Earlier quoted context omitted.
I say we hang 'im... then we kill 'im! https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UVKsd8z6scw#t=102 Seriously tho, it seems like this backlash is getting a bit out of hand. There was a silly, whimsical social experiment, and this guy had a silly, whimsical hack on it, now people are calling to destroy his business and run him out of town on a rail. So it wasn't the best decision, so what? Let's keep things in perspective here,…
Even though I don't agree with what this guy is saying I don't think this comment should have been downvoted, if you don't agree say so, downvoting is not for that!
Use Jonathan's card to buy yourself an iPad
231–240 of 252 posts
Re: Use Jonathan's card to buy yourself an iPad
#232Earlier quoted context omitted.
Communism, Nazism and any other 'isms are all considered social experiments. I am not comparing your actions to those, but you cannot hide behind a statement like that.
https://secure.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/wiki/Godwin%27s_la... Familiarize yourself.
(Though people may use it as a sign a conversation has jumped the shark, it need not be.)
Re: Use Jonathan's card to buy yourself an iPad
#233Guess Sam couldn't handle the heat. He cutoff commenting on his G+ thread. Hmmm, could he finally be realizing that he messed up and actually did wire fraud and stole money?
No, because a bunch of assholes were threatening him with bodily harm
Re: Use Jonathan's card to buy yourself an iPad
#234Earlier quoted context omitted.
https://secure.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/wiki/Godwin%27s_la... Familiarize yourself.
Godwin's Law isn't a value judgement; it's merely an observation. It's neither good nor bad that a comparison to Nazis or Hitler is likely to occur in any sufficiently-lengthy online discussion. (Though people may use it as a sign a conversation has jumped the shark, it need not be.)
Re: Use Jonathan's card to buy yourself an iPad
#235Earlier quoted context omitted.
You're equivocating. If it is a social experiment, then it is not a good will fund. It cannot be both. Social experiments (like, say, Chain World: http://www.rockpapershotgun.com/2011/03/15/the-cult-of-minec... ) are morally neutral; good will funds have an expectation of moral imperative by those involved. It's the difference between, say, a PvP and PvE server—both allow you to play a game, but what in one is called…
Of fucking course it can be both a social experiment and a good will fund. It's a fucking social experiment about a good will fund for crying out loud. You people are really starting to stretch, what is really going on here? Do you hate coffee? Starbucks? People who drink at starbucks? People with money? People who aim to show that most people are basically good? What is it?
Are you trying to speak to the reference class that includes me? I don't drink coffee (I dislike the taste, but I wouldn't say I hate it), but I also don't have a Starbucks anywhere close enough to me that I would bother to visit it. The only thing I've done with this card is read about it.
Now, what I am is a game designer. What I'm trying to say by calling this a "social experiment," is that a system has been created here with technical restrictions, but no social restrictions—rules, but not norms. Just because, at first glance, it shares some attributes in common with systems that do have norms, such as good will funds, does not mean that that is what it is. Basically, what we're talking about here is a game.
Note that what something is and what something was designed to be are entirely different facts about that thing. The game I mentioned above, Chain World, was designed to be a semi-religious experience in the passing of a unique gameworld from one person to another. However, the system, as expressed through its rules, does not hold to that experience; instead, it is largely a game of keep-away and fundraising where whoever has the game, makes the rules, and the aspect of the playing of the "inner game" (the one on the USB stick) has fallen away almost entirely.
Similarly, although the intention behind this social experiment might have been to create a charity, the system as expressed through its rules does not make for a charity. It makes for something between gambling and leaving money laying on the street. It would be very simple, technically, to enforce socially-normative usage of the card such that it would be a charity—but that was not done, which means that a charity was not the strict intent, leaving people free to interpret the intent of the game as they please.
Also, if you think an experiment like this could possibly demonstrate "that most people are basically good," you're quite far off—the fact that the system is voluntary to join, and that consequences from inside the system do not leak outside, creates what in game design is called a Magic Circle[1]: a division between the social norms of the outer and inner "realities." When such a division is created, a new set of norms (a "social contract") is established between the players of the game, usually reflecting game-theoretically-optimal behavior considering the technical restrictions of the game world. For example, in the social contract of the players of a fighting game, the exploitation of bugs in the game to win is both allowed and encouraged.
Those who try to apply the social norms of the outer reality (such as fairness, generosity, etc.) to the reality within the magic circle, are usually considered to be wrong-headed by those who form the community of players of a game. They are called "scrubs"[2], and they call the tactics of the game's community "cheap." Basically, this is what you seem to be doing.
Now, of course, if you really see the card as a charity, and not a game, then you'll tend to be angry at the people who do see it as a game—just like people are angry at the financial industry for seeing US debt as a game instead of some moral imperative to fix, or like people are angry at pharmaceutical companies for seeing drug creation as a game instead of a moral imperative, or like people are angry at spammers for seeing selling viagra as a game instead of a moral imperative (to not do, in that case.) But none of these people will change, because the systems they're participating in create incentives for their (game-theoretically-optimal) behavior, rather than for what, outside the magic circle, would be "moral" behavior. To change the behavior, you either redesign the game to have different incentives—or you destroy the magic circle by allowing the consequences to leak, such as by making certain in-game actions have out-of-game legal consequences, and thus make the game into whatever sort of moral system it would be in regular, polite society.
[1] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Magic_Circle_(synthetic_worlds)
Re: Use Jonathan's card to buy yourself an iPad
#236Earlier quoted context omitted.
Godwin's Law isn't a value judgement; it's merely an observation. It's neither good nor bad that a comparison to Nazis or Hitler is likely to occur in any sufficiently-lengthy online discussion. (Though people may use it as a sign a conversation has jumped the shark, it need not be.)
The rule of thumb is that unless you are discussing 1930s international politics, if you need to refer to Hitler in order to make your point, then you have already lost the argument. Any point worth making has more appropriate ways of making it.
Re: Use Jonathan's card to buy yourself an iPad
#237Earlier quoted context omitted.
Good find. Also note that danielodio put some of his startup's money on the card ($100, $49, $300 mentioned in HN comments, and a total of $85 mentioned on twitter). So he almost paid for Sam's withdrawals. EDIT: I find myself wondering if, in a few hours, Sam and Daniel will give this as a further explanation, and reveal that they'd actually donated the full amount to the card that was taken out. The whole thing is…
Indeed: @Socialize has paid $625 to @Jonathanscard to promote our SDK Speed Challenge. That's enough for an iPad, @sodio! http://besoci.al/q2I0QE http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=2878875
Re: Use Jonathan's card to buy yourself an iPad
#238Earlier quoted context omitted.
> They have better things to do than // Better things to do than steal coffees from wealthy Americans in order to feed starving people ... The internet drama is being created by others. I see this as a really interesting, surprising outcome of the experiment, not a "subversion" of it. FWIW people in his sphere of influence appear to have added more money on than the worth he subtracted. Edit: that->than
"Better things to do that steal coffees from wealthy Americans in order to feed starving people ..." Why stop at coffee? Steal their cars too. Evict them from their homes and set up shelters in them. Kidnap their children and hold them for ransom. "see this as a really interesting, surprising outcome of the experiment, not a "subversion" of it." The Stanford Prison Experiment was invalidated by people acting grossly…
Because missing out on a cup of coffee is not going to really affect anyone involved in this experiment in any significant way. They probably drink too much of it anyway.
>The Stanford Prison Experiment was invalidated //
Excuse me? It was a highly successful experiment it demonstrating how moral judgement can be manipulated, how people react to roles and outward signs of authority.
To say an experiment was invalidated suggests that it didn't have the right outcome, experiments don't have right outcomes they have results. Sure results can show that you should have used a different methodology or that more experimentation is needed but results aren't wrong unless they fail to show what happened in the experiment.
Re: Use Jonathan's card to buy yourself an iPad
#239Earlier quoted context omitted.
Jonathan said it was a social experiment. This, and people's reaction to it, is part of that.
I think the observable result is a confirmation of the well known rule: "people, in their vast majority, are good."
Re: Use Jonathan's card to buy yourself an iPad
#240Earlier quoted context omitted.
"Better things to do that steal coffees from wealthy Americans in order to feed starving people ..." Why stop at coffee? Steal their cars too. Evict them from their homes and set up shelters in them. Kidnap their children and hold them for ransom. "see this as a really interesting, surprising outcome of the experiment, not a "subversion" of it." The Stanford Prison Experiment was invalidated by people acting grossly…
> Why stop at coffee? // Because missing out on a cup of coffee is not going to really affect anyone involved in this experiment in any significant way. They probably drink too much of it anyway. > The Stanford Prison Experiment was invalidated // Excuse me? It was a highly successful experiment it demonstrating how moral judgement can be manipulated, how people react to roles and outward signs of authority. To say a…
Contrary to popular believe, the scientific value of the experiment was lost. It's only real value today in the field is as an example of how not to run an experiment.