At 1/3/19 02:41 PM, DoctorStrongbad wrote:Currently, there are many managers and higher ups that will not retire until they are forced out. 65 is no longer that age. Some people work well into their 70's or older. Just imagine waiting 30 plus years to get a promotion, because a senior citizen refuses to quit.
Over here at least it seems more like it's in the government's interest to keep people working longer more so than the people themselves. The pension age's moved from 65 to 67 a while back, now I think there's some kind of benefit for those that work their way up to 75... everything to cut down on pension costs. In that regard it might be in a company's best interest to keep the old-timers working, too. Better a paycheck than just pension. If they die before they can cash out on that it'll be to their benefit. Savage world.
Now, imagine that with people that live forever. You could literally be stuck in the lowest position of your company your entire career. That would be horrible.
Yeah, not a very bright future for the young... though it's a good thing competence is still related to age. :) The brain just doesn't function as well at a higher age.
But the way social order's all centered around a career... it's so wrong. People should have work they're passionate about from day 1. And no waiting until you retire to finally live your life. There's just too much profiteering involved there IMO.
I disagree. I started out being a nobody and a nothing. I busted my ass trying to reach the top of different categories. It took a decade of so, to finally be in the top ten of some lists. If all the people in front of me, had handed down their account to others, I would still be stuck way at the bottom. People need to be able to advance through hard work. If not, they will become stagnant and stop caring.
Yes, but you signed up relatively early on. The site hadn't been around a decade yet, and the Portal hadn't been around more than a few years. At that point it was still possible to catch up, and true, even today it's possible if you're dedicated enough, but if this place stays around and people actually spend a lifetime raising their stats... will new users really be willing to spend their entire life attempting to surpass them? We're not at the point yet where there's a generational gap between accounts, but I think it'll become a problem getting new users motivated enough to compete regardless of if people hand down their accounts or no. Those who were here from the beginning just have too big a head start.
Just passing on accounts to random strangers though... agree that doesn't feel right. But that wouldn't be as big a problem either if the primary rankings had shorter time margins.
That is not a bad idea, and could be useful someday. However, I can not express how much that I am against having people share accounts and passing them when they retire or pass away. Let me try to explain it this way, I go away for ten years and come back. I see CyberDevil. I write him a PM and talk about the past. Your son answers and is like, Who are you? It would be so crazy. CyberDevil is you. It is unique just like you.
Hmm... well I get your point, but relating that to real life: isn't it just as awkward if you come back to an old home, or go visit a friend, and they've moved, or are dead, and someone else answers in their place? To me this account is like a home, more so than a person. It's a vessel rather than an identity. More a one-room apartment than a mansion, though, as there's only one inhabitant, but when I leave... I'd rather someone else move in than everything just left to decay and wilt away.
Yes, that is totally unfair. Just like The Pimp account, that has been passed around for years. In my opinion, that account should be removed. One account is one person. That is the only way to keep things fair, or at least as fair as possible.
Woah, is that posted about somewhere, the Pimp account being a group effort? One person at a time, in that person's lifetime, I'd say. Seems we'll disagree a bit here.
