Life In 19x19

crodgers wrote:There is no paradox of thrift. Keynes was wrong.

Declaring something false does not an argument make.

im not going to turn this into an economics lecture. you can read all about it.

I had another wonderful game on nova today with fischer timing. It' really nice to have such complete control over your game parameters. After setting up my game preferences I can be certain my opponent will be someone I'd like to play. After the game I learned a few things as my opponent conducted a really thorough review. Just another reason why I love Nova.

Kirby wrote:I disagree with this argument. You could use the same logic to give reason not to vote for political elections, for example - your single vote is unlikely to make a difference. But a difference is made when this starts to snowball, and the collective public makes a move.

Political elections are very different to a choice of go server in many ways. I don't buy this analogy at all, or really think it's a useful thing to talk about.

One thing I hope we can all agree on is that advertising a go server on L19 and nowhere else is akin to a politician advertising their new and awesome party in a single village and hoping they tell their friends. Might work, might not; still not the best plan. I hope that, when nova is a little more polished (though it's very polished already), it will be advertised widely and creatively. I'm sure L19 members (and perhaps even go associations) will be able to lend a hand or give ideas.

Boidhre wrote:

Kirby wrote:I disagree with this argument. You could use the same logic to give reason not to vote for political elections, for example - your single vote is unlikely to make a difference.

It is actually irrational for any one individual to vote in a political election. The odds of them changing anything are minuscule. ..

If the definition of "irrational" in this context means that you should only vote if it will have an immediate and obvious effect on the result of the election, then I agree with you.

However:
1.) There may be side effects associated with your action that are not measurable. Eg. If your friend sees you heading to the polls, he may also do so. There may, then, be multiple votes resulting from your action. This type of side effect is difficult to measure.

2.) You cannot ignore the collective power of multiple individuals. It's somewhat ironic that this is being discussed on a go forum, because this is a lot of what go is all about: a single stone sometimes, but most often, does not make a difference. Rather, it is the collective body of plays that form your strategy and bring you to win the game.

Considering the analogy in #2, it's important to think carefully on your moves. Some may seem more important than others, however, if you decide that no particular move makes a huge difference in itself, then your entire game will fall apart.

The fact that this "falls apart for groups" is no small point, and in fact, makes all the difference!

billywoods wrote:...Political elections are very different to a choice of go server in many ways. I don't buy this analogy at all, or really think it's a useful thing to talk about.
...

Don't like that analogy? Then consider the analogy about moves in a game of go. Not any one move usually makes a huge difference. But the collective does.

I don't think either is a bad analogy, but if it helps to think in different terms, anything that requires a large body of things/people will work:

* Enough drops of water to break through a dam
* Enough grains of sands to bury someone
* Enough matchsticks bound together such that you can't break them
* Etc...

You can't ignore the power of collective individuals. And the very essence of this collective power is composed of - individuals.

So whether or not you "buy the political argument", I think that it's clear that collective individual decisions work together to make a greater power.

Come and join us and there will be a player base.

For the love of all that is pure and holy... People, taken at face value, this was a casual comment that alluded, generically and non-specifically, to phenomena related to small user/viewer/player bases. It wasn't a literal argument, or a malicious retort.

During my relative inactivity here, the forums' lust for debate has noticeably increased. Actually, I could be wrong about that. Before, I recall drawn-out arguments and debate were largely confined to certain threads that I simply avoided. Perhaps now it is just more dispersed.

I would point out the irony of a lawyer saying you argue too much, but, in fairness, my appetite for argument here is quite low, since I do that every day...

crodgers wrote:There is no paradox of thrift. Keynes was wrong.

Not really. Are there problems with it? Definitely. Does it apply in a closed economic system? Yes, under certain conditions.

Kirby wrote:

billywoods wrote:...Political elections are very different to a choice of go server in many ways. I don't buy this analogy at all, or really think it's a useful thing to talk about.
...

Don't like that analogy? Then consider the analogy about moves in a game of go. Not any one move usually makes a huge difference. But the collective does.

I don't think either is a bad analogy, but if it helps to think in different terms, anything that requires a large body of things/people will work:

* Enough drops of water to break through a dam
* Enough grains of sands to bury someone
* Enough matchsticks bound together such that you can't break them
* Etc...

You can't ignore the power of collective individuals. And the very essence of this collective power is composed of - individuals.

So whether or not you "buy the political argument", I think that it's clear that collective individual decisions work together to make a greater power.

No, I still don't like your analogy. The problem is not in the argument of individual vs. collective power - I agree with you there. But drops of water, grains of sand and matchsticks do not get impatient sitting around for 15 minutes waiting for a game. People are not flocking to nova because, until everyone else flocks to nova, they are being actively inconvenienced for their choice. By the time I have convinced a few of my friends to join nova, and encourage them to advertise it to their friends, and wait for news to spread to their friends and their friends, and a few other people on L19 have done the same and nova's userbase has doubled or tripled, months have probably passed and I am probably long gone (back to KGS, which it's still probably far easier to find a game on). That's why nova needs to be advertised far more widely and creatively. (If hundreds of people turn up for one event, they will all see each other, and nova will be seen - at least temporarily - as a server that has hundreds of users at any one time rather than 30. This probably leads to slightly more recommendations and slightly more people coming back and so on and an overall increase in the number of users. Far better than kicking people one at a time.)

judicata wrote:People, taken at face value, this was a casual comment that alluded, generically and non-specifically, to phenomena related to small user/viewer/player bases. It wasn't a literal argument, or a malicious retort.

If you enjoy thinking that I am arguing here because I am bored, do continue - but I think it's actually quite important for nova to discuss how best to increase the userbase, and (by the same token) whether or not dfunkt's way of going about things was the right one or not.

billywoods wrote:

judicata wrote:People, taken at face value, this was a casual comment that alluded, generically and non-specifically, to phenomena related to small user/viewer/player bases. It wasn't a literal argument, or a malicious retort.

If you enjoy thinking that I am arguing here because I am bored, do continue - but I think it's actually quite important for nova to discuss how best to increase the userbase, and (by the same token) whether or not dfunkt's way of going about things was the right one or not.

First, my post wasn't directed at you or any particular individual. Second, regardless of whether it was aimed at someone specifically, I didn't accuse anyone of arguing out of boredom (nor did I suggest I enjoyed any such suppositions). Third, as to whether the present debate/argument contributes productively to "how best to increase the userbase," I'll let the record speak for itself.

I don't want to argue, though I acknowledge that I should have anticipated an adverse reply to my post, so it's on me.

judicata wrote:I don't want to argue

Forgive me for writing a seemingly adverse reply. I don't want to argue either. I want to talk about nova. Why don't you get involved in the discussion, rather than criticising it?

(If my reply was adverse, that's because your post was not about nova, it was about what unspecified other people thought about what dfunkt said about nova, which was unconstructive. That seemed like a derailment to me.)

billywoods wrote:If you enjoy thinking that I am arguing here because I am bored, do continue - but I think it's actually quite important for nova to discuss how best to increase the userbase, and (by the same token) whether or not dfunkt's way of going about things was the right one or not.

I just love Nova. I can talk about my favourite server here on L19. I am not affliated in any way with the developers of L19 and their marketing strategy is their business. If you feel this is the thread to discuss economics and I'll go create another thread. Oh, I already did that. There is nothing wrong with appreciating a server which has everything I always wanted in a go server.

I especially love the previews of ongoing games on the main page. I know the developers have plans in mind to expand the sorting and searching of games being played, but even as it stands it is nice to see these games in real time. In fact, that most excellent method of showing game previews is carried on throughout the site in the group and tournament pages.

billywoods wrote:...No, I still don't like your analogy. The problem is not in the argument of individual vs. collective power - I agree with you there. But drops of water, grains of sand and matchsticks do not get impatient sitting around for 15 minutes waiting for a game. People are not flocking to nova because, until everyone else flocks to nova, they are being actively inconvenienced for their choice. ....

I don't feel that a user base will ever get started, if there are not those willing to participate without the convenience of an already existing user base. This is why I feel it is important to, as a "drop of water", continue to drop if you wish to break down a dam, even if others are not yet dropping.

It takes some faith and confidence that others will follow suit, but I don't think it will ever happen otherwise - just the same as an election result would never occur if nobody ever voted.

billywoods wrote:

judicata wrote:I don't want to argue

Forgive me for writing a seemingly adverse reply. I don't want to argue either. I want to talk about nova. Why don't you get involved in the discussion, rather than criticising it?

(If my reply was adverse, that's because your post was not about nova, it was about what unspecified other people thought about what dfunkt said about nova, which was unconstructive. That seemed like a derailment to me.)

You can't credibly claim that my post was not "about nova" but the posts I discussing were. Your post being "adverse" was not an insult...just means you disagreed with me (which, as much I might like to think otherwise at times, is not necessarily worthy of criticism). I'm honestly not sure what your last two sentences mean.

I also like Nova. Logged on now.

It's worth distinguishing between thresholds and vagueness in collective action problems. These are two different phenomena, which people confuse because they both involve uncertainty about how much one's personal contribution matters.

A go server with N+k players is monotonically more fun than a server with N players, but it's impossible to say how much more fun it is. A neighborhood with N+k good citizens is safer than the same neighborhood with N good citizens, but it's impossible to say how much more fun it is. Is it your duty to play on a bad go server to make it more fun? Or to move to an unsafe neighborhood to make it more safe? (Or, to use an example Americans may be familiar with, to send your children to a bad public school?) Under certain circumstances you might be able to make an argument to this effect, but it's difficult to figure out what that obligations would be because it's almost impossible to say what effect one person has.

On the other hand, if you're rowing a boat, or lifting up a car that rolled over your neighbor's kid, or voting for your regional AGA representative, the effect of an additional participant is quite clear. Up to the required threshold, every single person is completely necessary; past that threshold, additional manpower is superfluous. Now, if there's a kid crying in the street and seven neighbors run out to lift the car off of him, I think you would still feel like you had done something important even if later that evening you calculated that five people would have been enough. Likewise, if you vote for a winning candidate in an election, it's reasonable to feel that your vote mattered even if the candidate could have passed the 50% threshold with 5/7 as many supporters.

But that is because there is a binary outcome (pass the threshold, or fail to pass the threshold), and what you aren't entirely sure in advance is whether the threshold can be reached without your support; this is different from the vague cases, where you will definitely make some (pitifully small) contribution, but can't always choose your neighborhood, your go server, or your children's schools on the basis of that contribution.