mellyrn on December 17, 2010, 07:03:55 pm
I like Larry the bartender.

Oh, sure, I can imagine a more sympathetic character than Morris -- me, for example -- getting worked over unfairly or unjustly or something and wishing a Larry-guy would stand up for me.  Larry can't know what we readers know, that Morris totally had it coming; all he's got is Morris' latest behavior, which might not be representative.

If I want the Larrys to help me at need, I should give them inspiration that way, yes?

But who is "Mike", who called Suki's com?

jamesd on December 17, 2010, 08:45:40 pm
Actually it is his business.

The problem occurred in his pub, so the outcome reflects on pub security.  He should make sure that only cheaters and troublemakers get killed off when bad things happen in his pub.

mellyrn on December 18, 2010, 07:41:26 am
OK, I almost sprayed my monitor with this morning's tea.  I stand corrected.

SandySandfort on December 18, 2010, 07:46:09 am
But who is "Mike", who called Suki's com?

Drat! That will be fixed later today, probably. Good pickup, Mellyrn!

SandySandfort on December 18, 2010, 07:50:47 am
Actually it is his business.

Not really. Fights happen. The situation was contained. So the appropriate security measures were taken. End of story.

J Thomas on December 18, 2010, 10:21:01 am
Actually it is his business.

The problem occurred in his pub, so the outcome reflects on pub security.  He should make sure that only cheaters and troublemakers get killed off when bad things happen in his pub.

A known patron accused a newcomer of cheating. The newcomer insulted the patron and invited a fight. The patron then kicked him in the head.

As far as we know there was no confirmation that he cheated. But he caused trouble by insulting the patron who called him a cheater and by getting kicked in the head. So he got in trouble.

This is not an unlikely outcome today, is it? Newbies who get into conflicts with established regulars are trouble-makers. An established regular is not often a trouble-maker or he would not have become an established regular in the first place.

Ceres in this story has a small-town feel to me. "Nobody's seen him since...." That a community could or would track somebody well enough to know that he'd disappeared.... He gets into one dispute and gets blackballed from every gambling hall in the Belt? Maybe Larry overstated that but maybe it was real. The whole Belt sounds like a small town. Larry did agree that the guy had cheated, though. Maybe he knew and wasn't just taking Suki's word for it.

OK, imagine the worst case. You're a newbie, and you visit a gambling hall. Somebody falsely accuses you of cheating. They attack you. The manager says you're a troublemaker and gets you blacklisted from every gambling hall in the Belt. He publicly says you're a cheater and a troublemaker. You don't get any second chances.

That isn't justice. But it doesn't really need to be. You don't really need to be in any gambling halls. You will probably be richer if you stay out of them. Apart from whatever it does to your reputation, it isn't that much loss.

Unless gambling halls are an important place to get job leads etc. Then maybe you have lost something important. But OK, excrement happens and you can find a way to get by.

We don't get ideal justice even when we claim that's what we're trying to do. When people are mostly trying to avoid trouble, you might get unlucky -- it's your own problem if you look like a trouble magnet. Every now and then somebody gets some bad luck, and they just deal with it.

Anyway, this is the worst-case interpretation from the story. The story might later rule out that interpretation. What I get from it is that the worst case isn't that bad. In the USA a poor newbie can get stuck in jail on trumped-up charges for a year waiting trial, and then get a choice between a plea bargain and a chance to spend more years in prison. it's unlikely that everybody will always get a fair break. But an alternative system has to be *really bad* before it's as bad as what we have.

SandySandfort on December 18, 2010, 03:28:52 pm
A known patron accused a newcomer of cheating. The newcomer insulted the patron and invited a fight. The patron then kicked him in the head.

What does "known patron" have to do with it? Suki could just as well be known as someone who unfairly accuses people of cheating. Presumably, Larry/Mike (we are fixing that) knows his clientèle by their actions and reputation and does not make decision based on your simplistic "known guy, good; stranger, bad" analysis.

As far as we know there was no confirmation that he cheated. But he caused trouble by insulting the patron who called him a cheater and by getting kicked in the head. So he got in trouble.

Are we reading the same strip? He got kicked in the head because he physically threatened Suki if she tried to prove her accusation. Then they both leaped at each other. She was more skilled than Morris, so he got the short end of the stick. Then he sucker punched her after she was restrained and offered no threat. On the "proof" issue. This is a comic strip, not a motion picture. Panels only imply the action between them. We know he was cheating, so it is safe to assume the secreted card was discovered. I think others understand this, but feel free to draw your own panel that shows the card slipping out of his sleeve and someone shouting, "There it is!"

This is not an unlikely outcome today, is it? Newbies who get into conflicts with established regulars are trouble-makers. An established regular is not often a trouble-maker or he would not have become an established regular in the first place.

I have no way of knowing this and neither do you.  ;)

And here again, we have your special pleading by building up a totally unsupported assumption. But let's play, just for fun.

OK, imagine the worst case. You're a newbie, and you visit a gambling hall. Somebody falsely accuses you of cheating. They attack you.

When the facts of the story don't support you, you make up new ones. Nobody attacked Morris, so why posit that here? But as I said, let's play. So I haul all their sorry asses into arbitration and get an enormous settlement.

The manager says you're a troublemaker and gets you blacklisted from every gambling hall in the Belt.

And he has this power, how? He can say anything he wants. Yet there will always be those who do not believe him. Especially if he has a reputation for making wild accusations.

He publicly says you're a cheater and a troublemaker. You don't get any second chances.

Why wouldn't you get a second chance? Oh yes, because that is your scenario, so of course he gets no second chance. What would happen if you turned around and called him a pedophile? I guess he could never get a second chance either, right? Silly scenario, silly outcome.

Anyway, this is the worst-case interpretation from the story....

No it's not. You have materially altered the story to make it fit your improbably scenario. That's not an "interpretation; that's intellectual masturbation.


Apollo-Soyuz on December 18, 2010, 05:08:06 pm
A known patron accused a newcomer of cheating. The newcomer insulted the patron and invited a fight. The patron then kicked him in the head.

Han shot first. Wait, nevermind.

OK, from what I see, Morris insulted Suki, and invited the brawl.

Both Suki and Morris decided to brawl. They both decided to meet each other over on top of the table. So neither can claim self-defense.

After the fight was broken up, Morris got himself banned, which is the right of the property owner. The owner can ban anyone they want.

Also, when Larry/Mike (transcript below needs to be fixed still, maybe his last name is Chekhov?) fails to reach someone on the comm and suspects foul play, something is going to happen by the third act.

SandySandfort on December 18, 2010, 06:30:42 pm
Also, when Larry/Mike (transcript below needs to be fixed still, maybe his last name is Chekhov?)...

Maybe it's Schrödinger...

J Thomas on December 18, 2010, 08:38:49 pm

 On the "proof" issue. This is a comic strip, not a motion picture. Panels only imply the action between them. We know he was cheating, so it is safe to assume the secreted card was discovered. I think others understand this, but feel free to draw your own panel that shows the card slipping out of his sleeve and someone shouting, "There it is!"

I'm making a worst case interpretation. Which does not look so very bad to me.

Quote
This is not an unlikely outcome today, is it? Newbies who get into conflicts with established regulars are trouble-makers. An established regular is not often a trouble-maker or he would not have become an established regular in the first place.

I have no way of knowing this and neither do you.  ;)

I'm remembering some bars. It was true for the particular bars I remember. Of course they were a biased sample of all the bars in the USA, because they were the kind of bars that I could be found in and I have never set foot in the vast majority of bars.

Quote
And here again, we have your special pleading by building up a totally unsupported assumption. But let's play, just for fun.

I said myself I was building up an interpretation which I thought had not yet been falsified, but that did not have to be true. (Or I intended to say that. Maybe I was unclear.) Of course what happens to Morris doesn't give us a hint what would happen to a newbie who actually had done nothing wrong except be in the wrong place at the wrong time. But to see where it goes, I suppose he might get the same treatment when he's falsely accused.

I want to note that it can hardly hurt to keep your head and respond rationally. Something like "I do not cheat. What can I do to prove I didn't do what you say I've done?" They won't accuse you of having cards up your sleeve when you do not. Accuse you of dealing yourself extra cards? Count the cards still in the deck and see if it's the right number? Etc. If they accuse you of doing something that an innocent man can't show he didn't do, stress that point. The only way it hurts is if you get attacked while you aren't ready. But when you don't have any friends in the room and you don't know who your accuser's friends are, being ready might not help much.

Quote
OK, imagine the worst case. You're a newbie, and you visit a gambling hall. Somebody falsely accuses you of cheating. They attack you.

When the facts of the story don't support you, you make up new ones. Nobody attacked Morris, so why posit that here? But as I said, let's play. So I haul all their sorry asses into arbitration and get an enormous settlement.

You take them into arbitration. They say you were cheating. You say you weren't. Where does it go from there? They should have hauled your sorry ass into arbitration for cheating? Perhaps there will be video records that will show you looking threatening or looking harmless, or looking like you're about to run away.... Would it look like an honest mistake on their part? "Of course, the outcome of a bona fide fair trial is always something of a tossup."

Quote
The manager says you're a troublemaker and gets you blacklisted from every gambling hall in the Belt.

And he has this power, how? He can say anything he wants. Yet there will always be those who do not believe him. Especially if he has a reputation for making wild accusations.

If the gambling hall managers all know each other, they'll tend to back each other. But they might not. There could be several gambling halls in the Belt that will still accept you. Perhaps they will send you invitations. ?? But again, I'm assuming the worst case to see where it goes. The manager has the right to refuse your business. The other gambling hall managers have the right to do that if they want to, and I have assumed that they do. Larry talked like they would, and I'm going with it.

Quote
He publicly says you're a cheater and a troublemaker. You don't get any second chances.

Why wouldn't you get a second chance? Oh yes, because that is your scenario, so of course he gets no second chance. What would happen if you turned around and called him a pedophile? I guess he could never get a second chance either, right?

Larry runs a gambling hall and has the right to keep you out of it. You are a newbie without much reputation. (Morris had lost a lawsuit and did not contest that he attempted murder of strangers for profit.) You can choose to believe Larry is a pedophile and you don't have to give  him a second chance. If he thinks that you harm him by making the accusation public, I guess he can call an arbitrator. Maybe he won't think your opinion actually harms him.

It looks to me like these guys have the right to do you a minor injustice. But it is not a major injustice. Like, say you call an arbitrator. "Larry has harmed me by refusing to let me gamble in his bar. If he let me in I could make X grams of gold a night, and he's denying me that money." And then you prove in front of "official" witnesses that you could reliably make X grams of gold a night. At this point, who has hurt your gambling career more, Larry or you yourself?

Larry can blacklist you from his bar without any obligation to prove that you deserve it. That's an issue for Larry to resolve between him and himself. He is not obliged to take your money in exchange for something you want from him.
« Last Edit: December 18, 2010, 08:45:28 pm by J Thomas »

jamesd on December 19, 2010, 03:25:00 pm
A known patron accused a newcomer of cheating. The newcomer insulted the patron and invited a fight. The patron then kicked him in the head.

What does "known patron" have to do with it? Suki could just as well be known as someone who unfairly accuses people of cheating. Presumably, Larry/Mike (we are fixing that) knows his clientèle by their actions and reputation and does not make decision based on your simplistic "known guy, good; stranger, bad" analysis.

You are stacking the deck by having your anarchy dominated by good people.  That is propagandistic, and also makes for a dull story.  More honest to show that in anarchy, flawed people have appropriate incentives to behave well, or at least no worse than they can get away with - which version also gives us more conflict, and more serious conflict, hence more dramatic tension.

SandySandfort on December 19, 2010, 06:06:11 pm
You take them into arbitration. They say you were cheating. You say you weren't.

You win, duh. They are the one's with the burden of proof on the cheating issue, not you. Unless they can prove that you cheated, then they initiated force and you win. (FYI, your burden of proof is that you were attacked. Injuries, witnesses, security recordings and contemporaneous statements against interest should meet that burden.)

Larry runs a gambling hall and has the right to keep you out of it. You are a newbie without much reputation. (Morris had lost a lawsuit and did not contest that he attempted murder of strangers for profit.) You can choose to believe Larry is a pedophile and you don't have to give  him a second chance. If he thinks that you harm him by making the accusation public, I guess he can call an arbitrator.

THINK IT THROUGH. No, he cannot get arbitration. Please tell us what this has to do with the ZAP? Where is the initiation of force?

Here is the fallacy of your arguments and the arguments of several of you who just don't get it. Ayn Rand pointed out that when people don't like an argument they fall back on what she called "lifeboat" situations. The reality is that all systems will have problems dealing with edge situations. However, life rarely has edge situations (that's why they are called edge situations). If AnCap works 99% of the time, you will always argue about the 1%, as though that proves AnCap does not work. I, for one, do not intend to play that game any more. If you insist on positing lifeboat situations, my only response will be "Lifeboat." When you return to the real 99% world, we can talk.

SandySandfort on December 19, 2010, 06:14:50 pm
You are stacking the deck by having your anarchy dominated by good people. 

Oh you poor damaged little soul. Yes, there are bad people, but the world is dominated by good people or at least "good enough" people.

That is propagandistic, and also makes for a dull story.  More honest to show that in anarchy, flawed people have appropriate incentives to behave well, or at least no worse than they can get away with - which version also gives us more conflict, and more serious conflict, hence more dramatic tension.

I think I have said this before, but don't try to teach your grandmother how to suck eggs. I don't think you could write your way out of a paper bag. Pretending that you can teach writers how to write is the hight of hubris and frankly, it makes you look like a pretentious ass. Strong post to follow.   ::)

J Thomas on December 19, 2010, 09:19:28 pm
You are stacking the deck by having your anarchy dominated by good people.

Oh you poor damaged little soul. Yes, there are bad people, but the world is dominated by good people or at least "good enough" people.

I don't disagree with you at all, and I have a slightly different slant on it.

One of the attractions of AnCap thinking is that it's possible you could have a world that isn't dominated by *anybody*.

It looks to me like arbitrators would get judged by how the public likes the "justice" they deal out. But bartenders would mostly get judged on how well they run their bars.

Similarly with AnCap webcomic creators. One who was too much of a curmudgeon in his forums, who insulted too many people and banned too many people might anger enough readers to reduce readership and do his site some harm. But it would take a *whole lot* to do that, because most of the audience is there for the comic, and will put up with a whole lot in the forums if they even notice them. Somebody that most interested parties think was unjustly banned might cause a stir for a week or possibly a month, but people forget him after a little while, even if a few others try to keep up a controversy and get banned themselves..

If somebody gets thrown out of a bar who didn't deserve to get thrown out, it isn't that big a deal. If they fail to throw out somebody who should have been, then likely they have a second incident and then they correct their mistake.

So if I get thrown out of a bar my thought is to pick myself up and yell "I've been thrown out of better bars than this" and go elsewhere. I don't call the arbitrators, they don't call the arbitrators, just let it go. Ordinary people don't have to do perfect justice, as long as it isn't real important.

Quote
That is propagandistic, and also makes for a dull story.  More honest to show that in anarchy, flawed people have appropriate incentives to behave well, or at least no worse than they can get away with - which version also gives us more conflict, and more serious conflict, hence more dramatic tension.

I think I have said this before, but don't try to teach your grandmother how to suck eggs. I don't think you could write your way out of a paper bag. Pretending that you can teach writers how to write is the hight of hubris and frankly, it makes you look like a pretentious ass. Strong post to follow.   ::)

He gets to say what kind of story he likes, and you get to use his advice however you want. That's fair. David Gerrold told a story about the writing instructor he got the most from. The man was a pompous ass who did not actually know much about writing, who told Gerrold that he'd never make it as a writer and to just give up. Gerrold got mad and started publishing to sell, to show him. The anger fueled years of success.

« Last Edit: December 20, 2010, 06:28:49 am by J Thomas »

SandySandfort on December 20, 2010, 08:21:47 am
One of the attractions of AnCap thinking is that it's possible you could have a world that isn't dominated by *anybody*.

Exactly. Most human sorrow is caused by people trying to mind other people's business and initiating force to do it. Someone who believes in individual freedom will allow others to go to hell in their own way. To the extent there are "interventions" to stop people from taking drugs, engaging in risky sexual behavior or whatever, they take the form of talk therapy, if the person being helped is okay with hearing it.

It looks to me like arbitrators would get judged by how the public likes the "justice" they deal out. But bartenders would mostly get judged on how well they run their bars.

Bingo.

Similarly with AnCap webcomic creators. One who was too much of a curmudgeon in his forums, who insulted too many people and banned too many people might anger enough readers to reduce readership...

True enough, but this can be balanced out by people who say, "Good enough, that pompous ass deserved it!"   ;D

By the by, though Frank and Scott could certainly ban people from their forums, I think it would take some extraordinary provocation. The pompous asses on this list (you know who you are) serve at least one purpose. They show the ugly underbelly of statism ("nuke 'em all!") and provide convenient attenuated thinking for intelligent, pro-freedom contributors to practice on. The statists on this list are the Salk vaccine for preparing to fight the statist polio.

Quote
That is propagandistic, and also makes for a dull story.  More honest to show that in anarchy, flawed people have appropriate incentives to behave well, or at least no worse than they can get away with - which version also gives us more conflict, and more serious conflict, hence more dramatic tension.

I think I have said this before, but don't try to teach your grandmother how to suck eggs. I don't think you could write your way out of a paper bag. Pretending that you can teach writers how to write is the hight of hubris and frankly, it makes you look like a pretentious ass. Strong post to follow.   ::)

He gets to say what kind of story he likes, and you get to use his advice however you want.

There are respectful ways to go into someone's home and criticize them and rude ways of doing it. You are incorrect. Jamesd did not say what he likes (i.e., "I prefer stories with more conflict/busty babes/spaceships"). Instead he went into lecture mode and made global pronouncements about what is boring, what is "honest," what is dramatic tension, etc. That is extremely disrespectful and confrontational. I would be more inclined to take that sort of shit from someone who actually knows about writing, someone in the trenches, writing and selling, but not from some envious, pompous, no-talent, tire-kicking, gas bag.

Jthomas, you regularly get in my face, but at least your mother taught you good manners. So the dialog goes on.

David Gerrold told a story about the writing instructor he got the most from. The man was a pompous ass who did not actually know much about writing, who told Gerrold that he'd never make it as a writer and to just give up. Gerrold got mad and started publishing to sell, to show him. The anger fueled years of success.

That can go either way. I got set back several years by someone who told me the same thing. He was wrong, but it took me some time to realize that publishers would actually pay me real Yankee dollars for putting words in a row. So the opinions of wannabee writers and literary critics, do not undermine my self-confidence. However, the hypocrisy and bad manners piss me off. When that happens, I will only let it pass so long before I start kicking ass and taking names.