One Hour One Life Forums

Here's mine for the year:

==========================================
Date 2019_01_01 - 2019_04_01
==========================================

------------------------------------------
firstEntry: Wed, 02 Jan 2019 06:13:34 GMT
lastEntry: Sat, 16 Mar 2019 14:16:13 GMT
------------------------------------------
births: 1088
deaths: 1088
timeAlive: 9d 15h 57m 
males: 409
females: 679
males/females: 0.60
------------------------------------------
avg. death age: 37.65
Death by oldAge: 152 -> 41.87%
Death by hunger: 135 -> 37.19%
Death by killer: 10 -> 2.75%
Death by disconnect: 66 -> 18.18%
------------------------------------------
ignoredUnderAgeDeaths: 447
ignoredEveDeaths: 278
timeAliveIgnored: 6h 57m 
------------------------------------------
born as eve: 290 -> 26.65%
avg. generation born into: 8.22
longest generation born into: 73
------------------------------------------
kids: 821
kids per female life: 4.15
avg. kid lifespan: 14.26
grandkids: 586
grandkids per female life: 2.96
------------------------------------------
kills: 3 -> 0.83%
avg. victim age: 32.99
victim female probability: 100.00%
==========================================

Thanks for the ignored Eve deaths suggestion, as you can see almost the totality of my Eve lives were ignored.
I sometimes do play in Eve camps as gen 1/2, but I never bother to try Eve runs as searching for a good spot would most likely be a terribly boring task to me.

Though I wonder, what does death by disconnects include?
Is it sudden infant death? Or actual network timeouts?
And does it also include the use of the old """exploit""" in Awbz's client?

Anyways, this is all very interesting.
I noticed how some people including me are pickier than others.
I have 6 hours of ignored playtime, that's enormous! That's all time I literally wasted. 6 hours just watching my screen for nothing.
I saw karltown also has 7 hours and Tarr 10.

I think it'd be interesting to also try to calculate how picky different people are.
Maybe you could have a total ignored death count and have a percentage given the total number of deaths next to that.
A percentage of lives that were actually taken seriously/were most likely actually productive.

Though it might be overshadowed by careless moms simply letting you starve.
Unless it's possible to make the difference with sudden infant deaths.

Personally I have always enjoyed the anonymity in this game.
That's why I didn't share any of my lineages in this thread and intend to use the tool on my own, privately.

I definitely think people shouldn't be able to find all your previous lives (and make states about you without even needing to ask you) simply because you shared one lineage link.
I, in fact, have done this in the past so if people dig enough in my posting history they might find out my hash.
Since both the name and hash figure on the records, someone could also search for a specific person they disliked or had an argument with or whatever, find out the hash, and considering someone might be able to build up a list of people along with corresponding hashes, could figure out if it was really you or someone else.
Suddenly people can come up to you and say "Hey! You did x in life y, I hate you!".

On the other hand, I do like the idea of being able to personally get the data of your previous lives granted you are actually the person behind them.
So to sum up my opinion, I think people other than you shouldn't be able to get data on your previous lives while we should still personally remain able to in order to make personal stats.

It seems you also originally intended for people to be able to make global stats (which doesn't imply that they should be able to figure out who is who) and that's also perfectly fine.

There's definitely solutions to this problem.
You can keep storing the data in the same way, but instead of having a per-account hash, you could just use that plus some salt added to it and encrypt it using a public/private key system.
So you generate a pair of key per accounts and encrypt their hash using the account's public key and later the user can figure out if it's his life or not by using his private key.
I'm not a data security expert (I never had to solve such a problem ever) so that's probably a very dumb idea but I would start from there.

Yeah this happened to me a few times after the temperature/clothing updates.
https://0x0.st/ziwg.jpg
It just would get stuck at max temp and going in the arctic wouldn't help at all (the arrow wouldn't even move).

More recently it's been a little different though, now it still gets "stuck" in the red but not at max anymore for me.
Going in the arctic in this case helps but moves the arrow only a tiny bit.

I think there might be a bug or something.
I thought back when the temperature update happened Jason wanted to address mosquitoes being absolutely deadly while wearing clothes.
Or maybe I just misunderstood something.

Wasting pips away for the sake of your own fertility is, by definition, selfish.
Keep in mind we're talking about inefficient foods here.
So effectively what you're doing is you're wasting a bunch of pips (which could have been preserved by cooking an efficient type of food instead) to benefit your own fertility.
If instead you had produced a net increase in pips by making an efficient food then the whole village could have used those pips and in turn benefit from the yum bonus as well instead of just you.

You're trying to defend making wasteful foods for the purpose of yumming when you could instead make non wasteful foods also for the purpose of yumming.
What?
So you're trying to give the town a varied diet while simultaneously wasting a bunch of pips away which could instead have been used to feed and make more people benefit from your work.
The point being that you can increase the overall fertility of your village without wasting pips and yet you choose to waste pips anyways.
What part of this doesn't spell out inefficiency for you?
A whole village that just drank milk is better than a whole village who didn't benefit a single bit from you wasting their pips away.

I can get useful work done in my late 50s regardless of yumming or not.

Which, as my whole post points out and as my suggestions try to solve, is overshadowed by you selfishly making inefficient foods instead of efficient foods.
Why do you insist on defending making inefficient foods instead of efficient foods? Are you evil or something?

This, by the way, is an unworkable strategy.
You're trying to make your village more fertile which means have a higher birthrate which in turn means more mouths to be fed.
And you're doing that while simultaneously wasting pips away which could have been used to feed those new mouths.
You're increasing the population while simultaneously decreasing the food supply.
Are you evil? Is your purpose to create the biggest famine ever recorded in OHOL history?

Alright, so, the only difference between an elder and a child regarding yum is that elders in theory had time to build up a yum chain before their food capacity went down.
Meaning that you expect them to yum while they're adults. Yet they don't.
Do you know why? I know because it happens to me often.
It happens because while I was working my ass off at whatever project I was tackling, nobody bothered to make milk/skim milk or sauerkraut or bread or whatever.
So I end up with having to fall back on berries once again.

Which again points to the same problem.
Maybe you should have spent more time producing efficient yumming foods for more people in your town to benefit from. Then perhaps elders would yum more.

I thought your main issue with this was that you thought people used multiple lineages to basically bypass the ban and keep playing continuously?
I absolutely wasn't hinting at this and in fact I even addressed this point a few lines down below:

Perhaps you misunderstood my suggestion.
If you end up being banned from both lineages after 2 hours of playtime, how does this not fix the issue of people playing continuously?

Or did you in fact understand the suggestion but decide that it was still subverting the experience?
I find this kind of odd considering that you allow people below 30 to be given another "shot" at life when they accidentally die to a boar or mosquitoes.
Isn't this subverting the experience, then?
Why would allowing a total of 2 hours of playtime be subverting the game according to you when a total of 1h30 (which already goes beyond one hour and as such violates the promise of the title) is something actively used in the game both by Eves and regular players?
What's the difference?

EDIT:

Seems odd that you would suggest this when in the exact same post I pointed out how incredibly rare it was.
You know the best part is I can't even remember ONE single time where I actually used this (intentionally or unintentionally).

Do you really think I come on your forums and bother to make my points as clear as possible and try to make useful suggestions/give constructive criticism just because I want to manipulate you into making my life easier?
Yeah... Seems kind of belittling...

I also agree that this is an excellent point.

In general, I think yum should be rethought a bit.
The purpose of a yum mechanic is obviously to incentivize the production and use of varied foods.
Nothing wrong with that.

The main problem with it is exactly what you point out: the chain makes it so that you either have people not yum ever, people who break their chain often (and have its rewards dramatically reduced) or marathon yummers.

One could argue that having yum working this way gives rare foods a much higher value.
But this is in truth a terrible thing. Rare foods are rare for a reason. They can often be inefficient and a net loss of pips.
Encouraging people to make such foods is never a good idea because it is selfish by definition.
The only other possibility for a rare food is that it actually is rare or hard to make rather than flat out never made because of its inefficiency.
The line between a food not made (and as such being rare) because of it being hard/complex and it being absolutely inefficient can be blurry.
Off the top of my head, sauerkraut and milk are the only food I would consider somewhat rare but at the same time efficient. So those are pretty much the only food that are favored by yum in this way positively as far as I can tell.

I think the fact that the current yum mechanic results in this "marathon yummers" trend kind of undermines its original goal which was to encourage varied diets.
It seems to me a lot of people would rather selfishly make and eat inefficient foods rather than spend more time producing an abundance of complex but good foods like milk/sauerkraut so that their whole village can benefit from it instead of just them.

So yes, rethinking the yum mechanic so that it is more sensible to variation would definitely help.
Some sort of general pip multiplier would be ideal.
Because then, you don't just get rewarded for eating ONCE a food, you get rewarded for simply varying your diet, even if that means eating a lot of the same food like pies for example.
People could have a diet with pie as their principal meal (like many people do) but simply varying a bit here and there with some milk or stew would keep their multiplier up.
If that is achieved, no more selfish people eating inefficient foods, all that would be encouraged by the mechanic is producing an abundance of varied foods for the entire village to benefit from.

You might still have a couple rare marathon yummers who only care about their fertility.
That's where pein's idea of a cap would work best.
Sure, eating a variety of food should be good for you, but at some point the multiplier should stop increasing.
Yumming would then be akin to temperature management.
Making sure it's good will increase your fertility, but you can only do so much.
This could also result in increased general productivity rather than individual productivity as now a mother could be fertile up to a certain amount.
After that nothing can be done, or can it? Competing for babies could still be possible after that, by simply having MORE fertile females in your village.
Making the fertility competition also a village problem rather than an individual problem fundamentally.

I also remember an interesting idea pein had a while ago: negative yum.
Having the multiplier go down a bit if you keep eating the same thing could maybe help.
The goal here would be to stop berry munching practices.
Although it can still be argued that berry munchers would still eat the berries even if their yum goes down.
It would simply make it less efficient and as such could actually be detrimental to a town in the end.
Perhaps to stop this, people could get "sick" of a particular food and refuse to eat "one more damn berry" if their yum multiplier got low enough by eating only berries.

I don't know what the general opinion is on this, but personally I am sick of the current berry meta.
Why berries? Berries everywhere. Berries after berries after berries after berries.
It also doesn't help that the temperature update incentivized berries once again by making naked children/elders even more dependent on them.
Why do berries need to be the central engine that runs a city systematically?
We're reaching a point in civilization where I can build a plane but I'm still forced to go back and forth to water the graying berries always.
It's getting kind of stale. Isn't the point of the game to "evolve or die"? When can we "evolve" our farms and automate them to some degree?

Seems like you didn't read all of the threads regarding this considering you only JUST learned the game is copyright free.
I would suggest doing so before you continue on saying nonsense.

Jason's accusation of fraud are founded and asking for reparation can hardly be considered harassment.

It's funny that you completely disregarded any of my direct questions.
You didn't even attempt to answer a single one.
Are you afraid to reach a conclusion that might contradict your opinion?

Why don't we talk about you anyways.
All that you write is based off of assumptions too.
Why do you assume the complete opposite of what I assume? What's your reasoning behind this?

My reasoning is extremely simple: there is a mechanic that allows people to perpetually find and work on their town when they are on their own, why should that be despite the fact that Jason doesn't want people to be able to return to previous lineages in general?

Seems paradoxical doesn't it? Maybe it means, oh I don't know, that both playstyles are actually intended and valid?
Which is strongly reinforced by the fact that this mechanic exclusively works if there is a low enough population on a given server.

You also seem to think that both playstyles cannot coexist for some reason. Why?
Why can't they both be valid?
People paid to have access to these servers. Why should they be taken off?

Also, once again and this is the last time I will say it, nothing was "done the wrong way" here.
People used ingame mechanics that were implemented and approved by Jason himself.
And if you're still not convinced, let me show you something that will BLOW your mind.

Do you see that? What's happening here is something Jason actually hoped would happen. Unbelievable, right?

You weren't wrong. Again, both playstyles can coexist. Because, and this is also the last time I will say it, nobody said you couldn't play on that specific server.
After the community banned you from their lineage, you were still perfectly free to respawn in that server as an Eve.
And possibly even play with your friends and make a town of your own as well which is something you yourself just recommended to friends and as such asserted was a possibility. You're literally contradicting yourself there.
Which is it? Are people allowed to play in groups in the small servers or not?

If your only defense to this argument is that "well when we play in groups on the small servers we don't kill the babies we don't know" then I'm sorry to tell you that this is absolutely allowed without any doubts.
Murder-induced lineage banning is part of the gameplay and people are allowed to use it at their own discretion.
There's no way around that. So yes, killing babies you do not know is perfectly acceptable in this game.

Again, nobody said that your playstyle is wrong.
Both can coexist without one destroying the other.
If you want the randomness then you can play on the bigserver.
If not, then you can play on the small extra servers even if there is another community making a town there.

Same thing happened to me a few days ago.

I thought Jason intended to fix the "clothes being deadly for mosquitoes" problem?

EDIT: Just played again today.
Now it seems to happen every single time.
If fully clothed, temp gets stuck at max no matter what.
This needs to be fixed ASAP. Clothes are death trap for bugs once again.

I've seen some people here mention Children of men.
Though I didn't read the book, I only watched the movie.
Anyone who knows what Children of men is knows what I'm talking about lol.

Amen to that.
Though this thread is about doors specifically but I definitely agree to everything you said about buildings in general.

As for the doors, the absolute worst I find is when the only available fire is inside the nursery building while you're working as a smith (or just need charcoal).
This is hell. I just want to light up my forge!

I am of the opinion that doors should just be automated.
Why do we need to open/close them manually? Does that add anything to the game?
There are lots of issues because of this.

The pathing gets very annoying very fast.
Sure, it's fine if you click just once though.
I don't know about other people but personally I've stopped doing that long ago.
I think people just learn to either make continuous mouse clicks or just spam click because whenever you have to walk long distances you have to keep clicking otherwise your character just stops as your destination is offscreen 99% of the time.

Second is due to the fact that your camera is moving a lot especially if you're trying to go in/out of a building (as it often covers a lot of your screen). So while the first click to open it is fine (sometimes), closing it can be extra tedious.
I realize that this issue doesn't specifically affect doors but since buildings are supposed to be common, so is opening and closing doors which makes them extra stressful/tedious to work with.

I also find it kind of odd that you let us build roads that can make us travel automatically but not doors that open automatically.
I mean the link isn't super-obvious and hard to describe but hopefully you get what I mean.
You're willing to give us quality of life features for moving but it stops at doors. Why doors specifically?
I guess what I'm trying to get at here is that if you're going to argue that we need doors to be manual because they are in real life then why wouldn't it apply to walking too?
Or maybe you could argue that you have auto-walking roads because in real life our brains often do go into some sort of auto-pilot mode when you have to take a long and familiar walk and just does the work for us while we think about other stuff. But that would also apply to doors or any repetitive task in general.

I have been thinking of coding an auto door pathing/opening/closing feature for my own client lately. I've just been generally lazy so I never got to it.
But AFAIK roads are already working that way: the client does everything on its own and the server knows nothing. So essentially what happens with roads is that clients have an auto-walker coded in them.
And that's how I would do auto-doors (as a client feature).
Though if Jason were to do it this way, he might run into the problem of other people interfering with the door opening/closing and I'm not sure how you could fix that.
Multiple people using a door at the same time already results in conflict anyways automatic or not and I'm pretty sure the only way to address that would be serversided.

Could you explain why that is? Why would you insist on keeping disconnected people alive?
I'm talking about actual disconnection here. People who time out, sure you can and should keep them alive, but for anyone else, why?

The way I see it, it only encourages bad behavior.
You say you think it's cruel that a baby can die on their mom after they are past a year old.
Well.. Isn't misleading the mom into thinking you're still alive (and thus keep wasting her time and pips on you) when you're clearly not going to even more cruel?
Or making her chase you until you starve (potentially putting her in danger at the same time)?
Why do that? What if someone thinks you just had to go to the toilet mid-game and feeds you hoping you come back only to realize they have wasted their time and food on you?
But that's just from the perspective of other people.

From the perspective of the player, something much worse happens.
Why force me to go out and suicide? What's the point? I'm genuinely asking you this, Jason. What's the point of doing this?
If I'm going to give up, forcing me back into this life until I finally decide to make sure I actually die is utterly pointless.
All this will accomplish is force me to waste a bunch of my time making sure I see my death through.
It's as if you don't want people to have the freedom to go and try their luck elsewhere when they feel their current lives will have no impact and that they're unable to rectify the situation or just plain out fed up with the town in general. Maybe the town is filled with rude people?

If you don't want people to be able to do that, things get very, very ugly.
Let's assume that you find a way to fix this and that you somehow manage to force people to finish their lives no matter what they want.
What happens is you have certain people who want to effectively die but are unable to of their own accord.
Well... Griefing. That's right. If you were to do this, you would have effectively created an actual incentive for people to grief villages. There would be an actual benefit for such people as getting others to kill them would be the only effective way to let them go away and try their luck in another village.
And if you then solve that problem by making sure that people can't play the game or get sent to donkey town if they try to get others to kill them as a deterrent from giving up, something even worse happens.
People would still grief. En masse. But without letting others know it this time.
You would have people who wouldn't want to die but want to have fun in the game while their current lives cannot provide that for them. What's the only thing left? Griefing.

You cannot win this, as someone already said.
It's impossible to force people into playing lives they don't want to play. It's like forcing someone to play a game they don't want to play.
Things go wrong.
So, Jason, I ask you. Why do you insist on keeping disconnected people alive? What's the point?

You seem to think of the die command as some sort of early opt out for babies or a tool only used by people who want to lineage-ban themselves.
What you don't get is that people aren't just asking for that. What people are asking for is a proper disconnection mechanism.
This is the feature that was missing and what the mod addressed.

I'm not sure if you're aware yet, but this has been discussed to a great extent in another thread before.
I remember arguing about this with a forum user called "WomanWizard" particularly, and the only genuine difference that was pointed out was that the babies who suicide on you without resetting your cooldown (which was already happening with running babies) could now do so faster than before.
As in do it quicker and as such to a greater number of mothers in a smaller amount of time.
That's it. Despite him hating people who use the shortcut, he still didn't deny that they should have the possibility of trying their luck in another town.

I really think that you should stop and consider this a bit more before jumping in and making changes.
There are a lot of aspects to consider with this issue.
I'd also like to direct your attention to another issue which is runner babies.
This problem got almost eradicated after Awbz changed his shortcut although I still saw the rare one baby who would run from their mom from time to time.
If you render the mod's shortcut useless, this issue will start getting widespread again (as it has in the past).
This also clearly indicates that indeed people who do use this shortcut simply want to suicide no matter what (and giving them a shortcut to do so is simply a quality of life improvement at that point).

I suspected this. When the thread about the Awbz shortcut was active, I suggested an idea to address this issue.
Because as you say, mothers who run away from their babies should have the cooldown active.
But what if it's the opposite, baby runners?
Sure, your idea of using the mother picking up her baby as a symbol could help the issue but wouldn't address it completely.
If a baby still wanted to die without getting himself lineage-banned, he could simply start running as soon as he spawns (I never take more than a couple seconds to load up, I'm not affected by this problem so it would be perfectly feasible).
Besides, the mother could be working at the forge or bakery and not have time to pick her baby up immediately, giving him a window to start running.

Now I know, I did suggest something blasphemous and that is baby carrying tech.
But that was only to balance out the idea I put forward.
If babies couldn't move much on their own, you wouldn't even be able to ask them to follow you if you have to carry something impossible to put in a backpack.
Like wood for the fire as Eve or if you are dragging a cart in a more advanced civilization.
It could be more sensible, too. Maybe not as OP as being able to put four babies in a single cart.
It also kind of makes more sense. Human babies don't learn to walk instantly in real life and even after they do they are fairly slow at it. Asking a child under five to follow a running adult is pretty unrealistic.

And this is why people who say "weapons were implemented specifically to deal with griefers" are completely wrong.
I've said this already and I'll say it again: knives (or snowballs, or any other killing mechanic) are as much a problem solver as they are a problem themselves.
Knives are used by griefers as much as they're used against them. It doesn't solve much of anything.
At most you can argue that it lineage bans the griefer and removes him from the town but that's only a short term solution.
As Tarr already pointed out, that in fact encourages griefers and only makes them spawn in a different town which they can in turn grief.
You're basically playing the game the griefers want you to play.

This is not how you deal with griefers. This is not how you solve the problem.
Cursing is much more different.
You may argue that my point applies there too, but that is simply not the case. Why? Because it is a power everyone has.
As such, the overwhelming majority who want to play peacefully will crush the minority of griefers who want to just go on a killing spree.
This is how you properly deal with griefers.

Why do people insist SO MUCH on killing the griefers instead of using the right tool to deal with them? Do you feel like a hero or something?

Now, about this topic. The curse system has been discussed to great lengths before already.
The issue that's been opened on github suggests a much more sensible solution: lowering the threshold given the lifetime curses.
Now, of course, this still leaves the problem of people getting unjustly cursed being sent to donkey town as well.
People seem to be hellbent on the fact that this HAS to happen and that there is NO solution for some reason.

I already suggested something before: downgrade the lifetime curse score to something like the real time score itself, but much slower and on a much more general scale.
Like count the lifetime curses but decrease them by say two every months or something like that. That way people who play since a while and have accumulated unjust curses aren't put at risk.
Something like what Dodge suggested could work even better if you do it right: a ratio of playtime/total number of curses.
What's important to understand is that the problem we're trying to solve with this kind of thing is to express how bad someone is in some sort of metric in order to identify the griefers more sensibly.
It's basically trying to measure how bad someone is. A metric for griefing.
Once you have such a thing, the idea is to use it to calculate a threshold per person.

In this way, you will effectively make the curse system "target" the griefers.
People who do nothing wrong and get the occasional curse by a griefer or toxic roleplayer or whatever would have nothing to worry about as ideally their ratio/lifetime score/whatever metric is chosen won't target them.
People who actually are griefers and have any sort of habit of doing it will be "noticed" and "targeted" by this metric and will subsequently have a reduced threshold given how severe the measure is.
This way, you solve the problem of people purposely avoiding the threshold to not spend a single second in donkey town because as they keep doing it, the measure will get stronger and stronger and will eventually make them spend time in DT for as low as a single curse (if they're that bad).

People who do nothing wrong don't spend time in donkey town.
People who do, even while trying to avoid the threshold, get deported.

The implications are great.
If people learned that cursing is the superior tool over killing against griefers this would work.
It would be superior in every way:

• It is consistant, no worry of failing your knife strike, the curse system will always do its job the way it was designed to do it.

• It is sensible, people have a measure determining how bad they are and the curse system will scale along that. Meaner punishment for meaner people (who grief more often).

• Same point as above but applied to the opposite case: you don't have to worry about being unjustly sent to DT if you're a model player as your threshold will not be decreased.

How this would ideally get used is good as well:
See a sketchy guy holding a bow in the middle of the berry field? Curse him (and possibly talk about it to other people, I mean that's obvious, be smart).
If he is a griefer for sure then you can be certain that your token will matter. Let's say his threshold is calculated at 2 or 3. You're already halfway or a third of the way to dealing with him effectively.
If he is not a griefer and just a noob who doesn't know what he's doing, then he has much less to worry about as his threshold is still up there at 7 or 8. Just tell him that it's wrong and dangerous, teach him proper uses of the bow and everyone is happy.

This goes both ways as well, if you get cursed, be smart, don't be an idiot.
If you got cursed, there is very likely a reason. Someone suspects you to be a griefer or considers you a troll/asshole/whatever.
Talk about it. Maybe, just maybe, you're not an all just god who does nothing wrong ever. Maybe you genuinely did something wrong.
Put yourself in question. Be modest. Maybe you can improve the situation. Talk to the other person, ask them about it. "What did I do wrong?". "Sorry, I didn't mean to be an asshole to you.".
If you determine from the discussion that they are in fact a troll, then by all means, curse them back.
If you know you're not a shady player and you have nothing to be guilty about, you can assume your threshold is high and that you have nothing to worry about.
If the other guy is a troll, your curse will definitely count.

I've seen people who will kill you on sight if you curse them. To me it's a clear sign they're idiots and I'm glad I cursed them in the first place.
Get off your high horse for a second buddy, nobody is all just and perfect. No one is god.
And don't get me wrong, I don't curse for any and everything. When I do such a thing I'm 100% certain they were dishonest in some way and there they are, chasing you with a knife. Smart.
And I've done the opposite as well. I've told people ingame a couple times already "go ahead, curse me if you think I'm an asshole". I know I'm honest and well meaning enough that I have nothing to worry about.

And of course, there are other ways in which the curse system needs to be improved and I agree on that.
Twins should both get the curse (careful who you pick as a friend obviously, again, be smart).
Twins shouldn't be able to avoid lineage bans.

I don't think we need to remove the cursing token from twins however.
If the curse system is improved in the ways I described above, then that would be unjust and unnecessary.
People who are honest and well-meaning twins can't curse anymore.
The system already takes into account people abusing the system (remember, the minority against the majority) so why bother with removing twin's curses.
If they're trying to victimize someone innocent, then that person still has a high threshold (which originally was high for this very purpose) and shouldn't worry about it.

Younger people need to be able to use this as a command as someone already pointed out.
I noticed that when you type a command in the chat as a baby, the character limit suddenly vanishes. You can type "/PING" even if you're below a year old.
This indicates that Jason is well aware of this problem. Perhaps the curse is limited in this way intentionally.
I suspect the goal is to prevent babies from cursing their mothers who may have very valid reason not to take care of them.
Even then, people who are past the age of picking up things should still be able to curse griefers.
You can expect their mother or someone else took care of them and that this problem is out of the way at this point.
The fact that you can't curse certain people because they have a long name is ridiculous.
Something like allowing it as a command while giving a notification on the top of your head sounds like a very good suggestion.