Chickenware window boxes

[Peanut]

And doesn't this fall under all those other domestication topics anyway?

[Cogliostro]

Where can we read the logical argument to support that statement, Doug?

[*Wiro]

Well, honestly, animal domestication won't get in within the next four years. If at all, ever. So these kind of things just limit the game in it's possibilities for expansion. People explained why your points (or at least part of them) were wrong or not entirely right, but you just shrug those off - like Cogliostro said, without any argument whatsoever - as not being logical.

I don't see how that is right at all.

[Doug R.]

People explained why your points (or at least part of them) were wrong or not entirely right, but you just shrug those off - like Cogliostro said, without any argument whatsoever - as not being logical.

I also said I needed to be swayed on all points, not just part of them.

Well, honestly, animal domestication won't get in within the next four years. If at all, ever. So these kind of things just limit the game in it's possibilities for expansion.

Introducing fudges based on the idea that something will never get done, firstly discourages said thing from getting done (why do it if we can fudge?) and secondly just makes implementation of said system more difficult because the fudge mechanism needs to be rebuilt to accommodate the new changes. This will just piss off everyone when suddenly their coops don't work without actual birds. People will threaten to leave the game, and all the ensuing drama will ensue, with people claiming that their characters will starve now. It is fundamentally wrong to introduce a fudge mechanism that players may come to rely upon that can be taken away or altered when the actual mechanism is put into place.

3) but why should that stop us from getting the incubator boxes? The consensus is that they are to use "generic" egg, not chicken.

(which needs chickens to incubate the eggs, the grain requirement being acknowledgment of this)

It is implied, through reason, that the eggs are incubated by birds and then become a bird, which then becomes meat.

That is also the reason why no one is suggesting cow stalls or sheep shearing stations, though they'd be possible and simpler than domestic animals. But poutry is always a kind of "add on" and not the centerpiece of a typical farm, a lot like a beehive.

But they will. They'll say "but we already have bird coops!" (just like you're saying, "but we have beehives!") As previously discussed, behives are not valid precedent, but bird coops would be. I cannot approve something that will open the door for rampant fudging of the animal system.

So, Doug, why is there potatoes, carrots and asparagus on land when we might as well just have just potatoes there? If that thing applies to the sea, then it should apply to land as well. I don't agree that people shouldn't be able to have another way of having food at sea.

Smelting furnaces can be built on land, so by your argument, they should be built on sea as well. If sea was meant to be the same as land, then there would not be any restrictions on production at sea. There is no NEED for another method of food gathering at sea, although I wouldn't object to another form that didn't attempt to fudge the animal system and was properly balanced. Without clear need, it puts any argument for change on unsolid ground.

[Rebma]

No, we don't NEED another method of getting food at sea, but we don't NEED new forms of jewellry and clothing either, we still get it.

I understand what you're saying, about implying it's there, and the trouble this will cause if/when domestication is implemented though.

I like the idea about the box having eggs put in, and either eggs/meat coming out, and I agree with what doug is saying about the implying somethiing is there that isn't, but I still have it in my mind that the basis for NOT implementing this should be "we don't need it" Because there's a lot we don't need, but have. It's feasible, and so what if years down the line there's and issue? How many egg boxes are there going to be that it would make such a huge issue?

Hell, give them some chickens when that happens. For now, why not? It doesn't hurt the game balance. It's not unrealistic that its implied theres a chicken (like implying theres water in veggies used to make soup and that's enough to give it consistency).

Again, yes we don't need it, but again there's a lot else we don't need that would/does already throw game balance/give advantages.

[Doug R.]

but I still have it in my mind that the basis for NOT implementing this should be "we don't need it"

If I haven't been clear, the basis for NOT implementing this is that it fudges the animal system. The fact that it is not needed, in addition to that, makes rejecting it easier.

[Rebma]

but I still have it in my mind that the basis for NOT implementing this should be "we don't need it"

If I haven't been clear, the basis for NOT implementing this is that it fudges the animal system. The fact that it is not needed, in addition to that, makes rejecting it easier.

You mean will fudge the animal system? The one we don't have yet? I had semi-viable solutions for that. With some brainstorming from our brilliant community WHEN the time comes we can figure it out.

Or you mean because you plan on putting chickens in a location somewhere? If so - so what? If the output is eggs/meat it doesn't imply chickens directly, could imply anything.

It's already elsewhere in game and that person may never have seen any egg producing animals? So what? Honestly, who/what does this hurt, besides your feelings that something shouldn't be implied?

..whoa..that sounded rude..didn't mean it that way, just saying.

[Elros]

Right, now, all I see is that we should add chicken coops because Cogliostro wants chicken coops.

I was for it as well. Also about 4-5 other people on here. In fact everyone on here was for it. I thought it made a lot of logical sense in the way it was set up. It would work great, and in ten years if someone did ever domesticate animals then it could be changed. I mean iron used to be collected straight out of the ground before the new system was added. Things change and people understand that.

We know you are in charge and it is your ultimate decision, but it would be nice if you would look at all of the pro's to it, and all of the people that are for it, and consider it.

It is easy to implement, would work fine, and has no negative factors.

[Dudel]

Dudel was one for this as well... but once this became an "Because I said so" argument... I was done.

[Cogliostro]

I'm disappointed, my jokes weren't meant to offend Doug who's a great member of the community and knows more than me about Cantr for sure.

But as far as logic goes, it's not possible to reason when:

Doug says: the suggestion fudges the animal system.
We say: the suggestion doesn't fudge anything.

Those are, from the pov of logic, premises. Premises can be true or false, but a premise on its own can't have logical validity. So, this way, in the language of robots, we can talk of:

Birds come from hatching eggs. We have eggs. If we hatched them, we could have bird meat and more eggs.

This is a perfectly valid logical argument.
Doug's argument is that chicken coops require chickens, chickens are domestics, domestics haven't yet been implemented, so we can't have chicken coops.

Notice the argument is also perfectly logically valid. That's the quirkiness of this robot-language, you can have valid arguments based on premises that are false. I don't like robot languages, though, since in my opinion the primary disideratum for us is to get along and make the game more fun to play. It isn't at all to make up really anal rulesystems that we use for the sake of a little geeky pleasure.

[Cogliostro]

But wouldn't that be a great name for it though, guys? The egg hatchery!

[*Wiro]

Smelting furnaces can be built on land, so by your argument, they should be built on sea as well. If sea was meant to be the same as land, then there would not be any restrictions on production at sea. There is no NEED for another method of food gathering at sea, although I wouldn't object to another form that didn't attempt to fudge the animal system and was properly balanced. Without clear need, it puts any argument for change on unsolid ground.

That doesn't make sense. You say there's no need for another method of food gathering on sea. And I say that we don't need more than one type of food on land either. And then you bring up smelting furnaces?

And like Elros said, things change. People are always going to complain, so saying that it shouldn't be done because people will complain is not a logical argument.

[Elros]

People are always going to complain, so saying that it shouldn't be done because people will complain is not a logical argument.

Exactly, I mean we are complaining right now... lol

[Caesar]

It is a situation of one against many.


One has the ultimate choice, but getting many angry has some consequences as well.

Normally the crowd wins.

[Doug R.]

I'm firm in my commitment against this proposal. Feel free to go over my head and appeal directly to the boss.

Cantr is not a democracy. Players feedback is extremely valuable, but it is not the final word. It's the GAB's responsibility to make sure that Cantr is evolving within the framework and vision Jos has laid out. It's the GAB's responsibility to say "yes" or "no" in the face of overwhelming opposition, when it feels that the popular opinion is wrong. Some of the worst implementations in the game were implemented by popular demand, and some of the best when most players opposed it. I have made far harder decisions than this, with much greater consequences. Don't think that I'll be swayed by numbers. I can't spend any more energy on this topic.