Oh my! Your text is so…very droll.
This isn’t real life kids. Your market activity can go untouched for months and you won’t be “losing” anything. Or, are you that heavily indoctrinated…you need to be decompressed before rational discussion.
care bear ass…what a hoot. That was so…whatever to read!
A bit more than that.
It’d be pretty cool if OP would specify then.
As you can see in my prior post :
BUt i only agree about the result that in fact yes it will not work… But not the reasoning you represented there because if you read the critics to the book you have quoted :
Olson’s original logic of collective action has received several critiques, based either on a different interpretation of the observations on minority interest representation, or on a disagreement on the degree of concentrated interest representation.
Susanne Lohmann agrees with puzzling observations made by Olson, which she classifies as economic and political puzzles. Economic puzzles are cases of general welfare loss in favour of a minority benefit which is smaller in sum. An example she gives is a quota on sugar imports in the United States, which generates 2261 jobs at the expense of a general welfare reduction of $1,162 million (Hufbauer and Elliot, 1994). Then the implicit price for a job in the sugar industry is above $500,000, allowing for significant room for Pareto improvement. Political puzzles are cases where minority trumps majority. An example she gives is the rural bias in urbanized countries, such as the Common Agricultural Policy in the European Union.
Lohmann claims that Olson’s free-rider problem is insufficient to explain these puzzles. Instead, she argues they are due to uncertainty (information asymmetry among actors) when special interest groups evaluate how political actors promote their interests. She states that everyone can be considered a special interest. Because everyone is (relatively) sure how well their interests are represented, they give more weight to their interest representation when evaluating political actors than to the general benefit. Lohmann argues that it could be politically viable to focus on separate narrow interests at the expense of general benefits.
Gunnar Trumbull rejects the observation by Olson and Lohmann that concentrated interests dominate public policy. He points out that historically, diffuse interests nearly always found ways to be represented in public policy, such as the interests of retirees, patients or consumers. Trumbull explains this with the role of legitimacy of interest groups that promote policies. He argues that diffuse interests have a legitimacy premium when they manage to mobilize, while concentrated interests are viewed with suspicion. He describes the concept of legitimacy coalitions, which are coalitions between state policymakers, social activists or industry to promote certain policy. By having to form a coalition, the interests are more broadly represented. An example of such a coalition is the post-war neo-corporatist system.
Marwell and Oliver [1] use mathematical and computational models to show that a number of the assumptions made by Olson are unrealistic, and if they are relaxed, the behavior of a system of rational agents changes dramatically. One assumption is that the “production function” of goods is linear. If this function instead accelerates, then a critical mass of early contributors can encourage a large number of others to contribute. Another assumption is that the cost of the good is a function of the size of the group that would benefit from it. For many public goods, this is not true, and Marwell and Oliver show that when the interest group is larger, there is a larger chance that it will include someone for whom it is rational to provide the good, either in part or in full.
you can see that its off for real life and its EVEN MORE OFF if you pan this evaluation on top of The EvE ECO SYSTEM…
I have asked CCP directly that if they know how their players base activity lvl in order to security zones / areas in eve online with all alt accounts ect… and also numbers of their major activities /side activities combined …
They dont have these numbers … Assuming indy players as a minority is great mistake… they just scattered all around. and the reason this thing fail inEvE online is more lie under the reasons i had explained up there bit more simple way…
What i dont like is…
respectless
he has right to post here . might be ridicuouls for you… and you explained already very fine way… no need for intimidation.
unfortunately my friend and sadly …yes you are right!.
and im sory for that.
this is a game … if people dont like they will leave… its not real life activity engaged to bread for life… So build up enough motivation to change things and lead to great revolution… slim chance…
Keep ignoring the elephant in the room.
So like, is this happening tomorrow, or the day after?
Nobody is assuming that industry players are a minority. We’re assuming that industrial players dumb enough to go along with a strike are a minority.
We try. You won’t let us.
That being said, you take hogwash to an entirely new dimension. The internet groans under the weight of that post which essentially said nothing but for a rehash of the owner cult’s philosophy of capitalism.
Please go in strike. My T2 mining ships have been languishing on the market because I refuse to sell them below cost.
On behalf of the Convocation of Empyreans, Baseliner Liberation Front, and the Kybernaut Clade: go getum, tiger!
I’m going to name my goldfish Scoots Choco. I hear the past doesn’t exist for them either.
So… is this thing happening or what?
Your definition of “poor” and mine don’t match up. It’d be nice if there were some common ground.
The words appear to be English. Which is a good first step.
Now maybe you could try rearranging them until they make some sense.
Sigh, since we’re gonna do this.
I own the equivalent of your entire hangar of ships in just Gila blueprints alone. Your definition of “poor” and my definition of “poor” do not match up.
Edit: before someone asks, no I’m not selling them. at least not until i max it out to 1,000. I did this with Phantasms last year.
Cool, but what does it have to do with my goldfish? You’re making no sense.
Still.
Our hoards of material trinkets might exceed whatever he has in his respectable stock, but neither of us will ever beat the wealth of his moral character. He truly is the King of Kings.
The fundamental difference here is that what you think is “poor” and what I think is “poor” are not the same. Similarly, what you considered to be “small indies” that OP refers to and what I consider to be “small indies” are also not the same.
If we have such a fundamental difference in what these words mean, there will never be any meaningful discussion, especially if one party will conveniently move goalposts and change their personal subjective idea of what “poor” or “small indy” means during the course of the discussion.
8 posts removed.
1. Specifically restricted conduct.
The purpose of the EVE Online forums is to provide a platform for exchange of ideas, and a venue for the discussion of EVE Online. Occasionally there will be conflicts that arise when people voice opinions. Forum users are expected to courteous when disagreeing with others.
In order to maintain an environment where everyone is welcome and discussion flows freely, certain types of conduct are prohibited on the EVE Online forums. These are:
Trolling
Flaming
Ranting
Personal Attacks
Harassment
Doxxing
Racism & Discrimination
Hate Speech
Sexism
Spamming
Bumping
Off-Topic Posting
Pyramid Quoting
Rumor Mongering
New Player Bashing
Impersonation
Advertising
