07-11-2021, 05:31 AM
(07-10-2021, 07:50 AM)Drashner1 Wrote: While I'm sure we have common expectations around here, perhaps the most common of all when it comes to the OA setting is that it is enormous in both space and time (10,000 years of history spread across around 1 billion stars, an equal number of brown dwarves and deep space planets, plus some number of colonized Oort Clouds, deep space nebulae, and nomadic world ships wandering from system to system. Plus the various planets in each system, many with some number of moons, and huge orbital bands of habitats around nearly every star in the Civilized Galaxy (a mere 250 million stars or so), since the vast majority of the embodied population (all 380 quadrillion or so) live in space habs. Of course this entire population is barely a rounding error compared to the mind shatteringly huge scale of the Cybercosm (approx 1e20 virtual universes, with a population of ranging from 30 to 3000 quintillion depending on how you count things)
The other most common expectation we have here can be summed up as 'Diversity! Diversity! Diversity!'
Maybe I should introduce the idea of a virtual society built up on a red dwarf star. It would be a low-value star with energy-collectors accumulating on it, operating an energy accumulating economy for a purely virtual society, with a minimal devirtualized population of vacuum-adapted dragon-like beings for system maintenance purposes. Moderate xenophobia managed by an archailect would maintain obligate aesthetic standards (ie, 'people here must be dragons, and no you cannot subvert it with a hideous dragon-like, as we do acknowledge that to be hateful conduct restrictive of the liberties of others'), but travel into and out of the system would not be blocked (immigration and emigration would be permitted). Travel assistance would be available for visitors (ie, 'We'll give you a dragon avatar while you're here'), and private servers with less restrictive norms would be available for people wanting to host visitors whose sincerity they believe in more than the archailect believes in them.
I think I've used these words correctly. I do not understand the requirements and limitations of an archailect at this time, though judging it in a purely etymological way it appears to be a combination of "architect" and "intellect" bridged with "ai", by which I took the base concept of such a being as an appropriate mind-base for society maintenance.