Disclaimer: the below represents a personal overview and analysis between the relationship between an individual and the MetaGame.wtf organization as its state at April 2020. I’m keeping it in my series of posts about governance due to its academic value through empirical learning about Decentralized Organizations, specifically about the problems of the implicit lack of structure in most tokencracy models and miss-consistency among values and methodologies. I do wish the best to the MetaGame and its future, may the force be with you.
WTF is MetaGame is a meme that we don’t only use to let clear if you don’t understand what the MetaGame is, it means you are actually understanding it. How so? Well, if it’s a game to build the game, it is more than logic that we will what it is by gaming it, by identifying ourselves as individuals aggregating all their own inter-personal subjectivities and capabilities into a single and inclusive framework that promises to go beyond any organization, game or institution. As the only meme in our wiki (atm) put it:
We cannot expect then a unique version of the true, we cannot expect people to consent on what the MetaGame is, or how it should be build… If so, you are just creating new bounded tribes or cartels where some have fun and agree on stuff while others are disengage and/or fork to another game, if you aloow that to happen, you are not playing the MetaGame, it’s just another game. There’s not such thing as community consensus, and we have to learn to deal with that.
We are a swarm of hackers, thinkers, idealists, dreamers, visionaries and crackpots from all corners of the globe. We are listeners who hear the message being shouted from rooftops all around the world, we are seers who envision a better future for ourselves and the generations to come, we are doers who jump into a projects asked or not and find ways to be helpful, we are advocates of open-source technology, we are humans who believe in the power of collaboration and its ability to unite us in discussion, shared responsibilities and shared rewards, we are the next iteration in the traits of humanity
I Gus, does fully identify with MetaGame ethos/pathos/logos, therefore I decided to consider myself one player, one of the crew, one that belongs. I consider myself a hacker (not SW, I hack more on psycho & sociological realms), a thinker, a dreamer a visionary, and especially a crackpot that conveys in the Foundational Culture which first stone was consolidated by Peth. And as idealist, my main ideal is on keeping coherence and consistency among what we say we are and what we do.
And sorry guys, but command and control actions selective tribalism is not coherent with what we say we are:
Might we reflect a second on the meaning of:
> Skewing truth and spreading it to further your personal agenda.
First of all, all truth we might conceive is skewed from the very moment in which we are conceiving it, we all are biased beings incapable to handle the true version of the truth, sometimes we will be close to it, other times we will be completely wrong. We all skew the truth in a way or another, if we do it maliciously and on purpose, I could understand the retaliation. But it was not the case.
“The Source” (which is no more than the opinion of few members of a group that pays too much attention to the opinions of others rather than acting independently on their own private judgment) is accusing me to further my personal agenda… It is a shame tho, it is not recognized that my personal agenda is in the MetaGame best interest. Yes, it is not that weird that individual and collective incentives can be aligned in the same direction. My only agenda so far has been in providing to the MetaGame my best knowledge and skills to guarantee the best and resilient as possible decentralized an autonomous organizational Governance.
That I might disagree with the majority of the Founders cartel, it could be, but that doesn’t mean I’m wrong (neither than I am right). That only means I’m adding diversity to a set of positions and opinions that risk being alienated into a skewed way itself if a proper opposition to it does not enter into a debate. Actually, collective intelligence works because given the ability to aggregate diverse perspectives, the noise (people who are wrong) cancels each other out and the signal (people who are right) shines through.
Of course, there’s a lot of context that I can’t bring to a single post, but it’s true that I saw myself answering back in an arguably respectful way to another MetaGamer after feeling accused and discriminated. But having seen such action, even after public and private apologies from my side, leaves a lot to think… Maybe The Source governance is still governed by resenting emotions that feel command and control will keep things in order, maybe it is governed by some sub-conscious agenda that is just resilient to accept diversity by instigation. What can I say? These are patterns that are being repeated over, and over… The fact that we have now tokens to reward labour and take decision does’t really make any difference…
What kind of Game would be MetaGame without healthy and concious adversarial environments I ask now. I’m an Kaizen instigator for nature, and that’s one key value that I’m open to offer to the MetaGame, but if that’s not appreciated, I’m sure there will be others games for me where confrontation is taken for good and not for harming people’s or projects.
As a final note, for those that gave me a “go fork yourself” in any way in any momment, here a gift for you… Adversaries have a lot of value to add to the community, you shouldn’t go there that easily ;-).