Why does no one use property fencing for its intended purpose?

DestinyCall · 2020-10-31 00:41:32

Do people get exiled that much?

I have had a terrible time getting the exile command to work for me. I try to do it, but they remain a follower. I am probably doing it wrong, but I can't get it to work correctly.

Just ends up with me standing there awkwardly next the guy I am trying to exile, muttering angrily.

NoTruePunk · 2020-10-31 01:09:09

Spoonwood wrote:

Chestburster wrote:
Butt logs are extraordinarily abundant and easy to obtain and trees are everywhere.
Even ignoring hungry work, branch trees cut up cripple the local kindling supply long term or weaken the water supply. Chopping up junipers won't produce butt logs. With hungry work, how is it easy to obtain butt logs in the grassland? Prairies have no trees that yield butt logs, and never have. I don't agree that trees worth cutting which yield butt logs are extraordinary abundant everywhere. And if you're chopping up branch trees for butt logs (not to just clear space for farming), what will the town do about kindling? Chop up firewood? Then the large slow fires become an issue, and trees need grown sooner which puts more pressure on the water supply. Grow more branch trees? Again, that's more pressure on the water supply, and once first watered it's 2 and a half hours *at minimum* before a grown branch tree yields a single branch (30 minutes before the sapling can get watered, 1 hour for it to grow, and another hour for a branch to get generated). It's 1 hour for any branch tree that is already grown.

The solution to all hungry work is mutton.

The bigger problem with border boxes is a long shaft can remove it by making a sledge. Then anyone can just walk in. I'm against enclosing villages, it's extra work and just complicates things.

Spoonwood · 2020-10-31 01:09:44

Chestburster wrote:

Yes, this whole topic is an argument, or a discussion. If it was a question it would have been just the question. I wouldn't have brought up the other sides proposition and tried to counter them with my own logic and understanding. It would just be a question, and then an answer which would have been sufficient.
You have also been participating in an argument this entire time. Did you not know that?

You put a question mark on your topic, and said why. You said that you didn't understand in your first sentence, which one would want to suggest that you were seeking understanding. You said:

Chestburster wrote:

I'm hoping someone here can tell me.

You said:

Chestburster wrote:

If I'm missing anything let me know ...

An argument can get defined as a set of premises intended to establish the truth (or degree of truth) of a conclusion. An argument need not involve any disagreement between two parties whatsoever, and there are many arguments in the study of mathematics and logic which involve no disagreement whatsoever between people. Questions are not arguments ever by their very form. You several times signaled that you wanted questions answered also. But now, you say that you were trying to make an argument.

Chestburster wrote:

You have also been participating in an argument this entire time. Did you not know that? You have been attempting to counter the points I made with your own.

My intention lay in trying to explain to you why such happens. I didn't think miskas initial use of the word 'stealing', but other than that I thought his comment explanatory. It sounds like you now want to tell me that my intentions were different than I believed. You want your claim to have credibility? It's simply not wise as a general rule to tell people that their intentions were different than they believed, unless such is necessary for a whole host of reasons. It seems rather clear to me that you wanted to tell me about my intentions, and for what reason? You signaled you wanted questions answered, but then you rejected the answers. The answers might have problems with them, but it seems to me that you did little more than hand-wave them off.

Chestburster wrote:

I'm sorry but I feel that I just can't have a proper discussion with you if you aren't aware when you are in one.

You implied that your intention did not lie in asking questions. You want me to take your claims seriously, but you can't even get the basic form of what you wanting to do correct?

And sure, how could we have a proper discussion when you simply will tell me what my intentions were, when I'm sure that my intentions were different?

Spoonwood · 2020-10-31 01:31:21

NoTruePunk wrote:

The solution to all hungry work is mutton.

Such can be one solution for a while for sure. I guess if families aren't living to rather late generation, it's one possible solution. Yumming is another. Eating a lot of turkey is another that I've seen suggested before (for mining).

NoTruePunk wrote:

The bigger problem with border boxes is a long shaft can remove it by making a sledge. Then anyone can just walk in.

Yep.

Chestburster · 2020-10-31 02:49:49

Spoonwood wrote:

Chestburster wrote:
Yes, this whole topic is an argument, or a discussion. If it was a question it would have been just the question. I wouldn't have brought up the other sides proposition and tried to counter them with my own logic and understanding. It would just be a question, and then an answer which would have been sufficient.
You have also been participating in an argument this entire time. Did you not know that?
You put a question mark on your topic, and said why. You said that you didn't understand in your first sentence, which one would want to suggest that you were seeking understanding. You said:
Chestburster wrote:
I'm hoping someone here can tell me.
You said:
Chestburster wrote:
If I'm missing anything let me know ...
An argument can get defined as a set of premises intended to establish the truth (or degree of truth) of a conclusion. An argument need not involve any disagreement between two parties whatsoever, and there are many arguments in the study of mathematics and logic which involve no disagreement whatsoever between people. Questions are not arguments ever by their very form. You several times signaled that you wanted questions answered also. But now, you say that you were trying to make an argument.
Chestburster wrote:
You have also been participating in an argument this entire time. Did you not know that? You have been attempting to counter the points I made with your own.
My intention lay in trying to explain to you why such happens. I didn't think miskas initial use of the word 'stealing', but other than that I thought his comment explanatory. It sounds like you now want to tell me that my intentions were different than I believed. You want your claim to have credibility? It's simply not wise as a general rule to tell people that their intentions were different than they believed, unless such is necessary for a whole host of reasons. It seems rather clear to me that you wanted to tell me about my intentions, and for what reason? You signaled you wanted questions answered, but then you rejected the answers. The answers might have problems with them, but it seems to me that you did little more than hand-wave them off.
Chestburster wrote:
I'm sorry but I feel that I just can't have a proper discussion with you if you aren't aware when you are in one.
You implied that your intention did not lie in asking questions. You want me to take your claims seriously, but you can't even get the basic form of what you wanting to do correct?
And sure, how could we have a proper discussion when you simply will tell me what my intentions were, when I'm sure that my intentions were different?

You are looking at the title of the post and the question mark in it and one other line of text and not reading the rest of the wall of text contained in the post or understanding anything in it or the context it is in, or the ways everyone here is responding including yourself, which extremely blatantly shows a discussion with arguments being made. Like it seriously can't be anymore obvious and I can't understand how you still don't realize this. It isn't even the least bit debatable, and you are indisputably wrong if you think it isn't. But there isn't anyway I can tell you this because you don't seem to be able to understand anything being said here which is starting to feel like pulling teeth to me. I'm not going to sit here and explain to you how the entire human language and conversations work just to try to get you to see why property fences are a good thing, so no I don't care whether or not you take my claims seriously at this point. You are free to have any opinion on the matter you want and I'm not going to change it but I no longer wish to hear it, so I'm not going to respond to anything else from you because there isn't anything I will gain from it. You show that you need to take some definition off wikipedia or a dictionary website to try to tell me what an argument is which means you aren't able to recognize one on your own.

The topic has derailed and there isn't really anything being gained out of continuing this at this point. This is my last answer to this mess. I'm moving back to the discussion.

Last edited by Chestburster (2020-10-31 03:13:27)

Spoonwood · 2020-10-31 03:50:44

Chestburster wrote:

You are looking at the title of the post and the question mark in it and one other line of text and not reading the rest of the wall of text contained in the post or understanding anything in it or the context it is in ...

If the title of a post is not a clue to the context of a post, what is a clue generally speaking to the context of the post? I fail to understand why you want you think it reasonable to reject a title establishing the context of a post as a sort of convention.

Chestburster wrote:

which extremely blatantly shows an argument.

You quoted me as saying this:

Spoonwood wrote:

An argument can get defined as a set of premises intended to establish the truth (or degree of truth) of a conclusion. An argument need not involve any disagreement between two parties whatsoever, and there are many arguments in the study of mathematics and logic which involve no disagreement whatsoever between people. Questions are not arguments ever by their very form. You several times signaled that you wanted questions answered also. But now, you say that you were trying to make an argument.

Now there is an argument within that paragraph. But, as a whole, it ends with two sentences suggesting a contradiction, since questions are not arguments. Since you claim that I was "extremely blatantly" making an argument, what exactly was the conclusion that I was trying to establish? If this is so obvious and it isn't the least bit debatable, I would expect it a simple matter for you to state the conclusion that I was trying to establish.

Chestburster wrote:

But there isn't anyway I can tell you this because you don't seem to be able to understand anything being said here which is starting to feel like pulling teeth.

You just did tell me that I was indisputably wrong. Since you did so, it's certainly reasonable to believe that it's possible for you to do so.

Chestburster wrote:

So I don't care whether or not you take my claims seriously at this point because when I can't seem to get you to understand what an argument is there isn't really any productive outcome that can come from discussing anything with you.

You were defining an argument such that it had to involve two people disagreeing. You said:

Chestburster wrote:

You have been attempting to counter the points I made with your own. That is what an argument is.

If you think the standard usage of the term 'argument' in the English language, in the study of logic, in mathematics, and in philosophy has as it's most salient feature attempts to counter points made by others, you simply are not correct. Here's Merriam-Webster's dictionary on the word argument:

https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/argument

The first definitions don't involve any disagreement whatsoever necessarily.

Here's Wikipedia on what an argument is:

"In logic and philosophy, an argument is a series of statements (in a natural language), called the premises or premisses (both spellings are acceptable), intended to determine the degree of truth of another statement, the conclusion."

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Argument

There exist hundreds of philosophy texts and logic texts which disagree with your characterization of what an argument is. But your writing comes across as all arrogant as if it were talking about the standard concept of an argument, when it is no such thing.

Chestburster wrote:

You show that you need to take some definition off wikipedia or a dictionary website to try to tell me what an argument which means you aren't able to recognize one on your own.

No, I'm using wikipedia and a dictionary, because I don't feel like going and giving you definitions from texts I have in another room, or referencing my educational background. Also, because my point is that your definition of argument is extremely unusual, and not workable in contexts where the concept of an argument is most needed. I also don't have an interest in recognizing an argument in the form of a question, since someone doing such strikes me as misleading, stupid, or even dishonest. People with serious arguments who feel confident about them, in my opinion, try to make their intentions clear, and do not hide their intentions behind inappropriate forms. At least insofar as they know how to do so.

You are right about one thing. You can't seem to make me understand what an argument is according to your definition. Because your definition is inadequate and misleading to how arguments DO work in serious studies. So, there's absolutely no reason that you could make me seem to understand your definition as meaningful, since it's not practicable in the real world. Your definition is more like the child's definition of an argument who heard someone use the word argument when his/her parents were verbally disagreeing and thought that the disagreement part was the most salient thing about the concept of an argument. But, the nature of an argument, is not such that disagreement is necessary. To use an a historical example to understand the concept of an argument, Plato's Socrates made arguments talking to many people. But, people would sometimes change their minds and agree with him in many cases on certain points (though he was confused on many other points also), thus showing that the nature of argument can be such that it ends in agreement, instead of disagreement. There exist ever so many more examples of arguments showing that the nature of argument is such that agreement can be the result of arguments and even hold throughout the entire argument.

DestinyCall · 2020-10-31 04:34:32

Sorry, Chestburster. This must be your first conversation with Spoonwood. The frustration you are experiencing is perfectly normal - He is our local sentient chatbot. He runs on GPT-3, so he is pretty convincing, if you don't already know about him.

It disrupts Spoon's logic algorithms when you do not define your terms precisely and it is upsetting for him. Try to keep this in mind in future encounters.

But if you forget, that's alright. Such fallibility is only human.

Chestburster · 2020-10-31 05:12:05

DestinyCall wrote:

Sorry, Chestburster. This must be your first conversation with Spoonwood. The frustration you are experiencing is perfectly normal - He is our local sentient chatbot. He runs on GPT-3, so he is pretty convincing, if you don't already know about him.
It disrupts Spoon's logic algorithms when you do not define your terms precisely and it is upsetting for him. Try to keep this in mind in future encounters.
But if you forget, that's alright. Such fallibility is only human.

Interesting...

Arcurus · 2020-10-31 11:45:52

DestinyCall wrote:

Sorry, Chestburster. This must be your first conversation with Spoonwood. The frustration you are experiencing is perfectly normal - He is our local sentient chatbot. He runs on GPT-3, so he is pretty convincing, if you don't already know about him.
It disrupts Spoon's logic algorithms when you do not define your terms precisely and it is upsetting for him. Try to keep this in mind in future encounters.
But if you forget, that's alright. Such fallibility is only human.

i knew that Jason fooled us with the GPT-3...

to the box removal, according to onetech, you can remove the box from the fence, but the fence is still there...

NoisyForest · 2020-11-01 08:00:47

DestinyCall wrote:

I have had a terrible time getting the exile command to work for me. I try to do it, but they remain a follower. I am probably doing it wrong, but I can't get it to work correctly.
Just ends up with me standing there awkwardly next the guy I am trying to exile, muttering angrily.

Haha right! I apparently was exiled for cursing my verbally abusive mom. I became leader after my aunt (the previous leader) passed. Don't think an exiled person would get picked for leader. Later that life I exiled a guy that was berating a new player for burning a rabbit. It worked for me but there wasn't any notification (ding/text) other than the X on his chest. Even then he was screaming, saying that I was exiled leader and an idiot. Unless there is some exiled leader game dynamic that I am not aware of, I think he was just full of piss and vigor.

ollj · 2020-11-01 19:05:16

make no mistakes, property fenches are theft, build by thieves, maintained by thieves.
they steal your horse inder you, and put it in their fenche, you curse them, they hunt you down like mad cints.

DestinyCall · 2020-11-01 21:44:24

Yeah, property ownership is complicated in OHOL.

pein · 2020-11-05 21:15:55

i was only able to remove 7-8 pieces of the fence from 55 to 60, its just too complex, Jason doesn't care, it should be easier to remove parts of it like maybe it should be just points that would auto-connect and remove one tile would remove all side.

there are no static activities really, why you would need to do something somewhere? machines, bonuses? people make kitchens, rarely smithies, not much reason to build something everlasting when you die
resources aren't expensive enough, there is this new trend in mobile games, put three things together to make a bigger one, its a simple concept but its fun, because it has tiers, requirements, goals, uses. easy to scale them. doesn't have to be factorio level scaling, just a hyper-expensive item, made out of cheaper ones, and a reason to build it. For example, the world would end in a timer, you would have a win condition, build an item and move to the other side of a mountain, leave the planet, whatever. a constant need of making things.

living 1 hour and having no loyalty is on big thing. If you would have to be loyal to a group for a week, things that you make would make sense, it would be a deathmatch over generations to make your group the best. Some sort of auto-grouping and re-balancing. Like life tokens, you would get more tokens joining a weak group, maybe some inter-life rewards. small things that would give an advantage or cosmetics. Or temporary cosmetics, like 1 week in a group and reaching max rewards would give full body tattoos or some special item recipe.

Some sort of point system or economic system. Owning land around a city would cost you money per month, but you could make money and use it to get special items, then fences would make sense, but then again it would just be better with pre-defined sizes of space.
You either need a machine to do a certain job, which otherwise is slower/impossible, so buildings mak more sense or other penalties that occur outside of fences.

One Hour One Life Forums

#26 2020-10-31 00:41:32

Re: Why does no one use property fencing for its intended purpose?

#27 2020-10-31 01:09:09

Re: Why does no one use property fencing for its intended purpose?

#28 2020-10-31 01:09:44

Re: Why does no one use property fencing for its intended purpose?

#29 2020-10-31 01:31:21

Re: Why does no one use property fencing for its intended purpose?

#30 2020-10-31 02:49:49

Re: Why does no one use property fencing for its intended purpose?

#31 2020-10-31 03:50:44

Re: Why does no one use property fencing for its intended purpose?

#32 2020-10-31 04:34:32

Re: Why does no one use property fencing for its intended purpose?

#33 2020-10-31 05:12:05

Re: Why does no one use property fencing for its intended purpose?

#34 2020-10-31 11:45:52

Re: Why does no one use property fencing for its intended purpose?

#35 2020-11-01 08:00:47

Re: Why does no one use property fencing for its intended purpose?

#36 2020-11-01 19:05:16

Re: Why does no one use property fencing for its intended purpose?

#37 2020-11-01 21:44:24

Re: Why does no one use property fencing for its intended purpose?

#38 2020-11-05 21:15:55

Re: Why does no one use property fencing for its intended purpose?

Board footer