5 ms·

If the pirates were that strictly rational and interested in their own survival, they wouldn't be pirates. They'd have a nice, safe job, free from threat of dea

by vacri 11y ago

If the pirates were that strictly rational and interested in their own survival, they wouldn't be pirates. They'd have a nice, safe job, free from threat of death or injury.

jere 11y ago
I don't think many jobs during the Golden Age of Piracy would be considered safe and free from threat of death or injury.
mikeash 11y ago
I don't normally go for pop culture quotes here, but this one seems rather appropriate: Oh, get a job? Just get a job? Why don't I strap on my job helmet and squeeze down into a job cannon and fire off into job land, where jobs grow on little jobbies?!
- vacri 11y ago
  Yeah, and while you're doing that, why not have a chat to the pirates so bloodthirsty to kill each other, but with such a code of honour that they're satisfied with the booty split which has 98% of the money going to only 20% of the crew. Why are you so disturbed about the ridiculousness of my comment, yet quite happy to take the ridiculousness of the situation's premise?
  - mikeash 11y ago
    What gives you the impression that I'm "disturbed"?
    - vacri 11y ago
      Probably an artifact of seeing a bizarre response in general to the comment, really. The tone of the quote also doesn't help, as it sounds pissed-off.
mfoy_ 11y ago
If you were ever curious what the phrase "couldn't see the forest for the trees" meant... here's an example.
- vacri 11y ago
  Frankly, it's funny that there's been such a backlash against this comment. People seem outraged that I should suggest such a thing, yet find it perfectly acceptable that five pirates would be satisfied with a booty divide that has 98% of the money going to one guy. As if these pirates, so ready to kill each other, wouldn't have the four remaining pirates toss the first overboard. If ANY of the respondedants and downvoters to my comment actually wanted a touch of realism, they'd understand that I was pointing out the ridiculousness of 'perfectly rational actors' in these games.
omegaham 11y ago
Pretty much all of the jobs during pirates' heyday were dangerous, at least those available to the lower classes. Piracy was immensely profitable and comparatively safe for years until the Royal Navy clamped down heavily with summary execution being the usual punishment for captured pirates. Basically, they had the same advantages as pirates near Somalia and Indonesia have today - very few military ships, and merchants are unwilling to fight because it risks the entire crew being massacred.
- vacri 11y ago
  Again, if we're being realistic, nothing in the game tells us that it takes place in the golden age of piracy. It's piracy at sea (because 'overboard') and it's taking stuff ('booty'), but we have no other indicators. Well, unlikely to be modern pirates because 'gold coins', though possible. Piracy goes at least as far back as ancient Greece and up to today, with the world's hottest spot having moved to around Singapore. :)
talmand 11y ago
Being a pirate was a job. A government job in some cases.
- sgt 11y ago
  Yes, working for a privateer. Reference: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Privateer https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Privateer
dfc 11y ago
You should read The Invisible Hook. I bet you will have a different opinion by the end of it. You also forgot to put a value on self-determination.
- vacri 11y ago
  I guess you could use the unusually democratic nature of some historical pirate crews to defend a grossly undemocratic split of 98-0-1-0-1 in the game, but I'm not sure I see the link, personally.
mmanfrin 11y ago
People are downvoting you and explaining why, but I'd like to ask you: Why do you think rationality and survival are specifically at odds with being a pirate?
- vacri 11y ago
  They're telling me about the 'job market in the age of sail', not about the problem at hand. Basically, you've pulled a strawman out of what I've said - I didn't say that rationality and survival were at odds with being a pirate. I said that if the pirates were "that strictly rational", that is, that they'd accept the ridiculous split given in the game, that they wouldn't be pirates in the first place. If you want to talk about pirates, cool, I love them and their history, let's talk about pirates! But if you want to make a game with humans adhering to ridiculous artificial rules, then lets throw some spanners in those works. I'm actually trying to inject some humanity into the problem, highlighting (as others have) that we're talking about humans here, not logic gates. If the pirates were so extreme in their rationality, then they wouldn't be pirates in the first place. Talk of such grandiose concepts like self-determination seems out of place when you have 80% of the crew being satisfied with a measly two coins.
  - mmanfrin 11y ago
    "If the pirates were that strictly rational and interested in their own survival, they wouldn't be pirates" to which I replied "Why do you think rationality and survival are specifically at odds with being a pirate?" Your comment is distilled down to if strictly rational and & interested in survival, then not pirates So my question asking why you think this is not following incorrect logic, let alone a strawman -- if you're going to be pedantic about rhetoric then at least know what fallacy you're accusing of me means. You can't just say 'thats a strawman!' when someone drills down on your argument.
    - vacri 11y ago
      I never said that rationality and survival were at odds with being a pirate - that's something you injected into my words, hence strawman. I said that the strict rationality in the article was; the extreme nature of the rationality described. I mean, I even italicised the word 'strictly' in my reply, to clearly indicate the important bit of my comment that you blithely removed to create your strawman. You didn't 'drill down' my argument, you twisted it to say something I never said. It's like if I said "if a person inhales too much water, they can drown" and you replied "why do you think water is at odds with survival?". Hell, even in this new "distillation" of yours, the word 'strictly' is used. If you're a fan of rhetoric, then get on board with the meanings of words. And if you want to be pedantic, I didn't just say "that's a strawman", I pointed out why it was.

by vacri 11y ago

If the pirates were that strictly rational and interested in their own survival, they wouldn't be pirates. They'd have a nice, safe job, free from threat of death or injury.

jere 11y ago

I don't think many jobs during the Golden Age of Piracy would be considered safe and free from threat of death or injury.

mikeash 11y ago

I don't normally go for pop culture quotes here, but this one seems rather appropriate: Oh, get a job? Just get a job? Why don't I strap on my job helmet and squeeze down into a job cannon and fire off into job land, where jobs grow on little jobbies?!

vacri 11y ago
Yeah, and while you're doing that, why not have a chat to the pirates so bloodthirsty to kill each other, but with such a code of honour that they're satisfied with the booty split which has 98% of the money going to only 20% of the crew. Why are you so disturbed about the ridiculousness of my comment, yet quite happy to take the ridiculousness of the situation's premise?
- mikeash 11y ago
  What gives you the impression that I'm "disturbed"?
  - vacri 11y ago
    Probably an artifact of seeing a bizarre response in general to the comment, really. The tone of the quote also doesn't help, as it sounds pissed-off.

mfoy_ 11y ago

If you were ever curious what the phrase "couldn't see the forest for the trees" meant... here's an example.

vacri 11y ago
Frankly, it's funny that there's been such a backlash against this comment. People seem outraged that I should suggest such a thing, yet find it perfectly acceptable that five pirates would be satisfied with a booty divide that has 98% of the money going to one guy. As if these pirates, so ready to kill each other, wouldn't have the four remaining pirates toss the first overboard. If ANY of the respondedants and downvoters to my comment actually wanted a touch of realism, they'd understand that I was pointing out the ridiculousness of 'perfectly rational actors' in these games.

omegaham 11y ago

Pretty much all of the jobs during pirates' heyday were dangerous, at least those available to the lower classes. Piracy was immensely profitable and comparatively safe for years until the Royal Navy clamped down heavily with summary execution being the usual punishment for captured pirates. Basically, they had the same advantages as pirates near Somalia and Indonesia have today - very few military ships, and merchants are unwilling to fight because it risks the entire crew being massacred.

vacri 11y ago
Again, if we're being realistic, nothing in the game tells us that it takes place in the golden age of piracy. It's piracy at sea (because 'overboard') and it's taking stuff ('booty'), but we have no other indicators. Well, unlikely to be modern pirates because 'gold coins', though possible. Piracy goes at least as far back as ancient Greece and up to today, with the world's hottest spot having moved to around Singapore. :)

talmand 11y ago

Being a pirate was a job. A government job in some cases.

sgt 11y ago
Yes, working for a privateer. Reference: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Privateer https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Privateer

dfc 11y ago

You should read The Invisible Hook. I bet you will have a different opinion by the end of it. You also forgot to put a value on self-determination.

vacri 11y ago
I guess you could use the unusually democratic nature of some historical pirate crews to defend a grossly undemocratic split of 98-0-1-0-1 in the game, but I'm not sure I see the link, personally.

mmanfrin 11y ago

People are downvoting you and explaining why, but I'd like to ask you: Why do you think rationality and survival are specifically at odds with being a pirate?

vacri 11y ago
They're telling me about the 'job market in the age of sail', not about the problem at hand. Basically, you've pulled a strawman out of what I've said - I didn't say that rationality and survival were at odds with being a pirate. I said that if the pirates were "that strictly rational", that is, that they'd accept the ridiculous split given in the game, that they wouldn't be pirates in the first place. If you want to talk about pirates, cool, I love them and their history, let's talk about pirates! But if you want to make a game with humans adhering to ridiculous artificial rules, then lets throw some spanners in those works. I'm actually trying to inject some humanity into the problem, highlighting (as others have) that we're talking about humans here, not logic gates. If the pirates were so extreme in their rationality, then they wouldn't be pirates in the first place. Talk of such grandiose concepts like self-determination seems out of place when you have 80% of the crew being satisfied with a measly two coins.
- mmanfrin 11y ago
  "If the pirates were that strictly rational and interested in their own survival, they wouldn't be pirates" to which I replied "Why do you think rationality and survival are specifically at odds with being a pirate?" Your comment is distilled down to if strictly rational and & interested in survival, then not pirates So my question asking why you think this is not following incorrect logic, let alone a strawman -- if you're going to be pedantic about rhetoric then at least know what fallacy you're accusing of me means. You can't just say 'thats a strawman!' when someone drills down on your argument.
  - vacri 11y ago
    I never said that rationality and survival were at odds with being a pirate - that's something you injected into my words, hence strawman. I said that the strict rationality in the article was; the extreme nature of the rationality described. I mean, I even italicised the word 'strictly' in my reply, to clearly indicate the important bit of my comment that you blithely removed to create your strawman. You didn't 'drill down' my argument, you twisted it to say something I never said. It's like if I said "if a person inhales too much water, they can drown" and you replied "why do you think water is at odds with survival?". Hell, even in this new "distillation" of yours, the word 'strictly' is used. If you're a fan of rhetoric, then get on board with the meanings of words. And if you want to be pedantic, I didn't just say "that's a strawman", I pointed out why it was.