How to keep a cohesive and ever improving system of knowledge and engagement.
•
by Alphabethis
As you know, Plato won't ever improve any area of the game that is not related directly with VISA charges. Newspapers system won't ever get a major overhaul, it won't ever allow to upload the images of the articles, which will get lost in some forgotten server some years later. It won't support a label system to classify your articles or a bookmarks systems.
There is an easy workaround to overcome such an endless string of lack of features: indexes and chunk-articles .
A good index article might be:
https://www.erepublik.com/es/article/first-1-2725357/1/20
or the govern programms articles:
https://www.erepublik.com/es/article/-doe-library-of-assistance-programs-and-tutorial-links-day-4713-2724806/1/20
Both are great. But it would be even greater if old, but useful articles are referenced over and over again, so there's a endless, ever present, link to useful articles, yet old, in the media.
Another important issue is to 'classify' information in useful chunks. What's useful? What's a chunk? A chunk is the smallest slide of sensible information. It may be about the state of international e-relationships between two countries. It may be about how to use some specific weaponry. A chunk is almost a relationship between two entities with some attributes. This is a kind of wiki-fication of e-media, and not a bad one.
Who should carry the effort of keeping this string of links ? Well, it could be government officials. It could be 'paid' citizens. By the way, I have never understood how to subsidize new players instead of paying them for performing tasks, such newspaper creation. Every program, including food programs could be implemented on newspapers, that way they would gain a lot of visibility and accountability.
I think that even metagame sucks, newspapers are a good way to squeeze what real game allows you. There's a well known law, Metcalfe's law, which assigns the value of a network to the square of the elements in that net. If you have a network with 100 elements, its value is 'roughly' 10000, if you have a network of 50 , the value is 2500 . If we pay attention to discord and forums, they're networks of relationships, which split the overall potential value of the united community in a single network of communication.
The bigger the network the closer we are to the full potential. This also applies to military, of course, and to every single group you may think of.
Facebook
Twitter
Discord
Comments
IMP - ✅
thanks for the 10k support
Kudos for mentioning network science. Although it is certainly interesting, and is still often used to try to identify the profitability threshold of a given network (how many users do we need to become "hot"?, for example), two issues limit the viability of Metcalfe's law. First, most real networks are sparse, which means that only a small fraction of the links (or users, in Metcalfe's original use case) are actually present. Hence, the value of the networks does not really grow like N^2 but increases only in a linear fashion (N). Second, links have weight. Not all links are of equal value. Some links are very heavily used while the vast majority of links are rarely utilized (likewise, with users). Working to identify local clustering coefficients (k) is probably a better methodological approach to identifying "strong" networks. By the way, this has important implications in epidemiology as well.
well, it's not a proven law, but It's roughly right. It applies better to soulless things as computers, humans are a bit more complicated. Anyway, I won't say that networks behave as linear things, perhaps it's not n² but n⁽1/2)
please keep publishing
Voted.
You're a real inspiration