I spent hours in there tweaking the settings and trying to game the system. I then understood why reddit always seems so fickle and unpredictable... and was no closer to a solution of how to solve...
I spent hours in there tweaking the settings and trying to game the system. I then understood why reddit always seems so fickle and unpredictable... and was no closer to a solution of how to solve the problems. I did have a better understanding of the problems, and a headache to go with them. :P
I think what's awesome is that if you spend the time in the second half of the game it shows how particular groups trend over time. Including the auto-playing of the game for testing how a...
I think what's awesome is that if you spend the time in the second half of the game it shows how particular groups trend over time. Including the auto-playing of the game for testing how a community can change over time was a great tool for truly understanding the point being conveyed.
What impressed me was copykitten's ability to utterly dominate even from a severely disadvantaged starting point, if the rules were set up right. The lesson I take from that is tolerating mistakes...
What impressed me was copykitten's ability to utterly dominate even from a severely disadvantaged starting point, if the rules were set up right. The lesson I take from that is tolerating mistakes is a must-have feature here. Everyone has a bad day once in a while, or posts drunk. Banhammers are for serious repeat offenders only.
I agree. In fact I think one of the more powerful aspects of using simulations to communicate a point is that it helps codify your assumptions. If someone doesn't agree with the assumptions used...
I agree. In fact I think one of the more powerful aspects of using simulations to communicate a point is that it helps codify your assumptions. If someone doesn't agree with the assumptions used by the model then it's reasonably straightforward to change the model and see the result. This makes discussions much more grounded on what assumptions should or shouldn't be made rather than the endless back and forth squabbling endemic to the majority of "discussions".
Does part of the problem come with size? It seems like with a bigger community that repeat interaction will decrease. That might lead to a more toxic community because you know the person you're...
Does part of the problem come with size? It seems like with a bigger community that repeat interaction will decrease. That might lead to a more toxic community because you know the person you're flaming will probably never recognize another one of your comments.
Size definitely exacerbates the problems. Most subs on reddit under 10k subscribers are doing just fine with no moderation and barely anyone voting on anything, even if they are 6-10 years old. By...
Size definitely exacerbates the problems. Most subs on reddit under 10k subscribers are doing just fine with no moderation and barely anyone voting on anything, even if they are 6-10 years old. By the time they are at 250k, they are either a cesspool or under the thumb of a draconian mod team trying to maintain quality (which brings its own class of problems).
Does anyone know if there's a term for this kind of thing that gives insight into a thing that's really interesting but doesn't really give you anything because it's so broad and doesn't really...
Does anyone know if there's a term for this kind of thing that gives insight into a thing that's really interesting but doesn't really give you anything because it's so broad and doesn't really have any personal relevance to you other than maybe a vague way you should treat others? Maybe I'm not describing it well, but if you run into those people who are really into "big ideas" podcasts or youtube channels or whatever then you know what I mean. (I enjoy a lot of that stuff at times, not trying to shame people for it)
I guess I'm less looking for an actual word than asking if that kind of thing annoys anyone else. This one is less like that since it has direct applications if you're involved in trying to manage a community and set up the tools for letting that community manage itself like yall are, but it still gives me the vibe to some degree. Still cool and good at making its point, though.
I think the phenomenon you're describing is characteristic of many popular educational content on, say, YouTube. It often makes you feel like you are learning something, regardles of whether you...
I think the phenomenon you're describing is characteristic of many popular educational content on, say, YouTube. It often makes you feel like you are learning something, regardles of whether you are actually learning substantially. This is not to say that this is a bad thing, as the goal of making your audience feel like they have learned something may be a very good goal, but it's an interesting discussion to be had nonetheless.
I call it an abstract because it functions like one. Sort of a capsule that lets me know what people consider vital about a subject, without being enlightning about solving issues. My creative...
I call it an abstract because it functions like one. Sort of a capsule that lets me know what people consider vital about a subject, without being enlightning about solving issues. My creative writing teacher would have called it a similitude.
I don't get annoyed at them usually. It doesn't help with the topic, but it helps me understand a section of the people discussing the subject.
How about an intellectual twinkie? Seems like it is something significant, but it's just empty calories and you don't actually get the nutrients you need.
How about an intellectual twinkie? Seems like it is something significant, but it's just empty calories and you don't actually get the nutrients you need.
I think the rewards don’t match the actual rewards for a trench warfare situation. In most cases you were punished for cooperating and rewarded for cheating, at least to a mild degree and the...
I think the rewards don’t match the actual rewards for a trench warfare situation. In most cases you were punished for cooperating and rewarded for cheating, at least to a mild degree and the punishment for cooperating while the other cheated was severe (death). Every setup I made that matched what I felt a realistic reward setup ended up with all cheaters, which makes sense since millions of people died in no mans land and we only had the one short-lived truce.
This is a fantastic illustration of the problems with trust, it only takes a couple minutes to go through it with adorable animations.
I spent hours in there tweaking the settings and trying to game the system. I then understood why reddit always seems so fickle and unpredictable... and was no closer to a solution of how to solve the problems. I did have a better understanding of the problems, and a headache to go with them. :P
I think what's awesome is that if you spend the time in the second half of the game it shows how particular groups trend over time. Including the auto-playing of the game for testing how a community can change over time was a great tool for truly understanding the point being conveyed.
What impressed me was copykitten's ability to utterly dominate even from a severely disadvantaged starting point, if the rules were set up right. The lesson I take from that is tolerating mistakes is a must-have feature here. Everyone has a bad day once in a while, or posts drunk. Banhammers are for serious repeat offenders only.
This is the coolest way to show the power of simulations; looking at data is great but seeing it visualized like this = awesome.
I agree. In fact I think one of the more powerful aspects of using simulations to communicate a point is that it helps codify your assumptions. If someone doesn't agree with the assumptions used by the model then it's reasonably straightforward to change the model and see the result. This makes discussions much more grounded on what assumptions should or shouldn't be made rather than the endless back and forth squabbling endemic to the majority of "discussions".
By the time you get to the end, I think you'll see with perfect clarity what has happened to reddit over the last ten years.
Does part of the problem come with size? It seems like with a bigger community that repeat interaction will decrease. That might lead to a more toxic community because you know the person you're flaming will probably never recognize another one of your comments.
Size definitely exacerbates the problems. Most subs on reddit under 10k subscribers are doing just fine with no moderation and barely anyone voting on anything, even if they are 6-10 years old. By the time they are at 250k, they are either a cesspool or under the thumb of a draconian mod team trying to maintain quality (which brings its own class of problems).
Can confirm this up to 30k at the least. I run large subs and a small but active sub. The smaller one gives me 2 things in modq per week, maybe.
Does anyone know if there's a term for this kind of thing that gives insight into a thing that's really interesting but doesn't really give you anything because it's so broad and doesn't really have any personal relevance to you other than maybe a vague way you should treat others? Maybe I'm not describing it well, but if you run into those people who are really into "big ideas" podcasts or youtube channels or whatever then you know what I mean. (I enjoy a lot of that stuff at times, not trying to shame people for it)
I guess I'm less looking for an actual word than asking if that kind of thing annoys anyone else. This one is less like that since it has direct applications if you're involved in trying to manage a community and set up the tools for letting that community manage itself like yall are, but it still gives me the vibe to some degree. Still cool and good at making its point, though.
I think the phenomenon you're describing is characteristic of many popular educational content on, say, YouTube. It often makes you feel like you are learning something, regardles of whether you are actually learning substantially. This is not to say that this is a bad thing, as the goal of making your audience feel like they have learned something may be a very good goal, but it's an interesting discussion to be had nonetheless.
I think the phrase is "in one ear and out the other". It's learning, but not reinforced learning so you don't really remember it.
I think the word you are looking for is TEDtalk. ;)
I call it an abstract because it functions like one. Sort of a capsule that lets me know what people consider vital about a subject, without being enlightning about solving issues. My creative writing teacher would have called it a similitude.
I don't get annoyed at them usually. It doesn't help with the topic, but it helps me understand a section of the people discussing the subject.
How about an intellectual twinkie? Seems like it is something significant, but it's just empty calories and you don't actually get the nutrients you need.
I think the rewards don’t match the actual rewards for a trench warfare situation. In most cases you were punished for cooperating and rewarded for cheating, at least to a mild degree and the punishment for cooperating while the other cheated was severe (death). Every setup I made that matched what I felt a realistic reward setup ended up with all cheaters, which makes sense since millions of people died in no mans land and we only had the one short-lived truce.
Interesting in the multi-tournaments stage, #5, the always cheats crowd out the always cooperate. Seems similar to the idea of a market for lemons.
That was amazing