king of the world

[The Bear's Key]

If you have any questions/comments for the "Take over the world" contest, or wanna vote for any of the entries, post it here.

Edited November 6, 2010 by The Bear's Key

[dragonstar57]

is mind control allowed?

[Pangloss]

It's an interesting idea but it seems a bit complicated. Maybe something a little simpler?

[dragonstar57]

It's an interesting idea but it seems a bit complicated. Maybe something a little simpler?

how is it complicated just control everyones minds

or if it doesn't work on that scale than just a few select people that would rule the world but you control their minds

[divagreen]

Let's see...I am confused about the rules...but I really want to play...

 

And I am not sure about the template? Op I hope that you will provide a scenario? I am used to game theory questions operating within the context of scenarios. After all, we have not been pondering this as long you have, as to how to take over the world.

 

My stance is to do a tit for tat and sometimes just a tit...how is cooperative effort best inspired?

 

And can we have teams on this? Can I work with another poster or several? I have always found that collaborative thinking seems to lead to the best epistemological studies (you need that other pair of eyes to verify that you know what you know...or not, as the case may be),and can create viable strategies.

 

More info, please? :D

[dragonstar57]

to late someone already won

 

step 1. build 2 big bombs that would each completely destroy the earth if detonated (not render uninhabitable but destroy the earth ie the earth would no longer be there)

2. hide bomb 1 on earth very well

3 put bomb 2 on another planet

tell the world to watch planet where bomb 2 is

4 detonate

5. tell the world you have another bomb on earth and you will destroy them all if they do not do as you say

[The Bear's Key]

is mind control allowed?

Only existing technology/prototypes. So mind reading is feasible enough, with a crude prototype.

 

The sky's the limit, but the more unbelievable your scenario, the less people might vote for it. Although people are free to vote however they wish, even if you don't stay within the guidelines I detailed.

 

Give it a shot (just try for technological believability -- I am).

 

 

It's an interesting idea but it seems a bit complicated. Maybe something a little simpler?

You can go as simple as you like, just not more complex than the list below.

 

Remember: you get freebies to start off your quest, but no more than...

 

 

5 things (anything in the world).

 

3 databases at your fingertips. (a CIA digitized list with personal info about nationals, for example)

 

10 people (choose anyone in the world to be on your team and loyal to the cause)

 

8 events (The fall of Russia? That's your doing. Or Saddam's burning the oil fields in '91? Your idea. The reasons that our media/government supposedly ignored the *events* of flight 297? Thanks to you. Etc)

 

 

Make up any strategy reason for the events you've chosen.

 

In the alternate world, your plan's never to be shared with anyone except the people you've chosen as a team. Simply put, no outsiders are loyal enough to trust with such info, and it's less believable if you're telling everyone the plan and it hasn't leaked out.

 

To take over the world, you don't have to choose anything on the list either, just go solo. But likely you won't get far alone/unequiped. If you want simplicity anyway, just choose fewer things or, make up your own inventory -- keeping within reach of believability.

 

For example, no one in the world can tomorrow join Europe, the U.S., China, India, and Russia into war vs the rest of Earth. You must first do something to make them join, a believable catalyst.

 

But it doesn't have to be war. You can take over the world via non-violent means too. Again, in a believable way.

 

 

Let's see...I am confused about the rules...but I really want to play...

 

And I am not sure about the template? Op I hope that you will provide a scenario? I am used to game theory questions operating within the context of scenarios. After all, we have not been pondering this as long you have, as to how to take over the world.

 

My stance is to do a tit for tat and sometimes just a tit...how is cooperative effort best inspired?

 

And can we have teams on this? Can I work with another poster or several? I have always found that collaborative thinking seems to lead to the best epistemological studies (you need that other pair of eyes to verify that you know what you know...or not, as the case may be),and can create viable strategies.

I'll print a scenario tomorrow. You definitely may collaborate with others or get input. The only true rule is for your world conquerer not to step outside the boundaries of power I've written. The reason being is that it'd be unfair to have another contestant be equipped with alien/futuristic tech or the resources of a galaxy system -- compared to your puny, modern, slower technologies.

 

Here's a good strategy tip: use brains and power as a resource -- choose people with $$, talented minds, access to resources, connected, and/or etc, to be on your team.

Edited November 7, 2010 by The Bear's Key

[The Bear's Key]

I sorta "cheated", playing around (twice, for more random events and to get some results I did) with a homebrew card version of the game that friends and I sometimes play at their houses.

 

So if a few elements seem randomly joined at parts, it's because they are. It's difficult getting it to sync/flow with a real timeline of events in historical order. But it's doable, and with interesting results.

 

The cards I mention are from a pile of events and figures I've scribbled at random over the years, in between these mental exercises. I'd gradually form rules and playtest them. Of course each new time, the game's simplistic elements matured by new knowldege I'd gained of the world and history, so it's become more realistic -- and surprisingly, less complicated. It may become multi-player as the concept evolves.

 

Designing/playing it's even led me to consider how things affect each other in ways I hadn't realized before.

 

And the reason I'm explaining all this is to provide an insight: the game veers steepest from reality the larger a group your "evil" team is and/or the easier to recruit. It turns out, at least in the game, a villain who leads crowds of good people by deviously misleading them is far more realistic than a villain who leads crowds of all bad people.

 

It turns out as well, the all-powerful figure just doesn't work out: the game's elements blend more seamlessly when the people they interact with are the source of that figure's "power". Interesting, huh? Maybe a game can indeed be used to model a random social history of interactions by leaders and civilization.

 

From my entry (at the link below), perhaps you can tell which events are from older scribblings, like Global Warming purposely accelerated to melt Greenland's ice -- thus ushering in a lush paradise of wealth for the real estate investors group who bought up its land cheaply after tremendously raising their industry's CO2's emmissions. What I used do is think up an idea based on current events and scribble it on a card, and it becomes part of the game until incompatible with later events. However, now I'm suspecting that various historical elements and time periods can intermingle safely -- i.e. remain cohesive -- the only two adjustments necessary (for the people of each different time period) would be in the realm/levels of discovery and communication, because the only part that really does change is the scenery.

 

Anyhoo, here's my entry....