a multiplayer game of parenting and civilization building
You are not logged in.
No one can move as a baby though. No one can interact with some important tools as a child. Everyone needs care for like... 5 minutes at least.
It's 3 years old. That's why I said above:
Also, there's no limit on the number of players starting as Eves, and players could, in principle, start as 3 year olds or 8 year olds.
It sounds like you just want dads because you want dads, which is fine, but it doesn't need all of this to say it, does it?
It seems like you missed where I said in another thread that the solution to the single parent model was either two mothers, a mom and a dad, or two fathers.
Additionally, it may not be accurate to call the parental model we have as single-player based.
It's accurate for the game from the ground up. In other words, if a family starts with nothing, the parental model will be single-player based.
The family tree structure clearly indicates a single-player based parental model.
Danish Clinch.
Longtime tutorial player.
Offline
In my experience, this is a cooperative multiplayer game. Not a single player game or solo-play game. We work together to build a village, make clothes, grow food, gather water, iron, and oil. We even raise our kids together around the village fire and share parenting responsibilities. As a child, older villagers will help to feed and cloth me. When I am a little older, I will help the village to develop. If I am too old to feed my child, I can ask a younger villager to help me. When I am about to die, I will pass on my clothes to another child.
The parenting model in OHOL revolves around the village as a whole, not just a single person. I am sorry that you feel so alone, but we don't need two parents to experience teamwork in OHOL. It is already a huge part of the game.
Offline
It's 3 years old. That's why I said above:
Okay... still exists, still encourages at least some level of teamwork.
It seems like you missed where I said in another thread that the solution to the single parent model was either two mothers, a mom and a dad, or two fathers.
I didn't miss it, I forgot. Still, the essence of the argument stands - it does sound like you want a couple-based system for the sake of having a couple-based system. It doesn't fix anything, you just want it. Which, as I said, is fine to want - I'm just not seeing any strong arguments for it.
It's accurate for the game from the ground up. In other words, if a family starts with nothing, the parental model will be single-player based.
The family tree structure clearly indicates a single-player based parental model.
The actual gameplay has only eves as the clear single parents - that's it. There's far less of them, and they're just stubs to get the ball rolling. For all the reasons I'd listed in my previous reply, it would not be accurate to sum it up as single-player based. It leans more on community or team-based, rather than family or parent-based. A start isn't the whole. I'm not going to tell people that HunterXHunter was sunshine and rainbows all the way through just because the start was a tad more on the chipper side.
As for the family tree, the difference between adding a couple or not is simply what it indicates under the picture. Maybe it'll say husband or wife or something, but the tree won't truly change much... you know, unless it succeeds in making everything harder and there's so few kids that family trees just die out faster.
My experience is much like DestinyCall. You'll see loners, sure, but there's so much community focus, that it really does function like a multiplayer co-op game.
Offline
It doesn't fix anything, you just want it.
See here: https://onehouronelife.com/forums/viewtopic.php?id=8181 Many of the things in 1-7 would be more likely to happen with two player based reproduction mechanics.
"To give you rich, interesting, and weighty choices to make in each life."
With respect to 1. do you have a child or not? And with this particular person or not? And when knowing that such a child will die? That does sound something like such a choice.
"To ensure that each life really is different."
If you have a different reproductive partner every life, and sometimes don't have a partner for one reason or another, that makes more lives more unique than how male and female lives work currently.
"To force you to study and understand the most pressing problems facing your village now, and the problems it will likely be facing in the near future."
Villages always have the problem of having not enough children or needing more children. Some players just ignore it though, since children come automatically.
"To enrich player interaction, communication, and cooperation, and short-circuit the tendency to "just do it all yourself" instead of coordinating your efforts with others."
Two player based reproduction would short circuit the tendency to "just do it all yourself". I don't see how anyone fails to see this, since, by definition, another player would be required for reproduction (unlike how making rubber can get done by one person over the course of two distinct ohol lives).
"To encourage trade between players."
Dowries exist. Other forms of trade are also known between mating partners in the real world.
"To increase the importance of communication between village adults and incoming children."
Players wouldn't know who their second parent was. But, one would exist. So two player based reproduction mechanics would increase the importance of communication between village adults and incoming children.
"To add an additional constraint to the game, because constraints are generally good. More constraints leads to more meaningful choices."
More players would have more meaningful choices since they could choose to engage in a reproduction process or not, and more meaningfully than via biome bands.
Last edited by Spoonwood (2021-01-06 06:57:25)
Danish Clinch.
Longtime tutorial player.
Offline
Dont waste your time with spoonwood he never gets it...
Offline
I like to try occasionally, just to see if anything has changed.
Not sure if it is hope or insanity at this point. Perhaps a little of each.
Oh well ...
Offline
Dont waste your time with spoonwood he never gets it...
I like to try occasionally, just to see if anything has changed.
Not sure if it is hope or insanity at this point. Perhaps a little of each.
Oh well ...
I am beginning to see that. There's certainly some reaches, and I had considered they were a troll, but wanted to give the benefit of the doubt. Didn't even bother to explain how two player reproduction would actually increase communication, they just said it would. I'm not going to bother to go to the other thread, I think I'm out, haha.
Offline
Didn't even bother to explain how two player reproduction would actually increase communication, they just said it would.
Things could be set up so that a player only becomes fertile when two players have said the same words. Or players could strategize about when or if to have a child, which would increase communication.
Neither Dodge nor Destiny made a positive point to "get".
Danish Clinch.
Longtime tutorial player.
Offline
DestinyCall wrote:I don't need to be asked. I happily offer excellent high quality advice, completely free of charge. Not my fault if you ignore my wisdom, but I would feel bad if I didn't provide help when I see someone making the same mistakes, over and over and over again.
And I am afraid you are not very good at recognizing the weaknesses in your own reasoning. Or admitting when you have made a mistake.
You don't offer high quality advice.
Also, if you are afraid, then you fear something that isn't real here.
I didn't make a mistake when I said that this game encourages a "do it all yourself" mentality with its single parent model. I also didn't expect different results. I didn't expect you to change your mind, because you'd rather sit there acting like you have a superior moral position, because it suits your moral posturing. Others on this forum have commented that you have acted that way in the past as I recall.
My apologies for jumping backward, but I missed this post earlier. It contains a perfect example of what I was talking about. I doubt it will change anything, but that has never stopped me from trying before.
In response to my comment of "And I am afraid you are not very good at recognizing the weaknesses in your own reasoning.", you posted the following:
"Also, if you are afraid, then you fear something that isn't real here."
Now read over my post and then read your reply. Try to find the mistake. Do you see the problem?
In my statement, the word "afraid" expresses regret, not fear. You misrepresented my position so you could repute it more easily. I regret to inform you that your reasoning is faulty once again.
You tend to use this kind of misdirection and other logical leaps to defend your position or undermine people's statements, but it does not actually strengthen your argument. It just makes debating with you feel pointless and circular. There is little point in seriously discussing my views on a topic, if you are going to attack my word-choice or fail to recognize common figures of speech, rather than try to understand my position. There is no way to find common ground or reach a consensus. The debate quickly devolves into an endless argument that goes nowhere.
Offline
"And I am afraid you are not very good at recognizing the weaknesses in your own reasoning."
Now read over my post and then read your reply. Try to find the mistake. Do you see the problem?
In my statement, the word "afraid" expresses regret, not fear. You misrepresented my position so you could repute it more easily. I regret to inform you that your reasoning is faulty once again.
No, I don't see the problem as you claimed it. Again, you claimed it an error in *reasoning*. You want to say that "afraid" means "regret" instead of "fear", fine. You want to say that I misunderstood your meaning, fine. But even with that as a misunderstanding of your intended meaning, that misunderstanding isn't an error in reasoning. An error in reasoning involves an improper deduction.
You tend to use this kind of misdirection and other logical leaps to defend your position or undermine people's statements, but it does not actually strengthen your argument.
No, it wasn't a type of misdirection. It lead you to clarifying your meaning, and thus didn't misdirect things. It also wasn't a logical leap, as the first definition of "afraid" in Merriam-Webster's dictionary is about fear: https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/afraid
Yes, me addressing what you said there, doesn't strength my argument. But, it wasn't intended to do so at any time either.
As for a "logical leap", it's a leap to infer from a misunderstanding of meaning of words, to an error in reasoning. Correctness *and* errors in reasoning, both presuppose that the meaning of terms comes as understood.
There is little point in seriously discussing my views on a topic, if you are going to attack my word-choice or fail to recognize common figures of speech, rather than try to understand my position.
Clear thinkers understand the importance of having clear terms. If they don't want to think about their word-choices, then they fail to take matters of clarity seriously enough.
Danish Clinch.
Longtime tutorial player.
Offline
You know, it is kind of funny. If it was anyone else, I would have automatically assumed that the comment "Also, if you are afraid, then you fear something that isn't real here." must be being made ironically. An intentional play on words. That would be the logical assumption to make. But I have been down this road enough times to know better than that. And, of course, I was right.
...
You generally don't find expressions or figures of speech in the dictionary. Their meaning is commonly known to native speakers or can be inferred from context by most people. But as it happens, I found this one for you:
https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.macmil … i-m-afraid
Have you ever heard someone say "I am afraid not" or "I am afraid so."? It is very likely that they were not feeling fear at that moment, but they were probably concerned or regretful.
The English language is littered with these kinds of expressions, where the literal meaning is not the intended meaning, both in polite and casual speech. People learn how to use them and understand when other people use them as children, based on context and social convention.
Now, if I was writing a legal brief, I would stop to define all important terms and avoid figurative speech or ambiguous wording. But I shouldn't need to pull out a dictionary every five minutes to write a simple forum post about a multi-player computer game.
That's just unreasonable.
....
Anyways, I have said what I needed to say and your response tells me that you still don't get it. That's okay. At least I tried. If you are unsure about the meaning of my words, feel free to ask and I will clarify further.
Offline
An error in reasoning involves an improper deduction.
The fallacy you are looking for is called equivocation, and it is an informal fallacy; unlike formal fallacies that have flaws in their structure ("improper deduction"), informal fallacies stem from a flaw in reasoning.
Roughly the argument you put forward (very informally, but nonetheless) was:
1. DestinyCall claims that they are "afraid [Spoonwood is] not very good at recognizing the weaknesses in [their] own reasoning."
2. There is nothing 'real' here to fear.
3. Therefore DestinyCall shouldn't be afraid.
Not only is this argument pointless, it falsely equivocates the very common english turn-of-phrase "I'm afraid that" with the concept of fear.
The more important thing is that this whole line of reasoning is pointless. It refutes something that was not the point of the argument, and does not engage with what was actually said.
DestinyCall made three claims - DestinyCall's advice is good, Spoonwood is bad at recognising flaws in their own reasoning, and Spoonwood is bad at admitting mistakes.
Your response was "no you don't" (negation), "you're afraid of something that isn't real" (misdirection), and "I didn't make a mistake, you just think you're superior" (diversion). These are incredibly juvenile arguments, and you can do better.
Offline
The fallacy you are looking for is called equivocation, and it is an informal fallacy; unlike formal fallacies that have flaws in their structure ("improper deduction"), informal fallacies stem from a flaw in reasoning.
Equivocation involves uses a *single* term in multiple senses, or ascribes multiple senses to a word *or phrase* within a single argument. I only ascribed to Destiny's use of "I am afraid" a single meaning, that of fear. Your own summary Cogito indicates that I only used a single meaning with respect to what Destiny said. Consequently, I didn't engage in equivocation with respect to the word 'fear' or the relevant phrase, even by your own summary Cogito.
Danish Clinch.
Longtime tutorial player.
Offline
Cogito wrote:The fallacy you are looking for is called equivocation, and it is an informal fallacy; unlike formal fallacies that have flaws in their structure ("improper deduction"), informal fallacies stem from a flaw in reasoning.
Equivocation involves uses a *single* term in multiple senses, or ascribes multiple senses to a word *or phrase* within a single argument. I only ascribed to Destiny's use of "I am afraid" a single meaning, that of fear. Your own summary Cogito indicates that I only used a single meaning with respect to what Destiny said. Consequently, I didn't engage in equivocation with respect to the word 'fear' or the relevant phrase, even by your own summary Cogito.
One of your premises was Destiny's usage of the term afraid, which is different to how you use it in the second premise. You may not have written it out, but that doesn't mean you didn't create the equivocation when you used a different meaning in your response.
Just to reiterate my main point, this is all irrelevant as to the actual point that Destiny was making, and your persistence in chasing these irrelevant points down while ignoring the substance of the argument is what makes it hard to discuss with you. I don't mind the diversions, but you do have points you want to communicate and the sideshow distracts from that (and distances people who try to engage with you).
Offline
One of your premises was Destiny's usage of the term afraid, which is different to how you use it in the second premise. You may not have written it out, but that doesn't mean you didn't create the equivocation when you used a different meaning in your response.
In order to create an equivocation, there has to exist a term used in multiple senses.
I didn't interpret "I am afraid" in multiple senses.
So it doesn't follow that I created an equivocation.
Danish Clinch.
Longtime tutorial player.
Offline
Cogito wrote:One of your premises was Destiny's usage of the term afraid, which is different to how you use it in the second premise. You may not have written it out, but that doesn't mean you didn't create the equivocation when you used a different meaning in your response.
In order to create an equivocation, there has to exist a term used in multiple senses.
I didn't interpret "I am afraid" in multiple senses.
So it doesn't follow that I created an equivocation.
This argument is fallacious too!
You created the equivocation when you used a meaning of afraid different to that Destiny used. I'm not claiming you *intended* to create the equivocation, however an equivocation you have created!
Perhaps more generously, the argument that you created contains an equivocation, so the argument is fallacious.
Offline
Interestingly, when discussing the equivocation fallacy, it is important to distinguish between the term "equivocation" and the "equivocation fallacy" itself, as they refer to distinct concepts and technically should be used differently. Try not to get them mixed up when discussing the equivocation fallacy, because then you would have fallen victim to the very fallacy you are trying to discuss!
Equivocation is a form of deliberate deception involving the use of vague or ambiguous language to obfuscate the true meaning of your words. Like lying, it is intentional and often times malicious, although you can also equivocate for humorous effect or to avoid committing to position until you know more, among other reasons. As a general rule, equivocation should be avoided in serious debate. For example, if someone asks you a direct question and you waffle about for a while without really answering the question, that's equivocation. In contrast, the equivocation fallacy is an informal logical fallacy that involves using multiple meanings of a word or phrase, in a way that renders the argument that contains them unsound. This fallacy can be quite subtle and can occur unintentionally over the course of an argument. The equivocation fallacy can also be described as "semantic ambiguity" or "lexical ambiguity" because it involves ambiguous use of terms.
For example, philosophy helps you argue better, but do we really need to encourage people to argue? There's enough hostility in this world already.
...
This website has an excellent article on equivocation and includes multiple examples to help illustrate the terms, as well as useful tips for how to avoid the equivocation fallacy in your own arguments and how to identify and respond appropriately when someone else is using equivocation in their arguments.
https://effectiviology.com/equivocation/
It also talks about related terms, including "quibbling" which has direct relevance to this discussion:
Quibbling
In the context of logic, quibbling occurs when someone attacks an argument in a fallacious manner, by addressing one of the terms in the argument based on a different meaning than was originally intended. This is explained in the following quote:“There is a special kind of equivocation that involves two people: we shall call it ‘quibbling.’ A dispute between two people is a conversation in which one of them argues for, and the other argues against, a certain conclusion. Now, suppose A gives a reason for a statement, using a certain term in one sense, and B gives a reason against the statement, using the same term in a different sense. Then B is quibbling on the term.”
— From “Thinking Straight” (Beardsley, 2013)
Accordingly, quibbling can also be viewed as a specific type of a strawman argument, since it involves attacking a distorted version of an opposing stance.
There's a whole lot of quibbling going on around here.
...
Although it makes sense to avoid logical fallacies in serious debate, the equivocation fallacy is a lot of fun when you are engaged in friendly wordplay. By playing off the many layers of meaning in a single word, you can create humorous results. Here are a couple of examples:
"A warm beer is better than a cold beer. After all, nothing is better than a cold beer, and a warm beer is better than nothing."
God: "One million years to me is a second."
Man: "What about one million dollars, my Lord?"
God: "A penny."
Man: "May my Lord give me a penny?"
God: "No problem, just a second."
“I met some nice aliens from outer space. I have to say, they were pretty down to earth.”
But probably the most famous example of the equivocation fallacy in humor would be the Abbott and Costello skit, "Who's on first?" https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kTcRRaXV-fg
It's a classic!
Offline
Spoonwood wrote:Cogito wrote:One of your premises was Destiny's usage of the term afraid, which is different to how you use it in the second premise. You may not have written it out, but that doesn't mean you didn't create the equivocation when you used a different meaning in your response.
In order to create an equivocation, there has to exist a term used in multiple senses.
I didn't interpret "I am afraid" in multiple senses.
So it doesn't follow that I created an equivocation.
This argument is fallacious too!
You created the equivocation when you used a meaning of afraid different to that Destiny used. I'm not claiming you *intended* to create the equivocation, however an equivocation you have created!
Perhaps more generously, the argument that you created contains an equivocation, so the argument is fallacious.
Using a different meaning than someone else for a term or phrase, doesn't create an equivocation. I would have had to use the same term or phrase in two different ways in order to create an equivocation.
So, again, I did not equivocate with respect to what Destiny said.
Danish Clinch.
Longtime tutorial player.
Offline
For example, if someone asks you a direct question and you waffle about for a while without really answering the question, that's equivocation.
Waffling necessarily use a term or phrase in more than one way. So, waffling does *not* necessarily involve any sort of equivocation.
For example, philosophy helps you argue better, but do we really need to encourage people to argue? There's enough hostility in this world already.
Arguments don't necessarily have anything to do with hostility. Yes, in general, need encouragement to argue better. In other words, to make connected sequences of propositions better.
Beardsley's use of 'quibbling' equivocates on equivocation. He writes in the link:
The fallacy of equivocation, then, consists in this: that in the course of an argument a term changes its meaning in such a way that the conclusion seems to follow when it doesn’t.
Except with what he calls "quibbling" there exist two distinct speakers, and thus two distinct arguments getting made. So, his claim of equivocation for "quibbling" doesn't work, because he's consequently involved himself in two different uses of the term 'equivocation'.
Equivocation only happens when within the course of an argument a term or phrase gets used in multiple ways. When one person makes an argument and another responds with a different interpretation of some term or phrase, the second person makes a distinct argument. So, there is no equivocation by the second person (unless that person used a phrase or term in more in the course of that argument).
Danish Clinch.
Longtime tutorial player.
Offline
DestinyCall wrote:For example, philosophy helps you argue better, but do we really need to encourage people to argue? There's enough hostility in this world already.
Arguments don't necessarily have anything to do with hostility. Yes, in general, need encouragement to argue better. In other words, to make connected sequences of propositions better.
That was an example of the equivocation fallacy. You correctly identified it as a fallacious argument.
Congratulations!
Equivocation only happens when within the course of an argument a term or phrase gets used in multiple ways. When one person makes an argument and another responds with a different interpretation of some term or phrase, the second person makes a distinct argument. So, there is no equivocation by the second person (unless that person used a phrase or term in more in the course of that argument).
Have you considered that the term "argument" can be used in more than one way?
If I am debating with you, we are engaged in an argument with each other. One argument. Two people. If I use one definition for a term to describe my position and you attempt to counter, but your response relies on a different definition, we are talking at cross-purposes. It is not possible to reach common ground, because we are essentially not discussing the same thing, despite using the same terms. Our argument becomes pointless and circular, like Abbott and Costello trying to work out who's on first.
...
I've noticed that you have a tendency to get easily distracted by minor issues of semantics and logic, rather than focusing on the core problem under discussion. You might find this article on quibbling helpful.
https://link.springer.com/article/10.10 … 19-02289-4
It talks about quibbling on a term, talking at cross-purposes, and the different kinds of nitpicking, hair-splitting, and quibbling that can occur during a debate.
Keep in mind, it is not always a bad thing to request additional clarification of ambiguous terms or follow-up on minor logical conflicts. Sometimes it is necessary to confirm that you understand your opponents position before you can move the debate forward. But too much quibbling is just annoying and detrimental to good debate. It doesn't help the argument reach a resolution, but rather serves as a distraction from the real issues under discussion.
...
I would also recommend that you try your bestto follow the principle of charity when your read other people's posts. Not only is it a nice thing to do, but it will also help strengthen your position by significantly cutting down on the number of pointless quibbles and unnecessary tangents you embark upon. Rather than focusing on minor weaknesses that have no bearing on your opponent's core argument, you will be looking at their position in the best possible light and focusing on what is really important to them. And you won't waste a lot of time arguing about pointless stuff that doesn't relate to your opponent's position at all.
https://effectiviology.com/principle-of-charity/
Also, by taking the time to better understanding the other person's position, you can see your own arguments from a different direction. This can help you to recognize your own weaknesses and grow as a debater.
It is a win-win.
Offline
If I am debating with you, we are engaged in an argument with each other. One argument. Two people. If I use one definition for a term to describe my position and you attempt to counter, but your response relies on a different definition, we are talking at cross-purposes. It is not possible to reach common ground, because we are essentially not discussing the same thing, despite using the same terms. Our argument becomes pointless and circular, like Abbott and Costello trying to work out who's on first.
No, they have two arguments. One debate, two people, two arguments.
I didn't ask for advice.
You don't want to take responsibility for speaking clearly, that's on you.
Danish Clinch.
Longtime tutorial player.
Offline
I'm still giving away free advice. In fact, I am having a special this week, so you get two pieces of advice for the price of one. Get yours while supplies last.
DestinyCall wrote:For example, if someone asks you a direct question and you waffle about for a while without really answering the question, that's equivocation.
Waffling necessarily use a term or phrase in more than one way. So, waffling does *not* necessarily involve any sort of equivocation.
Speaking of speaking clearly, I don't understand what you are trying to say here. Could you say it differently or explain what you mean? This doesn't make sense to me.
Offline
Quibbling is the exact right term for what is going on here, as in many other threads. Thank you Destiny for finding the word I needed when trying to find the name for the equivocation fallacy! I hadn't considered that equivocation and equivocation fallacy need to be carefully used (I had _assumed_ that it was obvious we were talking about the equivocation fallacy throughout, but alas I think that was a poor assumption); quibbling is a far better term.
DestinyCall wrote:If I am debating with you, we are engaged in an argument with each other. One argument. Two people. If I use one definition for a term to describe my position and you attempt to counter, but your response relies on a different definition, we are talking at cross-purposes. It is not possible to reach common ground, because we are essentially not discussing the same thing, despite using the same terms. Our argument becomes pointless and circular, like Abbott and Costello trying to work out who's on first.
No, they have two arguments. One debate, two people, two arguments.
It's ok to use both meanings of the term 'argument', both as a discussion between two people, and as a set of statements that follow logically from each other (meanings 1 and 2 at https://www.thefreedictionary.com/argument) but of course it helps to be clear about which one you mean. Let's not quibble over the meaning!
When one person makes an argument and another responds with a different interpretation of some term or phrase, the second person makes a distinct argument. So, there is no equivocation by the second person (unless that person used a phrase or term in more in the course of that argument).
The thing that you're missing here is that the second person will incorporate, often implicitly (ie without restating), one or more of the premises or conclusions of the first person. When they do that, they don't get to change the meaning of the words in just because they interpreted it differently to the intent of the first person.
In this thread when responding to Destiny about the 'afraid' statement you implicitly included that statement as a premise in the argument you were making.
1. DestinyCall claims that they are "afraid [Spoonwood is] not very good at recognizing the weaknesses in [their] own reasoning." <---- this is where you include Destiny's phrase, and misinterpret the word afraid.
2. There is nothing 'real' here to fear.
3. Therefore DestinyCall shouldn't be afraid. <---- this is where you use a different meaning of the word 'afraid' to what Destiny used. It may be consistent with your misinterpretation, but you don't get to redefine their meaning.
Last edited by Cogito (2021-01-09 14:27:31)
Offline
Thank you, Cogito. That is what I was trying to say, but I got distracted by the multiple meanings of "argument" and lost the core issue. You explained it much better than me.
In a casual debate, people don't usually frame their reasoning in distinct syllogisms with overtly stated premises and conclusions. However, there is still an implied logical framework behind their words. Specifically, there needs to be a clear logical connection between the initial statement and the response to that statement so you can understand what the other person is trying to say. This logical connection is usually unstated, but still must exist in order for the debate to continue.
If there is no apparent line of reasoning to justify a response, it ends up sounding like a non sequitur. You can't form a reasonable counter-argument to a non sequitar and it would be a waste of time to even try.
Offline
Wtf are these walls of text, a 5 year old knows what this expression means, jesus...
Offline