NationStates

Ifreann wrote:

The Holy Therns wrote:
...It's a username. Or are you trying to imply you're actually named Xerographica?

So your first name isn't "The"?

It's short for Theresa.

Xerographica wrote:

The Holy Therns wrote:
Ethel's a he. And offered you a deal, he didn't declare a business model as far as I know. If you think this is a thing that people need, why don't you start it?

Maybe I'm a traditionalist but I personally wouldn't spend much money for a he to have a her name. I can't wait until everybody is digitized. Then we will all be "it". I'm a bit underwhelmed by the new season of Black Mirror.

Sure I can start the website by myself. I can do a lot of things by myself. But what can I do individually that can't be done better collaboratively?

Even by your standards, this is incoherent to the point of being unreadable.

The Holy Therns wrote:

Xerographica wrote:Maybe I'm a traditionalist but I personally wouldn't spend much money for a he to have a her name. I can't wait until everybody is digitized. Then we will all be "it". I'm a bit underwhelmed by the new season of Black Mirror.

Sure I can start the website by myself. I can do a lot of things by myself. But what can I do individually that can't be done better collaboratively?

...It's a username. Or are you trying to imply you're actually named Xerographica?

If I'm walking down the street and I hear somebody yell "Xero!" then for a split second I'll feel like they might be calling my name.

Salandriagado wrote:

Xerographica wrote:Maybe I'm a traditionalist but I personally wouldn't spend much money for a he to have a her name. I can't wait until everybody is digitized. Then we will all be "it". I'm a bit underwhelmed by the new season of Black Mirror.

Sure I can start the website by myself. I can do a lot of things by myself. But what can I do individually that can't be done better collaboratively?

Even by your standards, this is incoherent to the point of being unreadable.

Your inherent assumption is that it matters how useful my post is to you. Correct?

Xerographica wrote:

Salandriagado wrote:
Even by your standards, this is incoherent to the point of being unreadable.

Your inherent assumption is that it matters how useful my post is to you. Correct?

No.

Xerographica wrote:

Ethel mermania wrote:
Depends on who you are marketing too. If NationStates posters are your target, clearly me. If you are looking for semi-afffl8unt gamblers, go with the Atlantic City pedicabs.

You should start a website where people can list and rent signature space. Let me know if you need a hand coming up with the most useful domain name.

SigsRus.net. but I think Atlantic City gamblers have more income to spend.

Reploid Productions wrote:

Xerographica wrote:Any chance that you'd be interested in renting me your avatar space? If so, how much would you charge for one week?

Noooot sure if serious or just using as an example for the sake of the argument, but quick reminder that users actually engaging in this would be violating the site rules pertaining to commercialism, particularly the bit about selling accounts. (Though not explicitly worded as such, selling/renting forum sigs, nation fields, region names/WFEs/dispatches/etc would still run firmly afoul of this.)


~Evil Forum Empress Rep Prod the Ninja Mod
~She who wields the Banhammer; master of the mighty moderation no-dachi Kiritateru Teikoku

Dammit reppy, I got a kid in college. (Want a cut?)

Allanea wrote:

Xerographica wrote:Have you ever been responsible for helping to choose a baby's name? If so, how was the decision made? Was it made by voting? If so, this would explain why so many people have stupid names...

?

But the underlying assumption is not true, here.

Most people do not have stupid names, ther'es nothing inherently dumb about naming someone 'Bruce', 'Sheila', or 'Catherine', or even some strange name (unless, I suppose, they're literally named Adolph McKillJews Hitler).

Moreover, there's nothing wrong with Boaty McBoatface.

Let's take "dumb" to mean "useless". Do we need to measure the usefulness of a name? If so, what's the best way to do so? Personally, I don't think that voting is a useful measure of usefulness. If you vote for a name it just means that you think it's useful. But your vote really doesn't reveal just how useful the name is to you. It seems problematic for the rest of us to be in the dark about how useful a name is to you.

Of course, in real life, we don't usually use voting or spending to choose names. Instead, we simply talk with each other. We use our words and emphasis and body language to kinda quantify the usefulness of names. If I suggest "Gertrude" and you put your foot down, then I'll get the message. If I suggest "Samantha" and you start cheering, then I'll get the message.

My best guess is that spending is a more effective way to determine the usefulness of names. No need for a game of charades. Everybody simply spends their money on their preferred names. Whichever name receives the most money is the most useful. Plus, all the money goes to a good cause. So it's a win-win scenario.

Salandriagado wrote:

Xerographica wrote:Your inherent assumption is that it matters how useful my post is to you. Correct?

No.

Heh.

Xerographica wrote:

Allanea wrote:
But the underlying assumption is not true, here.

Most people do not have stupid names, ther'es nothing inherently dumb about naming someone 'Bruce', 'Sheila', or 'Catherine', or even some strange name (unless, I suppose, they're literally named Adolph McKillJews Hitler).

Moreover, there's nothing wrong with Boaty McBoatface.

Let's take "dumb" to mean "useless". Do we need to measure the usefulness of a name? If so, what's the best way to do so? Personally, I don't think that voting is a useful measure of usefulness. If you vote for a name it just means that you think it's useful. But your vote really doesn't reveal just how useful the name is to you. It seems problematic for the rest of us to be in the dark about how useful a name is to you.

Of course, in real life, we don't usually use voting or spending to choose names. Instead, we simply talk with each other. We use our words and emphasis and body language to kinda quantify the usefulness of names. If I suggest "Gertrude" and you put your foot down, then I'll get the message. If I suggest "Samantha" and you start cheering, then I'll get the message.

My best guess is that spending is a more effective way to determine the usefulness of names. No need for a game of charades. Everybody simply spends their money on their preferred names. Whichever name receives the most money is the most useful. Plus, all the money goes to a good cause. So it's a win-win scenario.

Money does not have equal value to people, for me to spend 100 bucks for you to name all your male children Ethel is worth it. If I had a 10% of my income spending that 100 bucks on Ethel's would be a huge extravagance that I could not afford.

Ethel mermania wrote:

Xerographica wrote:You should start a website where people can list and rent signature space. Let me know if you need a hand coming up with the most useful domain name.

SigsRus.net. but I think Atlantic City gamblers have more income to spend.

Like Toys R Us? It's not too shabby but it's a little work to say. Plus, I get the feeling that you'd have to tell people how to spell it. SigSpace.com is available for $2,495. I don't personally think it's worth it though.

NicheAd.net is available. Except it looks funny without the capitalization... nichead. Everybody is going to pronounce it "Nick Head".

But I do like the idea of a website dedicated to less traditional forms of advertising. I did a quick search for "non traditional advertising" but none of the top results fit the bill.

How many different forms of non traditional advertising are there anyways?

- Signature and avatar space
- Clothing space
- Body space (ie tattoos)
- Graffiti
- Naming rights

What else?

Names are not always an indicator of a baby’s future destiny.

Xerographica wrote:

The Holy Therns wrote:
...It's a username. Or are you trying to imply you're actually named Xerographica?

If I'm walking down the street and I hear somebody yell "Xero!" then for a split second I'll feel like they might be calling my name.

Why, does that happen?

The Holy Therns wrote:

Xerographica wrote:If I'm walking down the street and I hear somebody yell "Xero!" then for a split second I'll feel like they might be calling my name.

Why, does that happen?

Tbf, I have heard someone scream "Ethel", and turned around to look.

Xerographica wrote:

The Holy Therns wrote:
Ethel's a he. And offered you a deal, he didn't declare a business model as far as I know. If you think this is a thing that people need, why don't you start it?

Maybe I'm a traditionalist but I personally wouldn't spend much money for a he to have a her name. I can't wait until everybody is digitized. Then we will all be "it". I'm a bit underwhelmed by the new season of Black Mirror.

Sure I can start the website by myself. I can do a lot of things by myself. But what can I do individually that can't be done better collaboratively?

And lo, Xero justified their complete inaction on anything and everything, until the end of time. Praise The Graphica!

Thermodolia wrote:Um there is a time limit, it's called birth. Ya need a name before the kid is born. Also I'm extremely confused about how my future boyfriend is pregos

birth isn't a time limit, lots of unnamed new borns happen and nothing is required for first 3 months

oh and tevhnology these days can do anything, including providing you with a pregnant boyfriend

Let's take "dumb" to mean "useless". Do we need to measure the usefulness of a name? If so, what's the best way to do so? Personally, I don't think that voting is a useful measure of usefulness. If you vote for a name it just means that you think it's useful. But your vote really doesn't reveal just how useful the name is to you. It seems problematic for the rest of us to be in the dark about how useful a name is to you.

But why do names need to be useful, at all?

OP

is Pooling votes allowed? for instance could I form a pool with 10 of my friends each putting in a $1 (so $10), I could then take bets on most favoured names and then use the pool to influence outcomes

Ethel mermania wrote:

Xerographica wrote:Let's take "dumb" to mean "useless". Do we need to measure the usefulness of a name? If so, what's the best way to do so? Personally, I don't think that voting is a useful measure of usefulness. If you vote for a name it just means that you think it's useful. But your vote really doesn't reveal just how useful the name is to you. It seems problematic for the rest of us to be in the dark about how useful a name is to you.

Of course, in real life, we don't usually use voting or spending to choose names. Instead, we simply talk with each other. We use our words and emphasis and body language to kinda quantify the usefulness of names. If I suggest "Gertrude" and you put your foot down, then I'll get the message. If I suggest "Samantha" and you start cheering, then I'll get the message.

My best guess is that spending is a more effective way to determine the usefulness of names. No need for a game of charades. Everybody simply spends their money on their preferred names. Whichever name receives the most money is the most useful. Plus, all the money goes to a good cause. So it's a win-win scenario.

Money does not have equal value to people, for me to spend 100 bucks for you to name all your male children Ethel is worth it. If I had a 10% of my income spending that 100 bucks on Ethel's would be a huge extravagance that I could not afford.

EthelAds.com is available. Changing the capitalization yields... eTheLads. You say that it would be worth it for you to spend $100 bucks to name my male children Ethel. But that's like saying that you'd give your left nut for something. Except, most guys really aren't missing their left nuts. I assume this to be true.

You're correct that people don't equally value money. But does this mean that more people would have "rich people names"?

We're speculating about the demand for names. Imagine that there's a website that keeps track of how much money has been spent on names. You could filter the list to see the most valuable names in the past year. At the top of the list is "Vaombe". Bill Gates really loves this name and he spent a ton of money for his rich friend's kid to be named "Vaombe". Everybody can see it's by far the most valuable name of the year. This increases the chances that the name would catch on. If it did, then, as the name became more and more common, there would be less and less demand for it.

Cetacea wrote:OP

is Pooling votes allowed? for instance could I form a pool with 10 of my friends each putting in a $1 (so $10), I could then take bets on most favoured names and then use the pool to influence outcomes

Two or more people can spend their money on the same name. Whichever name ends up with the highest total amount of money is the most useful name.

Samantha: $20 (you: $5, me: $15)
Gertrude: $7 (you: $7, me: $0)

If no more pareto moves were possible, then Samantha would be the most useful name.

There's nothing in the OP against people betting on the outcome. But how would that work? At the racetrack, after a race has started there's no way for the gamblers to influence the results. But for baby naming, the gamblers would be able to influence the results. Clearly though they can't spend more money on the names than they expect to make from winning the bet.

It seems like the smaller the number of spenders, the less people will be willing to bet on the outcome. This is because less money can be used to significantly influence the outcome. But imagine that everybody had the opportunity to use their money to determine the name of Prince William. In this case, probably lots of people would spend their money to participate. This means that it would take serious money to significantly influence the outcome. As a result, more people would be willing to bet on the outcome.

I think it bears pointing out that this dumpster-fire of an idea isn't "game theory", as the thread title suggests. Game theory assumes intelligent and rational actors; anyone willing to spend money to name someone else's child is clearly neither intelligent nor rational.

Camicon wrote:I think it bears pointing out that this dumpster-fire of an idea isn't "game theory", as the thread title suggests. Game theory assumes intelligent and rational actors; anyone willing to spend money to name someone else's child is clearly neither intelligent nor rational.

Dunno, could be supremely rational if you are setting up side betting on the subject. But it would almost have to be someone famous to get people interested enough to gamble on the result.

Galloism wrote:

Camicon wrote:I think it bears pointing out that this dumpster-fire of an idea isn't "game theory", as the thread title suggests. Game theory assumes intelligent and rational actors; anyone willing to spend money to name someone else's child is clearly neither intelligent nor rational.

Dunno, could be supremely rational if you are setting up side betting on the subject. But it would almost have to be someone famous to get people interested enough to gamble on the result.

Well, then the "game" wouldn't be bidding to name someone else's child, it would be fleecing idiots who are willing to spend money to name someone else's child.

Camicon wrote:

Galloism wrote:Dunno, could be supremely rational if you are setting up side betting on the subject. But it would almost have to be someone famous to get people interested enough to gamble on the result.

Well, then the "game" wouldn't be bidding to name someone else's child, it would be fleecing idiots who are willing to spend money to name someone else's child.

I think you're missing the point. The strategy here is:

1) Open your books for bets on the name of the child.
2) Spend the minimum amount needed to force the name of the child to be something that nobody bet on.
3) Get more money from all of those bets that people lost than you spent in step 2.

Camicon wrote:

Galloism wrote:Dunno, could be supremely rational if you are setting up side betting on the subject. But it would almost have to be someone famous to get people interested enough to gamble on the result.

Well, then the "game" wouldn't be bidding to name someone else's child, it would be fleecing idiots who are willing to spend money to name someone else's child.

50 bucks if you name all your male children ethel.


...... Oh wait.