Nonymous

Sydney, New South Wales, AUSTRALIA


Joined August 14th 2006

Number of Posts:
392

Number of Comments:
1650

Karma:
10



About Me
Some of my other writing: used to have a diary, for years, at http://kenm.mydeardiary.com/; also have a few longer pieces at http://www.philorum.org/.

Tags & Posts

Bookmark Tags



Popular Tags

Blogs

Nonymous's Blogs

0 Vote(s)
0 Comment(s)
0 Post(s)
0 Vote(s)
0 Comment(s)
0 Post(s)
37210 Vote(s)
2171 Comment(s)
345 Post(s)
394 Vote(s)
0 Comment(s)
12 Post(s)

I mentor these bloggers

Learn more about the Orble Mentoring Program.


I do not mentor any bloggers.

Recent Posts

Minions - Vampire Wars

February 10th 2010 00:22
For more detailed information, check out MadMacs's guide at the Zynga forums.

Here's the basics.

Types of minions

Level required Type of minion Blood per hour
Level 1 Bum 100
Level 1 Park jogger 400
Level 1 Escaped mental patient 500
Level 5 Cop 2,000
Level 9 High school football team 7,000
Level 12 Blood bank nurse 12,000
Level 15Paramedic 15,000
Level 17Diner waitress 18,000
Level 19Group of ninjas 20,000
Level 22Mime 24,000
Level 24Hacker 25,000
Level 28College fraternity 65,000
Level 32Bank teller 80,000
Level 35SWAT srike team 150,000
Level 40Law firm 200,000
N/A Psychic minion 30,000

Notes

-- You get a trophies for buying the following minions: 5 escaped mental patients; 10 college fraternities; 20 law firms.

-- You'll probably find you're struggling for money until you get the psychic minion. The psychic minion is the second prize available from the Crypt. Open four locks, and get up to three psychic minions.

Only buy minions in groups of 10

Every time you click on a button to dominate a minion, the price goes up. So it's cheaper to buy 10 at a time.

(You won't be able to follow this rule when you're just starting out.)

When releasing minions, release all at the same time

If you bought them in groups of 10, it works out that you get all your money back if you release ALL at the same time.

Which minion should you buy next?

Should you buy a minion right now, or should you save up for a more expensive one?

Basically, you want to invest your money so that, at any time, you're getting the highest rate of return. You should NOT buy the same amounts of all minions.

The easiest way to work out what to buy next is to set up an Excel spreadsheet.

1. Create three columns, and fill in the data:

-- Name of minion
-- Blood per hour
-- Cost

2. Fill in the data under those headings.

3. Create a fourth column, and label it "Rate of return". The formula for this column is blood per hour divided by cost.

4. Create a way to custom sort the columns.

-- Right click anywhere on the table.
-- Select "Sort".
-- Select "Custom Sort".
-- Make sure the box "My data has headers" is checked.
-- The first thing you want to sort by is rate of return. Sort it on values, and sort largest to smallest.
-- You'll also want a second level. Sort then by cost, sort on values, and sort smallest to largest.
-- Click OK.

5. Buy whatever is listed at the top of your table.

6. After you've bought that minion, enter the new Cost, and run the Custom Sort again.

Note

If you know you're going to be away from VW for a while, it might be best to buy as many minions as you can right now, even if they don't give you the best rate of interest, because otherwise your money will just lie around without being invested.


11
Vote
   


How to get extra energy? There's two basic methods: the boring ways, and the even more boring ways.

Boring ways

Go up a level and get your energy replenished. Spin Mandy's wheel, and hope for some energy. Watch the news feed for other people's Mandy spins. Click on mystery gifts from the Collector that are published to other people's walls (sometimes these give you energy). Buy energy refills from the Collector. Click on ancient chests that are published to other people's walls (sometimes these stock extra energy or refills).

I should mention... Zynga has recently removed the limit on the number of refills you can get through gold, red, and black mystery boxes each day. So, if you can persuade your friends to send you a lot of boxes (or if you have a lot of baby vamps)...

Even more boring ways

Get an energy refill through being voted tempting or tasty... It used to be the case, up till January 2010, that you could get unlimited amounts of refills per day from votes. So people literally spent hours a day trying to get other people to vote for them, and the people who used bots grew fat and happy.

Now that this has been limited to one per day, I dunno if it's even worth doing anymore. But if you're really keen, here's some ways to get voted.

1. Voting the feed. The time-honoured tradition of voting all the clan members who have posted something in the news feed in the past few hours (since there's a good chance these people are online).

To get them to vote you back, you'll basically have to stick a comment in their comment section. (I'm skeptical that drawing a line and saying "Everyone below this line has been voted" achieves very much.)

Even if they don't vote you back, maybe you'll get a warm glow because they're your clannies and you're helping them out. Awww.

2. Writing on the feed. Every time you do something worth posting about, stick a message on your news feed. Other (blood)suckers will vote for you. Guaranteed.

3. Develop a relationship with some vote buddies. Look at your comment section, vote for everyone who's voted for you, and leave comments announcing what you've done, implicitly inviting them to an endless game of tasty-tag.

The more complicated version of this goes: actually keep a list. Don't just vote for the people who've left comments lately, but keep records of everyone who reliably votes you back.

4. Vote lists and refill stations. Many clans run voting lists -- add your name to the mailing list, and make sure you vote for everyone else on the list -- that sort of thing.

A variation is: stick your name on the discussion board wall.

There used to be a lot of groups specifically set up for this, and then the Facebook powers that be cracked down hard on them.

5. Vote surfing. This is one of the best methods if you're into the whole voter ping-pong thing. Basically, it goes like this:

-- While you're using any of the other methods, and voting on person A, check out their comment section.
-- The odds are good that person B, who has just left a "Tasty as always" in person A's comments, is a voter, and is online.
-- Surf over to person B's profile, give them a vote, leave them a comment.
-- Read person B's comments, and -- can you believe it? -- person C has only a minute ago left a message saying "Your blood is delicious". The odds are good that person C is a voter and is online.
-- Surf over to person C's profile.
-- Etc. Etc.
-- Variation: Start making a list of (and visit) everyone who recently voted and commented on person A, then everyone who recently voted and commented on person B, then everyone who...

The potential drawback, though, is that you'll soon run into people who aren't in your clan, so it'll cost you 1000 blood per comment you leave.


23
Vote
   


Some ideas on how to get a bigger clan...

1. All of the "add me... invite everyone" type groups. Simply do a Facebook search for these using the words "vampire wars".

Stick your message on the wall, and then invite everyone else who's stuck their message on the wall.

Guaranteed clan, and guaranteed tedium -- flicking back and forth between screens, back and forth, back and forth...

Do this daily.

2. The "Add me" thread at the official Zynga VW forums.

3. Sooner or later, someone will send you a request to join a vampire group. Many of these groups run "pimp lists". So, simply ask to be added to the list.

If your group doesn't run such a list, ask the group admins for help anyway.

If you can't find such a group, drop me a message and I'll link you to a couple.

4. Write a message in the social section of your VW news feed. "In desperate need of more clan. Please pimp me out. Here's a link to my profile", etc.

5. Friend suggestions from Facebook... These might actually be the fastest way. It kinda goes like this.

-- Start a new account to play Vampire Wars with, so you don't confuse your real friends with your fangy friends.
-- As you get more connections, Facebook will start giving you friend suggestions. If you and your suggested friend have at least two mutual friends, the odds are good that they play Vampire Wars.
-- Simply send them a friend invite with "Would you like to join my Vampire Wars clan?" as the message.
-- Pretty soon, you'll have so many connections that you'll be getting suggestions where you and your potential invitee have hundreds of mutual friends... Now, if you have hundreds of friends in common with someone, the odds aren't bad that he/she plays Vampire Wars -- but the downside is that the larger their clan, the less likely they'll be a help to you with Mandy spins and gifts.
-- Once you're around 2000 clan, you'll be getting over 10 friend requests/suggestions per day without doing anything. The main problem then is that Facebook has a 5000-friend limit...



13
Vote
   


Golden army - Vampire Wars

February 8th 2010 19:20
Okay, there's something called the "golden army". No idea where the name came from (and I don't know if it's a reference to Hellboy 2), but it's used in this guide by MadMacs, and it refers to having:

501 x Superior horrific transformation (150,300,000 blood/hour


[ Click here to read more ]
24
Vote
   


Vampire limericks

February 8th 2010 01:29
Vampire limericks (for a competition with Belladonna's }{aven clan): --

There once was a plucky young trucker


[ Click here to read more ]
23
Vote
   


The top 10 reasons why VW is a dumb game:

1. Because of the spam


[ Click here to read more ]
33
Vote
   


Free favor points - Vampire Wars

February 7th 2010 23:54
Click on the following links for free favor points (completely legal): --

Five free points
[ Click here to read more ]
23
Vote
   


Organ Relocation - Vampire Wars

February 7th 2010 23:50
Organ Relocation - Vampire Wars


-- It's a 45/70 defensive ability


[ Click here to read more ]
23
Vote
   


Midas Touch - Vampire Wars

February 7th 2010 23:43
Midas Touch - Vampire Wars


-- It's an 80/40 offensive ability


[ Click here to read more ]
23
Vote
   


Cross Running Water - Vampire Wars

February 7th 2010 23:16
Cross Running Water


-- It's a 45/45 ability. Compared to a few other movement abilites


[ Click here to read more ]
23
Vote
   


 

Recent Comments

Comment by Nonymous
on Longhand vs typewritten

December 22nd 2009 20:05
That's really interesting. It's true that handwritten would feel more intimate.

I think I'd have to say typing, though, for the reason that you give. My feeling is that typing is to such extent the norm throughout the business world that handwritten would seem unprofessional or eccentric.

Comment by Nonymous
on The Essence of Humanity

November 28th 2009 01:42
Perhaps there is no essence, no single common denominator... After all, why should there be?

Comment by Nonymous
on About lying to murderers (Immanuel Kant)

September 19th 2009 23:15
I think there's different possible readings, but yours is a fair one.

[quote]Then in a Dexteresque way, wouldn't the murder of your friend be in service to the greater good?[quote]

Traditionally, Kantianism is opposed to moralities like utilitarianism -- it's considered a classic case of deontological, duty-based morality -- moralities where the right thing to do is the right thing to do, and consequences don't matter. Christian ethics is arguably also deontological. Eg if God tells you to kill your son, then, Abraham, the right thing to do is to kill your son, regardless of what human or heavenly good or bad it brings.

It should be mentioned that some people (like JS Mill) do try to argue that Kant is in fact consequentialist, not deontological. Kant's practical workings-out of his morality do seem, at least on the face of them, to involve consequentialist considerations.

Comment by Nonymous
on Film course

August 13th 2009 01:32
Firstly, about who plays what role... Apart from the first year, the entire class has worked on the same film. Obviously, everyone wants to be director . A couple of months into the course there's an audition -- you stand up in front of the class, and deliver a speech, and answer questions as to why you should be given any position that you're going for -- producer, director, cinematographer...

As for what story... Well, at the start of the year we all pitched different stories, and then took a vote. From there, it gets complicated -- different years have done things differently. Group writing in general is a tricky thing, and easily becomes a case of too many cooks.

Basically, anyone can be on the writing team who wants to be, but a month or two in, you have to make a choice -- writing classes are held at the same time as other classes.

In our year, to be perfectly honest, the writing teacher has been responsible for most of the story, because he has a twofold task: he's supposed to teach us, and there has to be a result, since everything depends on script.

We didn't start this way, but we've slipped into a process of working out the story beats during class (brainstorming, and then having the teacher decide what happens next). I personally have a lot of issues with this method. For instance, I'd argue that groups never produce unity of composition, and that trying to brainstorm and get agreement like this doesn't allow room for thinking carefully about a problem. I'd much rather that the courses were structured as workshops, that individual people could produce their own scripts, and that, three or four months into the course, we simply took a vote on which script to use.

Comment by Nonymous
on More on compulsory voting

August 2nd 2009 10:31
To be honest, I'm not sure there's more than one basic reason. And that one reason is this idea in countries where voting exists (you could call it a value, a belief, an ideal) that people should be able to run their own lives.

Not all peoples of all places and times have held this belief. For instance, there doesn't seem anything crazy in believing that the individual doesn't matter, and only the community matters; or in believing that individuals shouldn't run their lives because most people are stupid and don't know what's good for them; or in believing that a religion or a God should run our lives, and not us.

But if you believe that running your own life is a good thing, then voting is supposed to be one way to achieve that. (Though the argument might get more complex here, because you might have a discussion about why we need governments at all, and why one form of government is preferable to another -- why a representative democracy instead of a full-participatory democracy, or a monarchy, or an oligarchy, or communes, or whatever else...).

So I think there's probably only one basic reason ("self-determination") why voting is a good thing and why indiivduals would want to vote...

There may be minor secondary reasons apart from self-determination. For example:

1. If you already live in a culture where there's voting, then you might want to vote because you care about specific issues. You might want certain things to happen, or you might want certain things not to happen.

2. If you already believe that a representative democracy is a good thing, then the phenomenon known as "voter apathy", where people don't give a shit about politics, is a bad thing, for lots of reasons. Basically, it leads to the breakdown of representative democracy.

For example, say that 99% of people don't vote. Then members of parliament/congress would be elected by just 1% of the population, and there wouldn't be as much legitimacy to their power. It's harder for them to say that they represent people's desires.

3. If you already live in a culture where voting exists, then having a vote is political participation in that culture, and political participation is arguably a good thing from a number of points of view.

From a community level, having everyone interested in voting creates more cohesion in the community, and would mean that the politics of the country are richer and more vibrant.

From an individual level, it's possible to argue that being political is good for you. For one thing, if you're not concerned with politics, then you're giving up your say in a lot of issues that affect you. For another thing, there's a more abstract line of thinking to do with "the good life" (ie, theories about what's good in life, what the purpose of life should be, how the best possible life would go, etc).

For example, you could argue that there's something fucked up about a person living completey by themselves. If you spend 20 years by yourself, you go a little off. So, it's common sense to think that you need to be part of a community to be a whole person. But maybe to be fully engaged with a community, you have to care what happens to that community, and politics is the realm that deals with what happens to a community as a whole. So, the argument might go, unless you're political, you're not living a full life. Hannah Arendt makes this sort of argument, and she takes inspiration from Greek philosophy.

Comment by Nonymous
on Story structure?

July 27th 2009 23:43
Hey Morgan, I think boundaries are usually good things... otherwise you get overwhelmed by the number of possibilities. Maybe you could use a self-imposed boundary. For instance, you could tell yourself, "This will be no longer than 120 pages" or "This will all be written in the first person"...

How to structure a story? I really don't know. If you figure out a good way, tell me! I think anything could be a seed of a story -- an image, a bit of dialogue, an emotion... and then you get ideas for particular things it would be good to put into the story -- particular scenes or moments... But how to take those bits and pieces and shape them into a dramatically powerful form?...

Knowing where you're going can help -- if you have a particular ending in mind, or a particular feeling at the end. You can work retrospectively and figure out what you need to get to that point...

I was at a screenwriting lecture recently, given by some Hollywood production manager guy. His words of wisdom might or might not be useful to you... Goes something like this.

1. Write a title.
2. Write, in one sentence, the theme of the story. "Men and women can never be friends", "Vengence never tastes as sweet as you think it will", or whatever. When you're stuck in the course of writing, write down the theme, and see if that shakes anything lose.
3. Every film should have 5 uh-ohs, 5 oh shits, and 1 oh my god. Make a list of these.
4. Every movie has 3 acts, and 40-60 scenes. Take a piece of paper, write down the numbers 1 to 40 on the side, and specify what happens in each scene. Think about it as a jigsaw puzzle. Start with the beginning and the ending.
5. Copyright the story outline, and register it with the writers' guild.
6. Give the outline to a writer who wants to break into movies. Pay him/her $500 a week. Give him/her 1 month to produce a first draft, then two weeks to produce a second draft.

***

Norm --

Character and fate? I don't know what the Greeks meant by that comment, and I think it's a topic I'm ill-equipped to talk meaningfully about...

My kneejerk reaction is that not all stories have destiny as a prominent theme, and when I think about character, I think of stuff like gender, appearance, family history, psychology, and the choices he/she makes in the course of a story -- so, not just fate...

But maybe there's a sense in which a character's purpose, or what ultimately befalls a character, is somehow definitive of that character. Or maybe many good stories have characters with clear competing desires, and these put them on an fated trajectory...

I don't know. I'm sure there's some deep relationship between fate and character, but I can't articulate it.

Comment by Nonymous
on Pushing intuitive ethical buttons...

July 27th 2009 23:12
The way I'm reading this, what you're doing is redefining the parameters of the hypothetical, rather than facing the hypothetical. I think Thompson's fiddler story takes it for granted that transfer to dialysis isn't possible. The story doesn't go into the reasons why dialysis isn't possible; it simply stipulates that it's not. It's asking, "If (for whatever reason) staying connected to the fiddler or disconnecting were the only options, what would it be morally permissible for you to do?"

Another way to put this: -- Thomson is saying, "Consider scenario A, where these are the only options." And I think you're responding, "I don't want to consider scenario A. I want to consider scenario B, where there are more options."

I'm not saying, of course, that fiddler and abortion aren't distinguishable.

For instance: maybe it's the case that we have stronger moral duties towards children than adults, and to family than strangers; so if we woke up attached to an infant fiddler whom we were related to, then we'd be morally obliged to stay connected.

Or maybe pregnancy is simply a special case. So, for instance, if someone took their basic moral principles from a religion, they might scan down the list of commandments in that religion and see the prohibition "Thou shalt not abort a child". In which case, the fiddler and abortion scenarios would not be distinguishable, except for the fact of the prohibition.

So, assuming one wants to play the game of "consider scenario A" in the first place, I think there's all sorts of possibilities for distinguishing the two cases, depending on what moral beliefs you start with, but I'm not sure that dialysis machines is one of these possibilities.

Comment by Nonymous
on Pushing intuitive ethical buttons...

July 27th 2009 02:43
Hey BigCountry,

Something I have to ask about (and please understand that I'm not pushing any belief on you by asking this question, neither pro nor anti-abortion) -- how is the sci-fi fiddler example relevantly different from an abortion example?

In the fiddler example, you wake up attached to another lifeform, and you have to stay connected for 9 months for that lifeform to survive.

In an abortion case, you wake up one morning attached to another lifeform, and you have to stay connected for 9 months for that lifeform to survive.

Comment by Nonymous
on About lying to murderers (Immanuel Kant)

July 27th 2009 00:31
Big Country and D -- you guys have put your fingers on what's (arguably) wrong with thought experiments. It's simply stipulated, for the purposes of the problem, that the only options are lie or don't lie, and one is asked to answer based on one's moral beliefs. Other thought experiments will not ask you to reason through your beliefs, but to use your intuition or gut instincts about right and wrong. The real life conditions as to how it comes about that the options you're presented with are the only options are not given. I've actually written a post on this sort of issue.

Could one simply tell the murderer to piss off? Well, in the thought experiment, it's somehow assumed that one can't. In real life, whether you can or can't would depend on any number of factors. Is this WWII, and the murderer is a Nazi officer with a group of SS agents behind him? If you tell him to piss off, he'll break the door down and shoot you, then search your house anyway. Or is the murderer a vengeful 5-year-old, who won't be able to succeed in murdering your friend even if you escort her to where your friend is standing? Simply stipulating that you can't tell the murderer to piss off sidesteps all the ifs, depends ons, and maybes.

I think the situation is comparable to empirical experiments. A high school maths teacher might give you a problem about whether you should bet on horse 1 or horse 2, given their starting speed, accelerations, and the length of the track. In real life you might say, "I'll go up to the horses before the race, cripple one, and inject steroids in the other." Or you might say: "I don't believe in gambling. I'm not betting." But for the purposes of the question, it's simply assumed that these options aren't options.

So, in real life, everything depends on the details, whereas thought experiments are supposed to be simplified.

But do they oversimplify, to the point where they're no longer of use at all? Well, I'm not sure... Another question for another time.

Even though Matthew Johns committed no crime

I've been following news on this case as well. The main thing that interests me is the notion of consent.

Three issues: --

1. How do you evaluate consent (legally or morally speaking)? And how black-and-white was this case?

Legally, Johns was cleared.

But in contract law (for instance), if you enter into an agreement while you're drunk, on drugs, or temporarily insane, that might invalidate the contract.

If there was a lot of alcohol involved in the Matt Johns incident, surely this is grey areas, and evaluation of consent is going to be messy?

2. Putting aside legality, is Johns morally in the clear? What counts as "consent" in a moral (rather than legal) sense?

If the moral conception is different from the legal conception, should the legal concept be modified to better reflect the everyday understanding?

Early writers on liberty and freedom talked about situations in which people were not free, and they included not only obvious restrictions on freedom (for instance, when you're a chained slave), but various "seductions" and "coercions of the will". So if someone threatens you or fast talks you, then in a sense you haven't acted freely.

In the Four Corners report, Clare talked about psychological presure. And I think, regardless of whether you believe her or not, everyone can sympathize with being pressured into doing something you didn't really want to do.

3. Even if you haven't committed a crime, and even if there was consent, is what you're doing moral? Is everything that happens between two consenting adults moral?

Many people seem to hold the view that, in general, you're responsible for damage you cause. Take the situation where you're playing cricket in your backyard, and you knock a ball through a neighbour's glass window. It was an accident -- you didn't intend the damage, and it might not even have been foreseeable -- but morally and legally the neighbour still has a claim against you.

So if Clare has suffered damage from the 2002 incident, are the players responsible for that, regardless of consent? Or does consent free them of any responsibility?