|
On April 19 2010 07:23 getSome[703] wrote:
I don't think selfless acts necessarily have to be irrational.
Here is an example: I would like a beta key. However, day9 deserves a beta key more than I do, because he contributes more. By my rational, I will withdraw from the contest because by my rational, someone deserves a beta key more than I do.
It's not selfless to give up your key to Day9. Yes, at first glance you are sacrificing your immediate needs in favor of someone else's. In long term, (if you have sufficiently proven that indeed day9 is more deserving) You have done an act which will benefit the community. And you benefit greatly from the community.
Therefore not selfless.
|
This thread is like a collaborative effort on a Dostoyevskian novel. O man, I'm so anxious to see how this ends.
|
On April 19 2010 07:24 flamewheel91 wrote:
I can lend you some of my assassins from XXII...
=
It seems you haven't heard of my ninja eskimo assasins on polar bears with ice-katanas, did you?
|
|
|
|
|
On April 19 2010 07:27 TheYango wrote:Show nested quote +On April 19 2010 06:58 Cheree wrote:
You're saying every single person on that list is guilty of wanting something without contributing anything? Are you saying those who are guilty deserve to be judged/labelled based on a silly one-time mistake?
Again, they were given the choice between staying in for the key, and not being labeled that way. It's unfortunate that they have to make such a choice, I agree, but for most people, that choice shouldn't be difficult.
Who was given that choice?
Self-nominators who are composed mostly of non-contributors and some contributors.
What decision can they make?
Opt-in or Opt-out or silence.
Is their decision telling of what label they deserve?
No.
What is telling?
The content of their posts.
If you feel the decision is trivial, then I humbly disagree. I already gave examples of reasons why someone would optout or optin. It's the reasons that matter, not the decision. This contest doesn't distinguish the reasons from the decisions. What is that called again? Low criterion validity of the measures?
|
On April 19 2010 07:30 Zeri wrote:Show nested quote +On April 19 2010 07:23 getSome[703] wrote:
I don't think selfless acts necessarily have to be irrational. [...] Therefore not selfless.
You can pick apart that particular example all you want, but it doesn't make the original statement itself untrue.
|
@getSome[703]
I'd define rational actions (at least in this context. There may be a better term for what I mean, but this is the one I use when I think about it) to be actions that make one's own life better ("better" is of course a vague word, but to clarify we would digress into what the purpose of life or what one's goals in life should be. My answer is that one should simply seek to be as happy as possible as often as possible).
If you define rational actions differently then we will agree to disagree somewhere along the line.
With your example:
There is one beta key. If I keep the beta key for myself, my life will be better because I will be able to play SC2 beta. If I give the key to Day[9] ... here we have to elaborate on the situation. If Day has no beta key, then giving Day the key will, for example, make my life better because I will get to watch Day talk about the beta and he may be able to commentate on more events and I may be happy because I feel like I did the "right thing." If Day already has five beta keys for each server, then giving Day my key won't improve my life in any way except maybe for feeling happy because I did the "right thing."
Which action I would consider rational here depends on how much I weigh the potential gains from either case. Myself, I'd be happier keyless and with Day having at least one beta key, so I'd consider the rational action to be giving Day the key.
(Actually I now realize that I can't definitively say this action is selfish by definition, because it's not wholly in disregard for others ... my decision-making process, however, is. I think here there are arguments for this act being selfish or this act being not selfish; I'm not sure I can countenance calling it truly selfless though because it's still the action that maximizes my own personal gain. If you asked me to call this act either selfish or not selfish I think I'd call it selfish, and dictionary.com's definition would agree with calling it selfish: "devoted to or caring only for oneself; concerned primarily with one's own interests, benefits, welfare, etc., regardless of others".)
Keeping the key for myself when Day has no key is irrational. I'm not sure I'd call it selfish, because it's actually not the action that's most concerned with my own betterment--I probably wouldn't. It's certainly not selfless either though.
I apologize for the parentheses.
edit: For the record, here's dictionary.com's definition of "rational":
1. agreeable to reason; reasonable; sensible
2. having or exercising reason, sound judgment, or good sense
(and you can of course go look up "reason" and "reasonable" to continue from here)
My argument behind defining "rational actions" as I do comes from my belief that one's goal in life should be to be as happy as possible as often as possible.
edit2: "selfless": having little or no concern for oneself, esp. with regard to fame, position, money, etc.
I see a distinction between "selfless" and "not-selfish".
|
FREEAGLELAND26780 Posts
On April 19 2010 07:31 prosky wrote:Show nested quote +On April 19 2010 07:24 flamewheel91 wrote:
I can lend you some of my assassins from XXII...
= It seems you haven't heard of my ninja eskimo assasins on polar bears with ice-katanas, did you?
My assassins are superior 
|
On April 19 2010 07:29 prosky wrote:Show nested quote +On April 19 2010 07:17 Zeri wrote:
They just wish to been seen in a certain way by the community (they want to be seen as selfless). In order for personal gain in the future (more people liking them hopefully). And there is also another option. I opted out because i thought it will look totally diffrent. There was key pool for veterans. There was key pool for newbies. And i thought that this will be key pool for neither vet nor newbie. I though that they will choose few people out of all those 29 sites of posts in prev. nomination thread. But it didn't look like that, so i backed off, thinking that there are more people deserving to get the key from TL.net (not the key GENERALY, but from TL.net) - like korean shows translators, people posting stuff about korean leagues, or even giving vods or good strategies backed up with replays or povs. So, please once again - don't put everone into the same bag.
You are in the same bag. You want to give a more deserving TL member a key correct? You think this will benefit the community. YOU benefit a great deal from a rich community which is why you want to give your beta key to the most deserving.
|
On April 19 2010 07:36 Craton wrote:Show nested quote +On April 19 2010 07:30 Zeri wrote:On April 19 2010 07:23 getSome[703] wrote:
I don't think selfless acts necessarily have to be irrational. [...] Therefore not selfless. You can pick apart that particular example all you want, but it doesn't make the original statement itself untrue.
I should clarify: that example was not selfless.
But the with the only supporting evidence from a statement being false. Yes I can say the original statement is untrue.
|
On April 19 2010 07:37 Zeri wrote:Show nested quote +On April 19 2010 07:29 prosky wrote:On April 19 2010 07:17 Zeri wrote:
They just wish to been seen in a certain way by the community (they want to be seen as selfless). In order for personal gain in the future (more people liking them hopefully). And there is also another option. I opted out because i thought it will look totally diffrent. There was key pool for veterans. There was key pool for newbies. And i thought that this will be key pool for neither vet nor newbie. I though that they will choose few people out of all those 29 sites of posts in prev. nomination thread. But it didn't look like that, so i backed off, thinking that there are more people deserving to get the key from TL.net (not the key GENERALY, but from TL.net) - like korean shows translators, people posting stuff about korean leagues, or even giving vods or good strategies backed up with replays or povs. So, please once again - don't put everone into the same bag. You are in the same bag. You want to give a more deserving TL member a key correct? You think this will benefit the community. YOU benefit a great deal from a rich community which is why you want to give your beta key to the most deserving.
The problem is, that i don't want to benefit from opting-out. I simply don't want to take TL.net key from someone that actually did something here, and try to get key from twitter/normal blizard key wave.
|
On April 19 2010 06:50 LosingID8 wrote:Show nested quote +On April 19 2010 06:47 prosky wrote:
Anyway you consider all "low posters" new members. Remember that some of them might be like me - i like to read , not to write stuff ( well, that's probably i was too busy playing bw xD - it changed a bit now) but my account dates way back than Cheere or TheYango. So please, don't assume something just looking at someone post number. in a way it's almost worse that you joined in 2007 and don't even have 50 posts. it reminds me of baller's post Show nested quote +On April 18 2010 08:37 baller wrote:
i think its funny mad peeps think watching streams or loving/playing starcraft is "contributing". helping others is contributing. doing work 4 the site is contributing. entertaining urself by doing something u choose to do is not contributing. simply existing on a website is not "contributing".
its like going to some1s house, not talking to the ppl there, watching the TV that they bought, eating the food they made, and then saying "ur welcome every1, no need 2 thank me just gimme a beta key"
after reading this and several other posts i had one thought. No offense intended in any way, just a thought.So basically, some community members here are not welcoming any new members. Even if those members by mistake did not fully understand the intentions of original competition.
I could easily give analogy as well. If you mistakenly dialed wrong number (entered competition without realizing the full intentions, or entered just for fun, knowing that you wont win a key, hope dies last!), and then apologized to whoever answered (by opting out), does the stranger usually tell you - F..k you, asshole, by dialing here you make big mistake, i will post your number on the blacklist in the street saying your total nub! And then you get random calls from strangers making assumptions on the nub you are (cause it was written on the list they found on the street).
In this case, TL.net could easily be invite only closed website. And only new members would be via invites, because surely the one who do give invites could assure these new members will be worthy because they are fun to them, buddies, friends etc.
If that is not the policy of TL.net, then no need for someone to be rude to newcomers.
Im not in any way relating this to the beta keys.Im relating to the attitude of some people. Of course, the newcomers do not deserve them as some people here on TL.net, but on the other hand, the misconception of the intentions of the original competition led to this thread.
|
I'm an idiot... also, awesome thread!
|
holy crap this is a massive exercise in game theory
do you mind if i data mine this
|
But ,everyone of you have to admit! This topic is epic 
|
United States3824 Posts
These are some bizarre social experiments that you are running here these days
|
Okay so.. Only 10 keys can be given out like? and there's like 30 plus or something that still wants a key and the time expires tomorrow? :-/
|
On April 19 2010 06:58 Cheree wrote:Show nested quote +On April 19 2010 06:43 TheYango wrote:On April 19 2010 06:20 Cheree wrote:
Ah, the fun of being on the inside pissing out. The answer to "Why are you pissing on your members and newcommers?" is "You'll understand with time." Tough love, man. Tough love. It's not tough love. People who entered the community without expecting some material reward for being a member are treated just fine, and, as seen in the other thread, plenty were rewarded for it. The only people who have been given the tough treatment are those who feel like they *deserve* something. You're saying every single person on that list is guilty of wanting something without contributing anything? Are you saying those who are guilty deserve to be judged/labelled based on a silly one-time mistake?
Lest you forget: the list does not include every self-nominator; there was at least some effort not to include those who really have made significant contributions to TL.
In response to your second question: This thread, being a silly one-time punishment for the self-nominators, seems to me a reasonable enough response to their silly one-time mistake.
|
On April 19 2010 06:25 crate wrote:Show nested quote +On April 19 2010 06:23 getSome[703] wrote:
I think/hope that the contest ends with keys being awarded to people who have removed themselves from consideration. Selflessness deserves rewards. Selfishness does not. I'd say nominating oneself in the first place is a selfish act.
Not necessarily,no. Even though i opted out, I did that because i don't deserve a key. However, if Flamewheel91 nominated himself, he should deserve a key since he's done very much. The thing is many people have just created an account when they heard of this and nominated themselves. Now, if they feel that they are deserving enough to get a key, sure they can. However, many of them aren't deserving (as we all know and many people have stated) and the end result comes down to if they are selfish enough to admit that. If they aren't and we that they don't deserve it, that's the definition of selfish.
Because, come on, if you see basically a "free" chance to get a sc2 beta key, wouldn't you try to get one, however the greedy the contest may be????
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
