yet we know this is possible on a certain scale thanks to those who want to change the system and have given us a few charter institutions. |
|
|
Boner Oiler wrote
at 12:13 PM, Wednesday March 2, 2011 EST "Your ideals are all well and good, but seem to be too heavily based on theory and less on the results of generations."
I took the assumptive step that you meant literature when you said theory, as opposed to real life. I know you didn't say anything about any particular works. Anyway, I don't think anyone can deny it's impossible to afford everyone equal opportunities. That being said, I feel like it should be our duty as a society to try. Ultimately it is our society who benefits because these people who actually made something of their opportunities (which they might otherwise not have had) could be our next Einsteins, Picassos, and Andrew Jacksons. I definitely realize there are A LOT of people who are not going to end up accomplishing anything regardless of their opportunities, I know a lot of the people that would benefit from more opportunities got in the positions they are in because they squandered other opportunities. That being said, I think someone that does their best and excels should definitely be afforded a free educations, so long as they continue to strive for excellence. I also think someone that is working regularly and pays taxes should be afforded free health care when they are unable to work. These are notions that wouldn't hamper society, they couldn't be abused, they are systems that would only progress the moral fiber of our society and the United States as a whole. And honestly if we can afford to do it, universal health care is something almost every belief system obliges, Christians and otherwise alike. So there, that's what attracts me to these ideas. Also I pretty much agree with you 100% about schools. |
|
|
Boner Oiler wrote
at 2:15 PM, Wednesday March 2, 2011 EST Here's my problem by the way: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:United_States_Income_Distribution_1947-2007.svg
As you can see the gap between the richest 5% and the rest of the country started growing in 1970 (Nixon) and exploded after the deregulation of the 1980s (Reagan). I'm going to go out on a limb here but I don't think the richest 5% have suddenly started working twice as much as they did 30 years ago. Unfortunately I couldn't find a decent/comprehensive graph depicting the top 1% too, but it suffices to say this trend is even more disparate. Here's a graph demonstrating the fluctuations in the percentage of total household income of the entire country held by the top 1%: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Share_top_1%25.jpg The top 1% rakes in about 17% of the entire nation's income. Pretty awesome... if you're already rich. This graph by the way neglects to mention total national net worth, of which the top 1% own 35%. That is to say the bottom 99% of our nation (income wise) hold only 65% of the entire nation's wealth. To put that into perspective, this is about the same ratio that Mexico has. Correcting this disparity is an integral part of producing lasting prosperity in our nation. Anyway, I think Warren Buffet said it best, "it's class warfare and my class won." This is somewhat tangential but, another thing I have a problem with was the Reagan administration's removal of The Fairness Doctrine. Which required news broadcasters to tell the objective truth. Canada has something similar still in law and it's the reason there is no Fox News equivalent in Canada to this day. Although a concerted effort to remove this law has sprung up there recently apparently. Read about The Fairness Doctrine here: http://www.commondreams.org/views05/0212-03.htm |
|
|
Boner Oiler wrote
at 2:19 PM, Wednesday March 2, 2011 EST This is the graph I wanted to post originally, unfortunately it doesn't show the top 20% but I guess you get the point.
http://www.u.arizona.edu/~lkenwor/inequalitygraph.pdf |
|
Prince Of Persia wrote
at 2:48 PM, Wednesday March 2, 2011 EST g'damn son you love the hell outta some wikipedia
|
|
skrumgaer wrote
at 4:23 PM, Wednesday March 2, 2011 EST Here in the U.S. we have 50 laboratories in which we can try various types of health care, education, etc. and see which ones work.
The problem with trying to do stuff like this at the federal level is that the federal government's powers are enumerated. We have more income now than when the Constitution was framed and we have technologies and information systems that the Framers may not have dreamed of. But human nature is the same. The Federal government had limits placed on its power so that it would not encroach too much on the states. Public health, safety, morals, and education are traditionally state issues. Let the states do it. Most states have populations as big as those of small European countries, so if Austria can do it, Massachusetts can do it. |
|
|
Boner Oiler wrote
at 5:05 PM, Wednesday March 2, 2011 EST "Here in the U.S. we have 50 laboratories in which we can try various types of health care, education, etc. and see which ones work."
I don't think this is the issue. We know what works (universal health care) it's just a matter of getting past the health care cartel (drug industry, health industry, insurance industry). "The problem with trying to do stuff like this at the federal level is that the federal government's powers are enumerated." Being well versed in American history I can tell you this is no way a problem. There is nothing in the constitution about policing what people put in their bodies yet we have very much policed a variety of psychotropic substances. The federal government even forced the States the uniformly raise the drinking age to 21. So no I respectfully disagree, the law is very interpretable even if this were the issue at hand. "The Federal government had limits placed on its power so that it would not encroach too much on the states." No. The federal government was limited because of disintegrated interests among the States themselves. Nobody wanted to cede control of anything despite it possibly being for the greater good. The sort of thing happens all the time. Anyway the founding fathers managed to be vague enough that the federal government became what Hamilton envisioned after all. Let me reiterate, the vagueness of the constitution was NOT a mistake. The language of the constitution was very chosen so that it could be interpreted in a variety of ways and it is very much the legacy of the federalists today. "Public health, safety, morals, and education are traditionally state issues. Let the states do it. Most states have populations as big as those of small European countries, so if Austria can do it, Massachusetts can do it." I would love for this to be plausible. But as anyone who researches the subject discovers -- many states are not self sustaining. In fact most agricultural states require subsidies to make ends meet (float their budgets). So even if we discovered a system that worked perfectly for the very diverse and unique social climate of the United States it would still be up to the federal government to front the bill in many states. So yes, it is probably in the nation's best interest if it reforms the health care system. But thank you for regurgitating those talking points. |