PFM

Commentaries on other forums, people, events etc.
Forum rules
1. No ad-hominem
2. No spamming or shilling
User avatar
Dr Bunsen Honeydew
Posts: 28246
Joined: Wed Jul 11, 2012 7:26 pm
Location: Muppet Labs
Great Britain

Re: PFM

Unread post by Dr Bunsen Honeydew » Mon Jan 08, 2018 11:20 pm

Someone throws shit at me then I throw shit back, it is that simple and will never change. I never throw the first bit of shit. Not responding would stress me, responding entertains me. I would prefer not to have it but if forced then it becomes a game.

At one stage at PFM it became insult tennis with Wanker and The Bitch on the other side of the net. Literally your turn then mine, a game, and Tony L allowed it, and sometimes even joined in against me. So the holier than thou attitude adopted now by him is just hypocritical shite.

They used it as an attack mode to try and get rid of those they didn't want - the forum in crowd that is. Even worse was Old Wigwam, controlled by the in crowd with the forum owner as the leader in the abuse and bullying.

User avatar
Dr Bunsen Honeydew
Posts: 28246
Joined: Wed Jul 11, 2012 7:26 pm
Location: Muppet Labs
Great Britain

Re: PFM

Unread post by Dr Bunsen Honeydew » Mon Jan 08, 2018 11:31 pm

There was one forum that became nothing but insult tennis and conflict, anything positive was just buried in the shite - that was Zerogain which in the early 2000's was the largest and busiest UK hi-fi forum, now it is dead or in fact lurking as a zombie of its old self under a different name. He say no, I say *I know* yes that it was owned by Tony L, or at the very least he held the keys. He allowed it to happen and helped it so as the members switched to PFM, all because PFM is his business so he can sell them CDs or records, where as Zerogain was a non business forum.

User avatar
Lotus Seven S
Posts: 93
Joined: Fri Nov 17, 2017 11:08 am
Denmark

Re: PFM

Unread post by Lotus Seven S » Tue Jan 09, 2018 7:17 am

Tit-for-Tat was for some years thought as the most stable strategy in real life competitive games: You are nice to me then I am nice to you; you are not nice to me then I am not nice to you. But it requires intelligent recognition of the strategy by the other part otherwise there is a degeneration into permanently not being nice. At a minimum there has to be a mixed strategy of occasional forgiveness to reset the targets; but degeneration is always lurking.

A couple of years ago there was a new mathematical discovery, which showed that Tit-for-Tat can always be used against you - such that the opponent can on average always get more out of it than yourself. It is a sort of collective collusion around misery - where the opponent in a hidden sort of way clearly scores extra benefits - and to a considerable degree.

This insight makes Tit-for-Tat a very bad strategy. It just doesn't work as we thought it did.
I am not a number. I am a free man

User avatar
Lotus Seven S
Posts: 93
Joined: Fri Nov 17, 2017 11:08 am
Denmark

Re: PFM

Unread post by Lotus Seven S » Thu Jan 11, 2018 6:28 am

to try and enable the maximum number of people to have as good a time as possible
This is "Utilitarianism" - right?

Can anyone explain to me, why this is a good idea? It just isn't obvious to me that it is. It seems to me that it by definition is saying that there will always be a number of people who are not having a good time - but that is all right, because we have maximized the number who are having a good time. In other words ten people can hold the whole world to ransom - and we should just clap!?

And thereafter - it seems to lead to "centralism" - the self-justification for an elite, who know best - and just know how to organize the best time for everyone.

In other words I think this is only a good idea on the surface, but not when you probe it.
I am not a number. I am a free man

Daniel Quinn
Posts: 7118
Joined: Thu Jul 12, 2012 7:16 am
Nicaragua

Re: PFM

Unread post by Daniel Quinn » Thu Jan 11, 2018 8:55 am

It isn't, it is simply a noble aim. There is no way he meant it as a polictal doctrine. . You are wrong in equating as many people having a good time with utilitarianism . It isn't concerned with a good time.
Even a stroke didn't result in me liking AOS

joe
Posts: 872
Joined: Thu Apr 04, 2013 12:48 pm
Great Britain

Re: PFM

Unread post by joe » Thu Jan 11, 2018 9:51 am

Daniel Quinn wrote:
Thu Jan 11, 2018 8:55 am
It isn't, it is simply a noble aim. There is no way he meant it as a polictal doctrine. . You are wrong in equating as many people having a good time with utilitarianism . It isn't concerned with a good time.
Indeed. Utilitarianism was aimed at ensuring 'the greatest amount of happiness for the greatest number of people', but left unanswered the question of what constitutes happiness.

User avatar
Lotus Seven S
Posts: 93
Joined: Fri Nov 17, 2017 11:08 am
Denmark

Re: PFM

Unread post by Lotus Seven S » Thu Jan 11, 2018 12:04 pm

A noble aim.
This is a very poetic expression. But what is the purpose of poetic expressions? To make us feel good, whilst we are missing the mark?

So inefficiency is yet another utilitarian good!

(Perhaps I should explain that feeling good and having a good time are included in my personal defintion of happiness. Though mileages probably vary here.)
I am not a number. I am a free man

User avatar
Dr Bunsen Honeydew
Posts: 28246
Joined: Wed Jul 11, 2012 7:26 pm
Location: Muppet Labs
Great Britain

Re: PFM

Unread post by Dr Bunsen Honeydew » Thu Jan 11, 2018 12:10 pm

I can assure you that perceptions change over your life, also life conditions imposed on you, for example being a diagnosis for a terminal condition. For someone stuck in a bed unable to move just being able to look out of the window and see the birds is happiness. Getting old is also a great teacher.

Daniel Quinn
Posts: 7118
Joined: Thu Jul 12, 2012 7:16 am
Nicaragua

Re: PFM

Unread post by Daniel Quinn » Thu Jan 11, 2018 1:20 pm

Alas the logical flaw with utilitarianism is that nobody can agree on the definition , thus you end up imposing it on others.
Even a stroke didn't result in me liking AOS

User avatar
Lotus Seven S
Posts: 93
Joined: Fri Nov 17, 2017 11:08 am
Denmark

Re: PFM

Unread post by Lotus Seven S » Thu Jan 11, 2018 1:51 pm

Alas the logical flaw with utilitarianism is that nobody can agree on the definition , thus you end up imposing it on others.
Exactly!

The best we can hope for is a little bit of benign cooperation in the public sphere, combined with the judicious use of forgiveness for the inevitable trespasses. And then in the private sphere we can get on with developing our own "happiness" without endangering others from doing the same.

Voilà

Unfortunately I don't really associate getting old with greater wisdom - more with aches and pains and greater restrictions.... But OK - tolerance does seem to increase with aging.
I am not a number. I am a free man

Post Reply