Annoying Questions I'd Like Answered...

[Koumei]

Bit of a leap from "breaks deals in a boardgame" to "is a murdering psychopath".

"Well, Pegasus may have stolen my grandfather's soul, but Kaiba cheated in a children's card game, and for that I can never forgive him!"

[DSMatticus]

Uh... no it isn't. Start with all bullshit evidenceless propositions that have a number on them. Then consider all of those whose number is nonrational, and every evidenceless proposition whose nonrational number is negative and every evidenceless proposition whose nonrational number is imaginary.

The situation is symmetric? Consider all bullshit EP's (evidenceless propositions) that have a number on them within theism. Then consider all of those whose number is nonrational, and every EP's whose nonrational number is negative and every EP's whose nonrational number is imaginary.

To actually do this, I think you would have to demonstrate the existence of at least one (many?) parameter with infinitely many answers which is exclusive to theism but inclusive to EP's. The fact that you can ask questions about EP's that you can't about theism, and that those questions have infinite answers, leads to theism being infinitely small by comparison. If you can ask the same question about theism and EP's, and that question has infinitely many answers, it just leads to explosion on both sides that could be proportional. Or if you can ask two equivalent but different questions about theism and EP's, it also leads to proportional changes.

Any possible subset of evidenceless propositions is by definition many orders of infinity smaller than all of them, because by declaring any fixed goalposts at all you are excluding uncountable infinities of other reams of bullshit you could be piling on instead.

This is also just not true. The problem here is pretty god damn weird, but we should probably describe it as thus:
1) There are infinitely many questions we can ask about the universe (q_0, q_1, q_2, ..., q_inf).
2) A proposition is anything which answers at least one of these questions.

We could create the subset which contains all propositions that do not answer 0 to everything; that is a subset which contains every proposition except one. That is a subset of this particular infinity which is almost exactly as large as the containing infinity. Basically; the fact that you are cutting infinity into pieces does not mean the pieces go towards being infinitely small. Cutting an infinity into thirds gives you three very, very big chunks which are 1/3rd of the total infinity; not zero.

If it is a piece of bullshit you pulled out of your ass, it is not true, and we don't have to even consider giving it a non-zero truth value unless and until you provide some fucking evidence!

How about "and we don't have to even consider its truth value unless and until there is some fucking evidence?" If answering the question either way doesn't help explain any phenomenon, at all, why is the de facto position to answer the question negatively?

If U is our model of the universe, and P is the evidenceless claim, then by the definition of being evidenceless U, U&P, and U&~P all explain our observations equally well. The only special quality of U&~P is that (like U&P) it answers one question more than is strictly necessary to be complete.

[DSMatticus]

For the record, I'd hang out with you, Kaelik, but I'd never want to play any sort of game with you. Don't take offense. I feel that way about a lot of people on TGDMB.com.

Hah. That's funny. Kaelik posted here looking for co-op Magicka players way back, and I thought the same damn thing. It was anticlimacticly calm, but then again Magicka isn't a very contentious game.

I think TGD is pretty unrepresentative of how big of an asshole difficult everyone here really is. It is a relatively unregulated (not a complaint) place where a bunch of people with... strong personalities who disagree about Important Things come to discuss shit with eachother. It's probably our worst case scenarios in terms of dickishness; interacting under any other routine circumstances pretty much has to be a step up.

[Whatever]

Cutting an infinity into thirds gives you three very, very big chunks which are 1/3rd of the total infinity; not zero.

Wat. 1/3 of infinity is exactly the same size as infinity. Take these two sets of numbers:
A) 1, 2, 3, 4, etc
B) 3, 6, 9, 12, etc

Each number in A maps to exactly one number in B, and vice versa. Thus, the two sets of numbers, though infinite, have equal cardinality. Both are countably infinite.

edit: that's true for any given infinite set that you start with. However, two infinite sets may not necessarily have the same cardinality. For example, an infinite set of real numbers is larger than an infinite set of integers.

[DSMatticus]

Cutting an infinity into thirds gives you three very, very big chunks which are 1/3rd of the total infinity; not zero.

Wat. 1/3 of infinity is exactly the same size as infinity. Take these two sets of numbers:
A) 1, 2, 3, 4, etc
B) 3, 6, 9, 12, etc

Each number in A maps to exactly one number in B, and vice versa. Thus, the two sets of numbers, though infinite, have equal cardinality. Both are countably infinite.

Okay, yeah, I said that really stupidly. That part's my bad. Let me amend; partitioning an infinite set does not immediately imply that the partitions are an infinitely small portion of that set, which you've also just shown, and that's consistent with the first part of that paragraph before I derped.

[fbmf]

For the record, I'd hang out with you, Kaelik, but I'd never want to play any sort of game with you. Don't take offense. I feel that way about a lot of people on TGDMB.com.

Hah. That's funny. Kaelik posted here looking for co-op Magicka players way back, and I thought the same damn thing. It was anticlimacticly calm, but then again Magicka isn't a very contentious game.

I think TGD is pretty unrepresentative of how big of an asshole difficult everyone here really is. It is a relatively unregulated (not a complaint) place where a bunch of people with... strong personalities who disagree about Important Things come to discuss shit with eachother. It's probably our worst case scenarios in terms of dickishness; interacting under any other routine circumstances pretty much has to be a step up.

I've said many times that there's only a handful of tgdmb regulars I wouldn't buy a beer, but I don't know of any regular here that I'd want to game with.

Game On,
fbmf

[tzor]

Cutting an infinity into thirds gives you three very, very big chunks which are 1/3rd of the total infinity; not zero.

Wat. 1/3 of infinity is exactly the same size as infinity. Take these two sets of numbers:
A) 1, 2, 3, 4, etc
B) 3, 6, 9, 12, etc

Each number in A maps to exactly one number in B, and vice versa. Thus, the two sets of numbers, though infinite, have equal cardinality. Both are countably infinite.

Sometimes I wish I didn't have DSMatticus on ignore. He actually wrote that? Oh my that really is funny. If DSMatticus can't understand the first order of infinity of rational numbers (Aleph Null) how can he ever be expected to have a conversation about the set of all irrational numbers (Aleph One).

Required Reading Road to infinity by I. Asimov.

And I get yelled at for occasionally mixing up by attributing things of Loche to Montesquieu, and this idiot can't even understand basic infinity math. MAJOR SIGH.

[Koumei]

Well, tjecking the Mind Games site, Pandemic is like $70 before applying my Arcanacard discount (I think it's like 10%). Given I have so far raised around $100 from commissions for the tablet that I no longer need to buy (my dad saw one on sale on one of those "There is a new PC-related deal every 24 hours" things and just bought it for me) this seems like an awesome idea.

And I can paint up kind-of-relevant minis for the characters (from Malifaux or whatever, that has a system that probably no-one plays, and is mainly there so people can use it to counts-as in other games or whatever), because painted minis are always awesome.

Note, this makes it one of the cheapest games there. Most of the others start at $100 and go up from there (with expansions starting at $50 and happily going to like $150 or so, and "Complete Set" boxes going past $200).

[RobbyPants]

If you don't mind playing an entirely different type of game from your initial parameters, Ticket to Ride and Seven Wonders are both a lot of fun.

TtR is quick to learn, and plays relatively quickly. After playing a couple of games, you can find some interesting tactical depth that might not be apparent on the first game.

7W is a lot of fun and plays pretty quickly once everyone knows what they're doing (20 - 30 minutes a game), but it's a pain in the ass to learn because it's so different from a lot of other games. When teaching it to others, I recommend giving a brief overview and then just playing an entire practice game. It's about the quickest way to explain everything.


Edit:
Here, at least, both are around $30.

[Kaelik]

Bit of a leap from "breaks deals in a boardgame" to "is a murdering psychopath".

I prefer to think of it as, cannot be trusted to keep word when you have nothing to gain by being a lying shit therefore cannot be trusted when you might have something to gain.

Big of you to admit that you were wrong. All good.

Kinda disappointed that merely by calling you fucking stupid a few times you basically just turn into Roy.

[Blasted]

Well, tjecking the Mind Games site, Pandemic is like $70 before applying my Arcanacard discount (I think it's like 10%).

Of course, you could get it from gamesempire.com.au, where it would be $49, including shipping.

[erik]

I too have heard nice things about 7 Wonders. Next time my friends have a board game night we'll probably be playing it I expect.

[PoliteNewb]

Bit of a leap from "breaks deals in a boardgame" to "is a murdering psychopath".

I prefer to think of it as, cannot be trusted to keep word when you have nothing to gain by being a lying shit therefore cannot be trusted when you might have something to gain.

Why not think of it as "cannot be trusted to keep word when there are no negative consequences other than someone being pissed off" and "cannot be trusted to not murder people when the punishment is death or a long time in prison, depending"?

Y'know, like a sane person would?

[tussock]

Why not think of it as "understands game theory", unlike every other sucker.

Anyone who teaches you to not trust people who have nothing to lose by screwing you over is teaching you a valuable life lesson. When they do it without hurting you in any real way, that's very nice of them.

[Neeeek]

I've said many times that there's only a handful of tgdmb regulars I wouldn't buy a beer, but I don't know of any regular here that I'd want to game with.

Game On,
fbmf

Hmm. As someone who has gamed with some of the regulars here in the past, I find that sentiment interesting. Some of the best times I've ever had while gaming were with people from here.

On the other hand, I was once asked if Frank is intimidating in real life (he isn't. He's hilarious, not scary) and really don't get why people think he's somewhat scary online.

[PhoneLobster]

About the gaming backstabbing.

Personally I prefer to keep my word in non-binding gaming contracts. I get enough of a reputation as a backstabber for OPENLY attacking targets that it is clearly in my interest to attack in a game. And trying to develop a reputation as being trustworthy seems MASSIVELY more valuable for potential profitable dealings in ALL games I play with the same people in future forever, compared to the one or two outright deal breaking back stabs before no one EVER trusts you again on even clearly mutually profitable deals. Not to mention the simple social capital you are burning there. The only games you lie in are ones where the mechanics and play themselves DEMAND that you do. Like fucking Diplomacy, which while brilliant, is also a game you should never really play with anyone you ever want to talk to again.

But, anecdotes are more fun.

I know this one guy.

So almost EVERY game of fucking Twilight Imperium I play with any sort of public gaming group this guy ends up muscling in, and if I end up ANYWHERE near this dumb jerk (and usually he sits right fucking next to me) it goes down like this. It goes down like this EVERY time...

Jerk : Oh hai neighbour. Lets be allies! You can trust me I NEVER break my deals!
Me : Sigh. OK, it's clearly highly profitable and one of the smartest moves in the game to have a long standing non-aggression treaty with a neighbor or two. Let's do this... again... sigh...
Jerk : Yay! I demand these planets next to your home system!
Me : No, that's clearly ridiculous. We break the line down this natural border here and demilitarize along it's length on both sides.
Jerk : Um, whatever you foolishly think neighbor! Treaty! Yay! I am so trust worthy!
...
Usually within the equivalent of A SINGLE TURN, MAYBE two.
...
Me : Woah woah woah. You appear to be looking at moving your ENTIRE attack fleet into the demilitarized zone. And indeed to a position within one turn of my moderately undefended home system and the entire demilitarized border along my side. (unsurprisingly). Not to mention you appear to be trying to build a production facility there for reinforcements in a position nowhere near anything but my fucking border.
Jerk : Um. No I'm not. Those pointlessly, almost dubiously, rushed Warsuns are nothing! Anyway what Demilitarized zone, I never agreed to one! I'm still keeping the peace treaty! TRUST ME!
Me : Like hell you are. If you WANT a peace treaty do NOT move your army and build a production base in THAT threatening position, if you DO the treaty is OVER and it WILL be a TWO sided war and I will lose the fucking game and bring you down with me AGAIN because you DON'T WIN THIS GAME BY GOING TO WAR.
Jerk : I don't know what you are talking about and I still want this peace treaty 100%. *Moves his entire fleet into position on my seemingly undefended border*
Me : That's it. This is war. *Use the resources and actions he didn't seem to realize I had left to build a vast defensive fleet, crush his main attack fleet because he ALWAYS rushes fucking warsuns instead of having balanced forces/techs, but do so with great casualties, because he always moves his ENTIRE empire onto MY border.
Jerk : LOOK HE BROKE THE TREATY AND ATTACKED ME FOR NO REASON!
Me : What treaty? You openly performed an act of aggression that broke the agreed treaty with a military build up on my border.
Jerk : THAT'S WHAT HITLER SAID HUR HUR HuR.
Me : Oh Really? ... sigh...

War ensues. We both get nowhere on victory points and lose, while I usually slowly but expensively crush his stupid empire (largely based on whether I have a viable war race) right up until other players clean up our feuding ragged asses.

... later ... every ... time ...

Jerk: But can't you see it was INEVITABLE that I HAD to attack you, because of the board geography! (indicates he was in fact right next to me. Ignores fact he was next to other players and the INTENDED to be hotly contested board center he never goes near).
Me: This is like the THIRD game running of this that you CHOSE to sit next to me, much to my annoyance.
Jerk : But it's all part of my master strategy to win by sitting next to a weak player!
Me : You have NEVER fought my empire and won in this game, you have NEVER fought my empire and even come close! Why would you choose to do this again and again?
Jerk : ... I don't know ...
...


...
Another bit of story. I hopped into a Twilight Imperium game with a friend and some strangers somewhere the other day to replace a new guy who walked. Think "Awesome a game without Jerk man, I can actually play like I'm actually competing for victory!". 5 minutes in the jerk walks in... he is the missing player to my right that spends the whole (already fucking long) game assing about delaying things to fuck off and talk to other people and crap... usual story ensues... Fuuuuuuuuuuuuuu...

PS. AND he did that when I had like the best battle race in the game and he didn't stand a chance... I mean double Fuuuuu.....

... PS... Jerk man? The GM from the 2nd Edition is our Favorite Edition thread. Yes the "I can assure you out of game there is NO orcish army over the hill!" guy. That Guy. The one with the hundreds of unusually disciplined orcs with crossbows behind the hill. That guy.

Real pleasure to game with he is.

Damn you local gaming community!

[fbmf]

I've said many times that there's only a handful of tgdmb regulars I wouldn't buy a beer, but I don't know of any regular here that I'd want to game with.

Game On,
fbmf

Hmm. As someone who has gamed with some of the regulars here in the past, I find that sentiment interesting. Some of the best times I've ever had while gaming were with people from here.

Frank chronicled our second meeting here:

http://tgdmb.com/viewtopic.php?p=44267

On the other hand, I was once asked if Frank is intimidating in real life (he isn't. He's hilarious, not scary) and really don't get why people think he's somewhat scary online.

I agree.

Game On,
fbmf

[fbmf]

Kinda disappointed that merely by calling you fucking stupid a few times you basically just turn into Roy.

Do I have to start typing in all lower case now? Or was that Psychic Robot?

Seriously: Kaelik, are you ever going to let this go? It revolves around a game that, where you and I ever to game, would most likely not be on the list of options. It's over, dude.

Game On,
fbmf

[RobbyPants]

Me: This is like the THIRD game running of this that you CHOSE to sit next to me, much to my annoyance.
Jerk : But it's all part of my master strategy to win by sitting next to a weak player!
Me : You have NEVER fought my empire and won in this game, you have NEVER fought my empire and even come close! Why would you choose to do this again and again?
Jerk : ... I don't know ...

Out of curiosity, why did you continue making treaties with him? I can see doing it the second time, because maybe he learned his lesson, but you think it would just be easiest not to trust him at all.

[PhoneLobster]

Out of curiosity, why did you continue making treaties with him?

There is usually absolutely no cost in making the treaty. And I NEVER trust him.

I don't WANT to attack anyone early, or usually even MID game in Twilight. I would rather just build up cold war style and take neutral planets and meet the easier victory conditions. That's how you start out on the path to victory in that game.

Actually turning around and fighting him from turn 1 would be the more costly and stupid thing anyway... and what he rapidly turns things into for no reason anyway... AVOIDING that in any way for any number of turns would be great...

[virgil]

Damn you local gaming community!

That reminds me, I *really* need to find the local gaming community around here. I don't want to have to drive an hour into Dallas to find one, but there's a painful lack of gaming stores out here in East Texas.

[Prak]

So, in thinking about "Fantasy cultures and creatures are the way they are because they require X in their diet" and applying that to dwarves, I'm curious.

What, precisely, does alcohol do to the body, why is it toxic, and what could plausibly be the outcome of a biology that actually required alcohol in it's diet?

[sabs]

This is really a question for Frank.
http://www.oregoncounseling.org/Article ... HBIOFx.htm
seems to be a decent resource

Here's the little I know, please take with 7 grains of salt, and a dash of tabasco.

It is a depressant, the effects the parts of the brain that control judgment. It slows down brain activity. It sludges the blood, and causes anemia. It reduces the production of red and white blood cells. Increases stomach acid. Causes slugish heart. Under productiion of hormones. Prolongued use supposedly increases the production of estrogen.

That's pretty crazy.
If you required alcohol in your diet, my first blush would be that you're super-hyper without it. Out of control brain activity, heart rate, but maybe issues with digesting food.

[Prak]

Er, I guess my question is really "why does it have those effects?" What's it doing to cause them?

However, on a funny note, the production of estrogen being increased means that as Dwarves get older, whether they're traditional "we drink because we drink" or "We drink because our bodies require alcohol" would start losing body hair as they get older, wouldn't they? So.... beardless dwarves....

[sabs]

and developing breasts