↩ Deauthorized Reaction games are the dumbest thing. Make the task of earning currency play-oriented. Build competitions are a great example of this, and I know that the community generally likes contests and competitions a lot.
Idk. if playtime should be awarded directly via currency.
enchy Imagine that you're in a burning fertility clinic with a 2-year-old baby and a petri dish containing 10 blastulas. You can't save both, so which do you save?
QuoteMy overall point is that your alluding to my inability to decide my taxes is the same as Elon’s inability to choose what to do with his money is not a good comparison.
You didn't substantiate this point in your above paragraph. Whether Musk thinks his money benefits him via taxation or not is irrelevant - he doesn't get to decide that, and nor do you.
QuoteElon’s wealth is not comparable because if he did choose to give money away, it would not benefit him at all. He doesn’t owe anyone anything at the end of the day
Regardless if Musk owns any physical assets (in which he certainly does), he still benefits from a well-functioning society funded via taxation. It's true that in a progressive system, you might reach a point in your income/wealth where the ratio of "cost vs. gain" is tipped towards cost. This however neglects to mention that this whole argument in substance is saying: "You should only pay taxes as long as it directly benefits you" - which I would assume that you agree is a nonsensical take.
↩ @'Miasmus.'
QuoteGood point. I can agree that 50% is pretty ludicrous when not only including liquid assets, however I have also noticed that Elon reportedly payed himself for part of the Twitter share - 21 billion dollars. Could be reading this wrong, but wouldn’t this mean he has at least that much money available immediately, and most likely much more which he could use for charity? Maybe my requirements were a bit absurd, but I think my point still stands, especially because IMO companies are less important that helping a lot of people, although this could be debated depending on what the company does.
I think it's worrisome to expect wealthy people to give to charity. Yes they could, but a far easier option is to simply tax them
It's not a crime to be rich, and it shouldn't be looked down upon, otherwise won't have any innovation. And the fastest way to eradicating poverty is via innovation, not charity (see last 200 years of history)
Society simply need enough money to feed the poor and have institutions running.
↩ @'Miasmus.'
Quoteproperty rights shouldn’t be able to be upheld if they can inhibit major improvements which benefit a large amount of people.
Your rights shouldn't be removed because others have it worse than you.
QuoteWhat if Elon, the person who worked for this money (im sure you’ve heard stories of his work ethic), does not want to share his money? Should he have no say in this?
Do you have a say in how much you pay in taxes besides your own vote in elections…?
↩ @'anemone'
"We had so much money at times we couldn't even close our safe".
\~ Errol Musk
Everything is relative.
↩ Folfy_Blue The word you're looking for is a progressive tax system.
Why does it start at beta 1.2?
↩ @'wxtermelon' he responded to a statement saying "women have no rights"… what's the problem here?
Quote↩ Tizz While it’s been historically run like that, this vision isn’t enforceable anymore since Mark has transferred the legal ownership to Ryan.
Going from memory, according to Ryan’s words, Mark contemplated letting TotalFreedom’s domain expire rather than passing it to another individual, so it’s hard for me to imagine Mark supporting this vote off rather than putting TF out of its misery.
If Mark wants (wanted) TF to die, then why would he give ownership to Windows? And why do you want TF gone if it still has a community that frequents it (e.g. me).
Quote↩ taah the thing is ryan isnt handed over access, he has total access and ownership of all the resources to run the server including the domain, therefore there is no need for elections or any of that bs. it’s his server now and we are members. change happens, u cant prevent it. we’re not always going to use the same system because everyone is used to it
You didn't read what I said. Wild was elected via community vote, and thus the ownership should be subject to community approval. No we can't prevent it, which is why I (and others in this and before this thread) have complained about this change)
Quote↩ taah “nothing can’t be done,” we thats because you dont have any involvement in the development of our server. if you want to make changes, make suggestions, if you want to add something to the server, make suggestions. ryan perfectly is open to suggestions with enough valid reasoning behind it from my experience in DMing him.
So my opinion is "invalid" because I don't play that often on the server? I have made plenty of suggestions that are still being processed, so I don't get why you're acting as if I'm complaining just for the sake of complaining?'
↩ MagAgentV3 How is it getting out of hand? Do you just want the thread to be closed because you disagree with the subject matter?
Quote↩ DragonSlayer2189 Yes, nuking people is a valid threat mainly due to the fact that if they actually did it, it would certainly start WWIII.
↩ mattlawn not worth killing Four billion people over the us would only use military force if a NATO nation was attacked
Certainly. Good to know that nukes = a free pass to violate human rights, war conventions and so on.
Worst part is that I don't even have an answer myself. MAD - shouldn't - be a get-out-of-jail card. Only solution is to completely cut said country off from the rest of the world in terms of trade, travel and politics.
Quote
I disagree. I think there's a difference between Mark handing the server over to Windows vs. the community electing it's next owner.
I don't think that Wild should host TF as a democracy, but I think it needs emphasizing that TF is only alive because of it's community - not the gamemode or the server in general. If people have quarrels with how Wild is running the server, because they weren't aware he would do so when they elected him, then I think that's an issue. I can certainly testify that I found it troublesome when Wild 'removed' the ownership policy. As I stated in Wild's manifesto-thread: I don't really care if the server is run like a democracy (lol) or how it's run now - I just want transparency, which I think is what (might) be causing a lot of these arguments.
I don't think it's fair from either side to not listen to the other. Those who want to keep Wild certainly have their valid reasons, and those opposing his ownership also do.
Quote
It doesn't matter. If we have a set of rules that need to be breached in order to end up on the permban (/irrevocable permban list), then it seems silly to "allow" the owner to ban them anyway because they felt insulted
Quote
You don't think it's a problem if the ownership of a (community-driven) server is out of touch with the community and nothing could be done?
Quote
This is untrue, is it not?
Also, wasn't the hub idea popular with the community when it was first being discussed?
Quotei dont like the way things are run, but frankly this is getting annoying and old how people keep voting off the owners. its his server not a community server.
It is indeed a community server. The only reason Wild is owner is because he was elected by the community. I think this reasoning died when Mark gave the controls to Windows.
Quote
It's relevant because it is certainly not the standard. Ryan's way of running TF is akin to how Mark ran it.
Quote↩ simplynick For those whom are unaware, Ryan has made it very clear how he plans to run TotalFreedom. If it was ignored, then it’s too late. Atlas owns TotalFreedom, inside and out. You can’t vote off the Owner with a thread from his sub-projects. As a member of the community, you have a right to an opinion to be shared and discussed, however, to use the vote off card because of a majority disagreement will not work as easy as it was with the previous owners.
↩ @'phrman' yall basically said in the ‘tl;dr’ that a big reason ryan isnt suited for owner cuz he doesnt agree with the community. You all voted for him when he made as much clear in his owner manifesto.
I think it's disingenious to not mention the outcry that happened once Wild removed the policy (myself included). Another thing worth keeping in mind is that people weren't made aware of the fact that he would remove said policy.
The "You voted for him"-argument seems to be a focal point of the disagreemnt and confusion: not everyone thinks that he made things very clear. (Perhaps it would be wise to quote the thread in question here?)
Quote↩ @'r00t' Okay, but even if this gets approved, he literally owns the domain, which means you can’t just vote him off.
Which is an issue. But in no real way could we ever enforce such a policy (before Wild) without Mark's help, so the policy has always been 'redundant' even if the intentions are good.
to be fair I think a lot of the criticism from either side is thin air from an outsiders POV (mine). The major quarrel seems to be the argument that Wild is out of touch with the community, however I don't see very much that supports this notion in this thread.
TL: DR:
Unban Ivan, as his permban was a clear result of hurt feelings and not proper procedure.
No to vote off.
