That was a pretty intense show! One of the finest you've made.
John (Jenskot)
· 1 year ago
Clyde thanks for putting this together. It's a very personal topic for me and I'm very happy it's being discussed.
Stefan Lahr
· 1 year ago
Awesome show!
...and BE is too damn pretty, and i soo have it on my shelf...
Johnstone
· 1 year ago
I posted a comment on show 025 and I was right! Ha!
Tim
· 1 year ago
Clyde, you know that I have been bugging you for years now to come join our games and let us help you playtest SKMAV or any other game you may develop. The invitation is still open!
luke
· 1 year ago
I'd like to go public and confirm that Vincent and I did speak post-interviews (we did two), and reaffirmed our mutual commitments to respecting the shit out of each other and doing these things that we do.
I cross-posted this on Vincent's blog.
Troy_Costisick
· 1 year ago
Heya,
To Luke and Vincent, thanks for having the guts to share your experiences with everyone. Your frankness was very educational.
To Clyde, thanks for provoking such interesting conversations. All in all, you do a really good job facilitating discussions on your podcast. Thanks for letting us listen :)
Peace,
-Troy
Ogre
· 1 year ago
This is one of the best shows you've done, Clyde. Congratulations.
clyde
· 1 year ago
Hey Folks,
Thanks. A lot of the credit should go to Luke though, he came up with the idea. I was just smart enough to nod. There is actually another interesting issue filled discussion that he set up at Dreamation and again... I just nodded.
Comrade Andrew
· 1 year ago
Damn. This was a hard interview to listen to. Was it late at night or were there chemicals involved? ;o)
Either way, it sounds to me that the mutualism was sunk by self-interest (rather than other-interest or game-interest). The money just exposed the hidden motivations. And maybe the sheer size of the community meant that the community collapsed under its own decentralised weight.
However, this opinion is based only on the interview, built on a critique of exploitative capitalism. Thanks for the honesty.
clyde
· 1 year ago
Hey folks,
Give me some time to talk with Andrew please?
clyde
· 1 year ago
Hey Andrew,
I'm a bit hesitant to reply as I'm not sure what tone to read your comment in. It seems it can either be read friendly with a bit of flippancy for fun, or an attempt at a jab.
I would normally just ignore the second, so to make sure I'm respectful to someone I haven't interacted with yet... I'm assuming the friendly tone.
I think it's interesting that you draw the conclusion that Mutualism is dead, especially since I came to this discussion with that opinion and left convinced that mutualism isn't dead. I somewhat get what you are saying about the center not holding. I made that statement at some point during the podcast which Vincent quickly objected too. After having time to think about it I'm not sure I agree with Vincent. That's likely a conversation for another time....
I think we have likely just exceeded Dunbar's number (150), or... those other guys who say 290... anyway, there was a bit of splitting with a lot of cross connections still maintained. On the other hand, I've had help from folks from all over so maybe I'm wrong.
What I'm curious about is how you come to your conclusion? Can you explain further? Thanks.
Comrade Andrew
· 1 year ago
Clyde - thanks for picking up on this, and yes it's meant to be a tone of respectful critique rather than cowardly anonymous criticism. Here's how I reached my conclusion. I apologise for the length of this as I have not had time to make it shorter.
Mutualism appears to have arisen as a phenomenon within the group. It starts as friendly help by people willing to be involved in something ... anything ... to help develop this new thing. From the account given in the interview it seems as though the phenomenon encountered two difficulties: the success of an individual as a result of community effort; and the movement from mutualism as a phenomenon to a cultural expectation/demand.
In the face of these two difficulties it seems that the group was unable to maintain itself as a single group, but is forced to collapse under its own weight. Theoreticians of mutualism as a political movement would suggest this is a good thing, because it prevents the community from building a tower of Babel (so to speak) and forces the group to engage in genuine giving rather than a giving that comes from cultural or societal expectations.
Did mutualism die at the Forge? It sounds like it, and I venture that it was probably necessary so that it could be resurrected in smaller groups over a larger scale.
clyde
· 1 year ago
Hey Andrew,
Thanks. I understand you much better now.
The cultural expectation / demand really hits home as that is where I was at. I think I just expected help as a right, that folks should just be reaching out and giving advice rather than me needing to ask / deserve help. I find this interesting as it is well outside my normal behavior. I'm still growing it appears.
I'm not sure I agree about Mutualism dying at the Forge, but that's likely not a fruitful discussion as it has to do with perception. Also having my thoughts turned over from this podcast, I'm not certain exactly what I think. Heh.
clyde
· 1 year ago
Hey Folks,
Just in case anyone has been waiting, please feel free to post again.
Comrade Andrew
· 1 year ago
Thanks for the clarifying question, Clyde. Sorry to clog your blog.
clyde
· 1 year ago
Dude, don't talk crazy. You aren't clogging anything up. I allow comments because I want to have the ability for people to tell me what they think and engage in a conversation with me.
All Comments
...and BE is too damn pretty, and i soo have it on my shelf...
I cross-posted this on Vincent's blog.
To Luke and Vincent, thanks for having the guts to share your experiences with everyone. Your frankness was very educational.
To Clyde, thanks for provoking such interesting conversations. All in all, you do a really good job facilitating discussions on your podcast. Thanks for letting us listen :)
Peace,
-Troy
Thanks. A lot of the credit should go to Luke though, he came up with the idea. I was just smart enough to nod. There is actually another interesting issue filled discussion that he set up at Dreamation and again... I just nodded.
Either way, it sounds to me that the mutualism was sunk by self-interest (rather than other-interest or game-interest). The money just exposed the hidden motivations. And maybe the sheer size of the community meant that the community collapsed under its own decentralised weight.
However, this opinion is based only on the interview, built on a critique of exploitative capitalism. Thanks for the honesty.
Give me some time to talk with Andrew please?
I'm a bit hesitant to reply as I'm not sure what tone to read your comment in. It seems it can either be read friendly with a bit of flippancy for fun, or an attempt at a jab.
I would normally just ignore the second, so to make sure I'm respectful to someone I haven't interacted with yet... I'm assuming the friendly tone.
I think it's interesting that you draw the conclusion that Mutualism is dead, especially since I came to this discussion with that opinion and left convinced that mutualism isn't dead. I somewhat get what you are saying about the center not holding. I made that statement at some point during the podcast which Vincent quickly objected too. After having time to think about it I'm not sure I agree with Vincent. That's likely a conversation for another time....
I think we have likely just exceeded Dunbar's number (150), or... those other guys who say 290... anyway, there was a bit of splitting with a lot of cross connections still maintained. On the other hand, I've had help from folks from all over so maybe I'm wrong.
What I'm curious about is how you come to your conclusion? Can you explain further? Thanks.
Mutualism appears to have arisen as a phenomenon within the group. It starts as friendly help by people willing to be involved in something ... anything ... to help develop this new thing. From the account given in the interview it seems as though the phenomenon encountered two difficulties: the success of an individual as a result of community effort; and the movement from mutualism as a phenomenon to a cultural expectation/demand.
In the face of these two difficulties it seems that the group was unable to maintain itself as a single group, but is forced to collapse under its own weight. Theoreticians of mutualism as a political movement would suggest this is a good thing, because it prevents the community from building a tower of Babel (so to speak) and forces the group to engage in genuine giving rather than a giving that comes from cultural or societal expectations.
Did mutualism die at the Forge? It sounds like it, and I venture that it was probably necessary so that it could be resurrected in smaller groups over a larger scale.
Thanks. I understand you much better now.
The cultural expectation / demand really hits home as that is where I was at. I think I just expected help as a right, that folks should just be reaching out and giving advice rather than me needing to ask / deserve help. I find this interesting as it is well outside my normal behavior. I'm still growing it appears.
I'm not sure I agree about Mutualism dying at the Forge, but that's likely not a fruitful discussion as it has to do with perception. Also having my thoughts turned over from this podcast, I'm not certain exactly what I think. Heh.
Just in case anyone has been waiting, please feel free to post again.