One Hour One Life Forums

I will start this off by saying that I just discovered this game in April 2022. It is brilliant. I really love the game and I have never heard of or played anything quite like this. I have seen all these horrible posts and comments dragging Jason through the mud and it is just really sad to see. Jason, you have done something really brilliant in making this game. I can tell that you have had a rough go of it and I hope that you find the courage and motivation to continue developing this game. But if you don't then I just want to thank you for everything you have already done. I don't blame you for wanting to throw in the towel with this toxic of a community. But just know some of us appreciate it and I for one think you have done something really amazing with this game. I can't wait to see what you do with it. But even if you don't do anything from here on out, thank you, good luck, and keep on keeping on.

Yeah, I don't have time for this.

but if the score is tied to other people using the engine then you avoid the problem - an unused engine is worth no points.

The game is public domain.  Thus, if there's any sort of consistency with those terms, what is and is not a bug comes as a matter up for the public to decide.

But for older families the oil supply simply gets exhausted and there seems to be no way to recover from that.

Cogito wrote:

  To spell it out: under what authority or argument do you seek to stop people spectating all-women sports, through the removal of all-women sports?

I don't expect any such thing.  I haven't called for any such thing.

Cogito wrote:

This was a Spoonwood trap! If you have an extremely small sample from an extremely large population, that sample is statistically insignificant. When I say that the person has achieved more than everyone else who has ever lived it is of course not a literal statement, but an exaggeration.

Statistics involves literal statements.  It doesn't involve exaggerations.

You want to exaggerate?  Then I don't think you want to have an honest discussion here.

Cogito wrote:

Your persistence in quibbling over these patently incorrect interpretations of language and grammar continues to paint you as someone unable to develop their comprehension skills.

You said you were exaggerating.  Exaggeration is taking things out of proportion when engaging in serious speech, since serious speech is exact as it can be, and thus literal.  Thus you were using language incorrectly by any rational standard.

You are free to think of me however you like as are others with respect to my development of my comprehension skills.  But, I am not under any burden to you or others that I can develop those skills.  And I am simply not interested in playing some game to prove to you that I can "understand" you, since that understanding seems vastly contingent on me agreeing with you it seems to me.

Cogito wrote:

  If you don't want to appear that way, then as many here have suggested you should ask yourself "what is the main point this person is trying to make" and then argue against that.

If you want to try to make a point, the burden of communication is on you as the speaker to get your message across.

Cogito wrote:

Did you not read what I wrote? "People who have, as a group, decided to compete with each other."

Not that closely.  It makes less sense the more closely I read what you said.  People don't make decisions *as a group* to compete with each other in at least some instances.  They make decisions as individuals to enter into competitions for say community running events.  Those individuals agree to the rules of the competitions.  They don't all get together and then decide to compete against each other.

Cogito wrote:

School students have less political capital than most sport participants ...

I find this very strange to believe.  School students have an enormous amount of political capital in terms of how things can shake out.  There exist more school students than sports participants.  If a large enough group of school students were to protest a school having a sport or they demanded a particular sport, the school administration would soon have all sorts of interactions with parents.  The political capital in terms of school students is potentially very large.  It's just often not activated, or there exists a fair amount of disagreement, and oftentimes students haven't developed the ability to think for their own selves or take political action.

The administration in school is simply not more powerful than the students and the parents combined from what I've seen of school districts.  A largely unified student body with parents behind them isn't something an administration can ignore now, is it?

Cogito wrote:

How do you respond for all other sports?

For other sports, students decided to try out for sports teams at the individual level and then made the team (same thing happens for cross-country).  The competitors I would say thus make decisions to compete as individuals.  The coaches and athletic directors who decide on leagues and when games will play against I would say do make decisions as a group.

Cogito wrote:

In Scenario A we take the Spoonwood forced mixing of competitors approach.

The nature of sport is such that it doesn't care about any sort of sex differences, only the quality of play of the competitors.  Thus, sports leagues are forced to get segregated by sex and other categories.  It would thus be natural to have all participants in the same category, because the nature of sport is such that everyone is equal with respect to their performance objectively.

Cogito wrote:

Due to the inherent difference in running speed between men and women ...

Um what?  Running speed isn't an inherent different between men and women.  Running speed depends on how fast the body moved, not the sex of the participants.  You clearly lost your sense of physics here Cogito.  It seems predictable since the division of leagues in sports by the same organization on the basis of sex encourages losing a sense of physics.

Cogito wrote:

these 10 competitors are all men, and as expected the top 10 fastest people are given millions of dollars of cash each, and fame that lasts thousands of years, ensuring that the best runners are appropriately compensated for their efforts.

If you or I were setting up sports leagues a priori that were integrated, if we were rational, we wouldn't presuppose who will win or lose.

Thousands of years of fame and millions of dollars?

I really don't think you're taking that thought experiment seriously.

Cogito wrote:

In Scenario B it is every single person again, but in Secnario A none of the women compete because there is no chance they can ever win.  Hence, Scenario B has more competition (1000 people competing) than Scenario A (500 people competing)

So basically women will only compete if their necessarily will exist some female winner or top performer?  Women in sports are that sexist that they will do so only if some member of their sex is assured a chance of a success?

Cogito wrote:

For some sports it can make sense, but the physical differences between men and women (just like between children and adults, and man and machine) necessitates that competition is segregated.

The physical differences between men and women is not a causative factor of the sex segregation of sports.  So, no, it does not necessitate that competition is segregated.

Cogito wrote:

You're cherry picking your evidence, at best.

I'd have to know of examples which contradict my position to cherry pick.

Cogito wrote:

Forcing different levels of skill and ability to compete together will reduce the number of people who participate in your sport, and those people will just go play by themselves without your silly rules.

It is very strange to me to think that everyone playing by literally the same rules as in any way silly.  An organization which sets up an event where everyone plays by the same rules involves treating people equally and also having people's performances evaluated solely on the basis of merit.  Both of those encourage objectivity for anyone thinking about the rules and the competition.  There would be no silly "I ran well... for a girl" or "you ran well... for a woman." for anyone.