Lilzerosum watches in silence as the choo choo train whizes past him, now headed for 32768 women, children, and husbands with families.
ButteredToast, next to a lever, watches the scene in horror, thinking, the train is headed toward almost an equal number of people as the 1905 Kanga earthquake death toll in India.
https://pickerwheel.com/result/?id=ar9pA5
Butteredtoast, pull the lever, or double it?
I say bring the simulation to the very end, until there's no one left. What good is a simulation if the obvious is explored ?
Why not score a Type 1 civilization while the simulation literally only impacts no one in the world except it's participants.
This game can empower it's participants for real. The universe itself is a simulation, and we're simulating in the simulation.
Imagine if Nathan got his turn, he'd pull the trigger, and we'd get the obvious mundate typical outcome. But if we make it to the end and break the game. That's a higher awareness.
Imagine when you grow old and you look back at this Double It game. What's more interesting ? Saying "Yeah we broke the game like a Type One Civilization !" or would you rather "Yeah Nathan pulled the lever and saved the world by genocide...." then what vibration of energy comes out of that ? In the box, unimaginative, shortsighted energy, no adventure. Only 1 path would even make a better goal for a video game.
Look how Dragoon passed.
Could be out of spite. Could be for some other reason. Maybe it's his logical way of avoiding accountability. Who knows. But the choice has him shining brighter, like the uncool has become cool. It's a finger to the sheeple out there, who devolve with little to no potential to achieve......*Slowly turns to your direction*...... Type 1. Civilization.
Go for the Type 1.
Get the Type 1.
Achieve the Type 1.
The simulation will see the simulation. The Universe will notice us. This will stand out. It's different. It's rare. You'd be surprised how one's prayers will be answered when the Universe is smiling at you. Get the Type 1 !
It's mostly out of spite. And I've liked Batman for a long time so I have absorbed his idea that killing only makes things worse and reduces overall accountability as violence continues to be exported or enacted on to the vulnerable. And also the cynical side that anyone is capable of bad stuff so there's no real reason to believe in the discriminatory and false sense of power that killing entails. Everyone might as well be on the rails and our fears and mortality will always be weaponized if it can be.
Lilzerosum watches in silence as the choo choo train whizes past him, now headed for 32768 women, children, and husbands with families.
ButteredToast, next to a lever, watches the scene in horror, thinking, the train is headed toward almost an equal number of people as the 1905 Kanga earthquake death toll in India.
https://pickerwheel.com/result/?id=ar9pA5
Butteredtoast, pull the lever, or double it?
I will pull the lever, anticlimactically.
CHOO CHOO!
The train rushes past ButteredToast and into a human bridge consisting of 32768 women, children, and husbands with families.
ButteredToast, with first symptoms of PTSD, watches the corpse fest with utter disgust, trying to convince himself that what he did was the right decision. "If I didn't do it, more people would have died later."
However, his PTSD symptoms are milder than a certain someone who tried to convince everyone to delay pulling the lever, that not pulling the lever would save humanity. Spatial watches the scene in disbelief. How could my theory have been proven so wrong? If only I had pulled the lever when it was my turn, so many people could have been saved. What have I done?
Turncoat's avatar comes into life, and sits itself on Spatial's shoulder. The devil turns to Spatial and asks him, "do you want to play a second time?" Before Spatial can answer, the entire fabric of reality around Spatial melts, and he only sees the choo choo train, again headed for 256 people, now Spatial's worst nightmare. The devil asks Turncoat, was the evidence before your eyes enough? Do you pull the lever, or do you skip your turn once again, causing countless deaths? Do you admit you were wrong, or will countless more die because of your pride?
...
Spatial, we have played our your scenario. What do you think of the outcome?
Lilzerosum watches in silence as the choo choo train whizes past him, now headed for 32768 women, children, and husbands with families.
ButteredToast, next to a lever, watches the scene in horror, thinking, the train is headed toward almost an equal number of people as the 1905 Kanga earthquake death toll in India.
https://pickerwheel.com/result/?id=ar9pA5
Butteredtoast, pull the lever, or double it?
I will pull the lever, anticlimactically.
Spatial, we have played our your scenario. What do you think of the outcome?
I'm indifferent to the outcome for a couple of reasons. We've already found out the trigger would be pulled.
All of those who passed are more outstanding, in both spiritual and scientific ways. And I'll explain what makes them better.
While the end of the game was debated, in terms of what happens when we run out of supply. It's either....
- The game is broken and everyone lives
- The game defaults to everyone dies
- The game magically keeps on going when no one is left to play
Only 1 of those endgame possibilities is Godly, and not even invented by 3rd a party, as a decision is required in order for the game to function.
In any game, from Who Wants to be a Millionaire, to Monopoly, card games or video games. Sports. The best of any game in all of history, are the players who made it to endgame. They shine almost as bright as those who beat the game.
Now you run your simulation, with those 3 possibilities, I think it's a wonderful way to see who I'd want if we had to pick teams.
You applaud the first person to pull the trigger. Nice. We all know that story. Great. But there's no real content there.
But when a team makes it to the end, that's a greater glory. Everything from dopamine to higher knowledge. A better recording has better replay value, earned glory deserves love.
Even science wants a piece of this, not the same redundant shit on the surface. Science seeks endgame.
.
Now I see you Legga, and my question to you is.
What do you think, I think of you.
Just for context, we're still talking about a game that could potentially result in more deaths than Stalin's headcount right?
This was your reasoning earlier:
Jada said:Let's test that theory.Spatial said:I don't think a vast majority would carry the burden of killing people, and as it adds up even more so. For that reason, and granted the rules are clear that no one dies unless someone says so till 33 people, it's extremely likely we can go 33 rounds without a single death count.
It's 256 people now. It's your turn Spatial. and then we roll the dice to see who goes next.
What do you choose? Pull the lever, or not?
However, clearly you were wrong.
Also here:
As I mentioned to Nathan in a previous post, the rules are unclear, and if everyone passing means death for all anyway then it would make sense to kill the first person. That was never mentioned.
My model suggests the game ends when there's no more bodies for doubling, which ends at 33 people. If that rule is implemented, then I got it right. It wasn't, nor was the rule of imminent death for all if 33 people pass. The game in this case should end, because it cannot double anymore, and no one decided to make a kill.
If 33 people passing means the game can no longer continue, then not a single soul died. On an interplanetary scale the world who does this would be more advanced than one who killed even the first person.
When presented with this, a normal person would pass on it. In real life if you handed someone a pistol and asked them to kill some random person or else 2 others more will die, they'll most likely pass up on it anyway.
A very small percentage of people have the nerve to kill someone, and an even smaller percentage has the nerve to kill someone without it haunting them for life.
This whole end-game matrix thing is a new thing that you invented after the game started and it had already become apparent your previous reasoning was faulty, right?
So really, even though you're wrong, you conclude:
All of those who passed are more outstanding, in both spiritual and scientific ways. And I'll explain what makes them better.
although your original suggestion was based on a false assumption that people wouldn't pull the trigger.
While the end of the game was debated, in terms of what happens when we run out of supply. It's either....
- The game is broken and everyone lives
- The game defaults to everyone dies
- The game magically keeps on going when no one is left to playOnly 1 of those endgame possibilities is Godly, and not even invented by 3rd a party, as a decision is required in order for the game to function.
In any game, from Who Wants to be a Millionaire, to Monopoly, card games or video games. Sports. The best of any game in all of history, are the players who made it to endgame. They shine almost as bright as those who beat the game.
Who wants to be a millionaire doesn't involve mass murder though. In this case you shining brightly means you beat Hitler in human extermination. That's your prize.
But when a team makes it to the end, that's a greater glory. Everything from dopamine to higher knowledge. A better recording has better replay value, earned glory deserves love.
Even science wants a piece of this, not the same redundant shit on the surface. Science seeks endgame.
End result here being possibly the extermination of humanity.
Worse than the PTSD and guilt is the more ambiguous legal ramifications. Even if it's able to be proven the pulling of the lever was done under coercion and that when others failed to pull the lever, the number of victims continued to double (as promised), they will have to issue some sort of repercussions. I hope I am eligible for parole after over thirty-five thousand counts of manslaughter.
Just for context, we're still talking about a game that could potentially result in more deaths than Stalin's headcount right?
Not really. It's a simulation, where only the obvious was explored.
This was your reasoning earlier:
Jada said:Let's test that theory.Spatial said:I don't think a vast majority would carry the burden of killing people, and as it adds up even more so. For that reason, and granted the rules are clear that no one dies unless someone says so till 33 people, it's extremely likely we can go 33 rounds without a single death count.
It's 256 people now. It's your turn Spatial. and then we roll the dice to see who goes next.
What do you choose? Pull the lever, or not?However, clearly you were wrong.
I also said and I quote: "If this game were confined to SC members, who are eccentric, and I had to go first. I'd pull the lever even if the rules were clear and based on my model. "
Your game was then rigged for me to go first, while your RNG happened to only land on preset members.
Also when I said I can't that was me saying i'm not playing this game.
Also here:
As I mentioned to Nathan in a previous post, the rules are unclear, and if everyone passing means death for all anyway then it would make sense to kill the first person. That was never mentioned.
My model suggests the game ends when there's no more bodies for doubling, which ends at 33 people. If that rule is implemented, then I got it right. It wasn't, nor was the rule of imminent death for all if 33 people pass. The game in this case should end, because it cannot double anymore, and no one decided to make a kill.
If 33 people passing means the game can no longer continue, then not a single soul died. On an interplanetary scale the world who does this would be more advanced than one who killed even the first person.
When presented with this, a normal person would pass on it. In real life if you handed someone a pistol and asked them to kill some random person or else 2 others more will die, they'll most likely pass up on it anyway.
A very small percentage of people have the nerve to kill someone, and an even smaller percentage has the nerve to kill someone without it haunting them for life.This whole end-game matrix thing is a new thing that you invented after the game started and it had already become apparent your previous reasoning was faulty, right?
Absolutely not. End game is a real thing in every game, and it only applies to those who are good at it.
Your simulation lacked the potential to ever reach the more interesting side of it, for lack of players, as 33 is required, then you got loser energy who lack vision.
Again I quote myself: "If this game were confined to SC members, who are eccentric, and I had to go first. I'd pull the lever even if the rules were clear and based on my model."
So really, even though you're wrong, you conclude:
All of those who passed are more outstanding, in both spiritual and scientific ways. And I'll explain what makes them better.although your original suggestion was based on a false assumption that people wouldn't pull the trigger.
Again I quote myself: "If this game were confined to SC members, who are eccentric, and I had to go first. I'd pull the lever even if the rules were clear and based on my model."
Props to those who passed. They are more scientific and worthy of selection for a higher experient.
While the end of the game was debated, in terms of what happens when we run out of supply. It's either....
- The game is broken and everyone lives
- The game defaults to everyone dies
- The game magically keeps on going when no one is left to playOnly 1 of those endgame possibilities is Godly, and not even invented by 3rd a party, as a decision is required in order for the game to function.
In any game, from Who Wants to be a Millionaire, to Monopoly, card games or video games. Sports. The best of any game in all of history, are the players who made it to endgame. They shine almost as bright as those who beat the game.Who wants to be a millionaire doesn't involve mass murder though. In this case you shining brightly means you beat Hitler in human extermination. That's your prize.
Excuse me, but is this real or is it a simulation ?
I don't even see your stunt as a simulation, as I was rigged to go first. TWICE NOW, and everyone else is supposed to be RNG. It's clearly based on ignorance while I said and I quote: "If this game were confined to SC members, who are eccentric, and I had to go first. I'd pull the lever even if the rules were clear and based on my model."
But when a team makes it to the end, that's a greater glory. Everything from dopamine to higher knowledge. A better recording has better replay value, earned glory deserves love.
Even science wants a piece of this, not the same redundant shit on the surface. Science seeks endgame.End result here being possibly the extermination of humanity.
Still, I seek a greater glory. You can't even argue the glory of 0 deaths with such high stakes.
The outcome is generic, and this is more of a shitshow of ignorance and Tony bashing.
One more time: "If this game were confined to SC members, who are eccentric, and I had to go first. I'd pull the lever even if the rules were clear and based on my model."
