Bitcoin Forum

I like this board, but I am confused if I am even posting the right topic that fit into this board or not, I have read some comments before that there are many topics that supposed not to be on this board but posted here. Some people may not even also be posting here because they do not know what ivory tower is all about.

I googled online and I saw Ivory tower of the past that is used because of different kind of reasons, it can be good or bad reasons. The good reason is to safe oneself from poor environment when people thought malaria is cause by poor air which was wrong. The bad reason was to isolate someone from the public. This makes me still confused to know what this board is all about.

I will like people, especially the high ranked members to tell us what this board (ivory tower) is all about? What topics should be here?

I think the idea is to have slow moving discussions between senior members. The no activity update, and no signatures is intended to weed out those who are just posting for income. More or less any topic is allowed, but the kindergarten ones don't seem to get many replies. I'm not really interested in schoolboy topics such as the existence of god, and women's underwear.

What I would most like to see is discussions about macro-politics, by that I mean discussions about the influencers who control Washington, Westminster and the EU.

That last sounds like a discussion I would be mostly interested in one conclusion from...

...Is it a realistic assumption?

I am mainly curious because in developing a meta-game in which one component is "civilisations", I have so far pretty much decided that it seems more practical to have the hosting fees for hosting a "civilisation" be charged to a player or group of players, usually represented or proxied in the game by a character or group of characters, rather than to "the civilisation itself".

The problem this is intended to solve is basically what happens to a "civilisation"'s accrued hosting bill turn after turn after turn if there is not a player or group of players currently controlling that "civilisation".

The in game rationalisation of the fee is that it is the cost of effectively controlling the "civilisation" rather that some hosting fee, since the population(s) indigenous to the game need not be assumed to believe they are living in a simulation nor that they therefore "owe" whoever or whatever is "running" that simulation anything.

S.P. (Second Poster), your suggested topic has potential appeal to me if it could lead to some general idea of whether it could in fact be or even seem realistic that some few "influential" people could take, or retain, defacto control of a nation, hopefully even if its "government type" changes from time to time and maybe even with such changes from type to type of government being itself driven (controlled) by that very same group (or its heirs and assigns).

Of course also, deviating from your suggested topic further, there also arises the problem of how to "rationalise" (gamesplain?) the fact that as the accrued unpaid hosting bill grows and grows it presumably becomes more and more "costly" to take control, maybe something to do with civilisations that outgrew (or never even experienced) the stage of being relatively susceptible to control by some "illuminati" or "favoured family" or whatever building up more and more resistance "naturally" over time?


-MarkM-