Issue 639

[Undivulged Principles]

This has got to be one of the most biased (which is saying something in the current run of issue results) of all issue choices I have yet encountered. Now I understand I have little experience in issues and their results so please bear with me in this assessment.

But let's see: a blanket regression of all industries, a wealth gap increase and less economic freedoms because the choice was based on merit and nothing else? Wouldn't a merit based assessment lead to more income equality rather than less. The choice doesn't illustrate that there would be a continual increase in the older person's salary relative to others. My own experience in this indicates it can be exactly the opposite depending on the industry (and the industry in question where I draw this comparison happens to be IT and not one of those that is usually cited as old school or non-innovative).

Are all the devs 8 year olds now? Why such a bias? Any empirical evidence to support this sort of blanket assessment of the relative worth of someone who might be older?

My perceived assumption on what the answer might be in relation to this question exhibits the fact I no longer post on this forum and more particularly this board.

[Caracasus]

I think this thread here would be the best place to post this as it deals with unexpected effects from issues: viewtopic.php?f=13&t=370351

Let's take a look. So this is the "No country for old men" issue and given what you've complained about I'm guessing you selected option 2.

It's really important to look at the numbers in the changes and not the percentages. A nation with a relatively small industrial sector (say in the 100's) would register a 10% drop if they lost 10 points. A nation with an industrial sector measuring 1000 would see a 1% change and so on....

You've also got to remember that the people giving you the options are themselves written with an element of bias. They (tend to) genuinely give you what they think is the right advice, but there are often unforeseen consequences. Removing a mandatory retirement age would mean, for example, that younger people might not be able to enter the workforce until someone literally drops dead at their desk. Generally speaking, you're also giving more power to businesses to decide who to fire and who to fire (Retirement and firing should be based on capabilities, not age) There is no reason to believe that these employers are going to act honorably... as a rule giving more power to employers over how and when they fire people does tend to result in greater income inequality.

Finally, you might get a better response without posing a hypothetical question that questions the intellectual capability and maturity of a purely voluntary editing team.

[Candlewhisper Archive]

The first two paragraphs raised some interesting points that I would have enjoyed looking into. Looking into potential biases in the issue pool is a favourite pastime of mine, and I think only through a process of reflection and audit can we identify said biases, and instigate much-needed changes.

However this...

Are all the devs 8 year olds now? Why such a bias? Any empirical evidence to support this sort of blanket assessment of the relative worth of someone who might be older?

My perceived assumption on what the answer might be in relation to this question exhibits the fact I no longer post on this forum and more particularly this board.

...informs me there's no point bothering. we're not paid to help you, and we owe you nothing. You can engage collaboratively with the team of volunteers to make a better game, or you can just throw out insults, and get dismissal of your concerns in return.

Looks like you've chosen the latter path.

So yeah. Working as intended. Probably. Don't know, because I've chosen not to look into it.