text, un: hawkeye

[westcoasts]

so is pass and fail just a judgment on our performance, or do we reckon it's gonna come back and bite us in the ass in the future?

aurora said she missed us, by the way. ( those are not the words she used. ) she also said that she and eos are free to run their cities in whatever way works for the people under her care, as long as we're well-taken care of.

but, thing is, she gets to define that. says she gets to learn from her actions and inactions in relation to us.

which is something to keep in mind when we're acting as a group or not acting as a group and trying to get answers, or choosing which rules are okay to break and which rules are okay to stretch.

because between here and moorecroft, right now i'd say we've got the better end of the deal.

Comments

UN: Red Robin

[mostdangerousbird]

If her goal is to choose which of our worlds get to survive, I think performing well on the tasks can only help us. She's using pass or fail, and the implication is that pass is success yet we don't actually know what she's scoring for. We might have passed the test for "normal", but normal might count against us in overall ranking.

I'm going to keep doing my best by my standards and hope they sync with hers.

[westcoasts]

gonna say that feels very task-dependent given the implication we're gonna end up with tasks that pit us if not against each other, then against other cities.

either way, aurora's said she's willing to let us experience growth in order to learn. assuming the 'save your planet' bull's true, who's gonna come out better at the end of it? the guy that's fucked up a few times but's exhibited growth over the months (years?) he's been here, or the guy that's objectively passed every time but hasn't showcased any growth the entire time?

least, that was the crux of it the last time i came across something that decided it was gonna waste its time judging the worthiness of earth and humanity.

[mostdangerousbird]

If you want to broaden it to include how I treat everyone all the time, you can. I don't suddenly start being a jerk the second we've finished the "mission."

That's not a fair question to ask. The whole situation isn't fair, but I'm not going to negate either person's path, hypothetical or not. The person who worked to improve isn't worth any more or less than the person who had a "head start".

I'm not modding my behavior to accommodate the mystery rules.

[westcoasts]

one person's jerk is another person's prince charming.

( and isn't what he was saying. )

all i was saying is learning's generally considered a good thing and speaking from personal experience, it tends to have an impact. doesn't mean you have to to cook the books, just means a modicum of awareness tends to be a good thing.

is "modding" your behavior what the kids call growth these days?

[mostdangerousbird]

Yeah, I don't know if there's THAT much latitude on jerk v. prince charming.

I'm not saying learning is bad? I'm not even saying that rewarding growth is wrong. If anything, I'm guilty of avoiding the questions.

Don't confuse it with growth. That's an insult to anyone who actually experiences growth. If I - because it was my hypothetical - changed how I act because of this competition instead of because I actually learned something, it would be a de-evolution.

[westcoasts]

you'd be very surprised.

i was just asking, man. most people i know call it being manipulative.
didn't know if there'd been a semantic change between earths or generations or whatever differences we've got going on between us.