ITT we discuss how the rank 1 Mordhau player designed a functioning Universal Basic Income system, where the participants provide value as viewers of livestreamswww.youtube.com/watch?v=5SVeV2-zfYA
>>62631569>functioning Universal Basic Income systemcommies should rope themselves
>>62631580>commiesIt's based on a free market
>>62631569This isn't UBI. The idea is pretty interesting. But, again, not UBI.It's a job, or a p2p trade. The employer, AKA the streamer, pays viewers, AKA the employees for their time and attention. The streamer earns for example, $1 per person viewing for 1hr. The streamer then pays the viewer $0.50 per hour. That's the premise of a job.The employee provides value to the employer which nets them a profit, then the employer provides a portion of that profit back to the employee. It's just a job, a very low skill job, sure. But still a job. You do something that provides value, and in return you are compensated for the time spent.
>>62631605The argument made in the essay is that a job that anyone can do, globally, creates in effect the same outcomes as UBI.Proponent of UBI (according to Wikipedia) argue that the main benefits would be:>Provide competition to the job market (salary + better conditions, e.g. WFH)>Potentially replace bureaucratic means-tested welfare>Reduce financial pressure, allowing people to find work that suits themHow do any of these outcomes differ? (Whether the free market rate gets to a consistent level that can be considered "basic" is a separate debate)
>>62631582>It's based on a free marketyeah? where from is the "free" money coming from?donate to the UBI fund towashish.. or else?
>>62631612The difference is that UBI is unconditional. One does not need to provide value to [someone] in order to receive payment.A job that anyone can do will not be able to produce the same effect as UBI, because the job will be low value. Using Nanodrops as an example, it's $0.02/hr. That's $38.40 a year, assuming full time (40hr/week) viewership.The payment the receiver gets is proportional to the value put into the system. A job anyone can do will necessarily be a low value input, which means the payment output will necessarily be low value. Which means it could, in all likelihood, never compete with the free market value. It will pay significantly, SIGNIFICANTLY less than the value of an hour at the current rate. The model also presents an opportunity cost. UBI doesn't have an opportunity cost, because there is no cost to the receiver. There is no input.Could this model potentially solve a problem? Sure, it could. The problem would be specifically low skill workers who cannot function in an increasingly high skilled jobs society. Someone with an IQ of 67 cannot do most minimum wage jobs, let alone anything else.But, that means their payment is going to be less than minimum wage. Which raises an ethical question about fair payment. Is such a system causing more harm than it's claiming to solve by taking advantage of the unskilled?Does that make sense?
>>62631640The money currently comes from the streamers themselves or fans of the streamers (as an alternative to typical donations), later it could also come from game devs, brands, talent agencies, tournament organisers or even the streaming platforms. There's always an unquenchable thirst for views
>>62631612There is already jobs like that pinko I’ll let you in on the actual viable commie strategy. Take the long term withdrawal rate so you don’t run out of money, 4%. Take the median salary, 65k for usa. That’s 1.3m per person. There is 350m in us. That’s 455 trillion. That’s how much you need to give everyone shit lives. The only way to get that much money is… capitalism
>>62631569UBI is already a thing you just say abloo bloo doctor I feel terrible sad ahhh the voices they told me x y zThen you get FREE money I know right....Meanwhile sucker wageslave gets to slave for 50 years bro
>>62631682>The money currently comes from the streamers themselves or fans of the streamers (as an alternative to typical donations),oh right!I forgot, the streames!Do-OH!Obviously the streamers can provide the 1,000$ monthly for 100,000,000+ people.aaaahHAHAHAHHAahhahahHaahhah
>>62631680>The difference is that UBI is unconditional.The fantasy of an "effortless" UBI is just that; there will always be some kind of strings attached to get the payment, e.g. complete this form, then check in every year to make sure you're still alive to keep claiming. >A job that anyone can do will not be able to produce the same effect as UBI, because the job will be low value.This is a separate debate to whether or not the mechanics of nanodrops disqualify it from being considered UBI>Using Nanodrops as an example, it's $0.02/hrI wouldn't put too much weight on the current rate, essentially rn nobody is using it besides a 24/7 ad farm stream -- when it's in use it can get considerably higher (peak so far was $40/hr)
>>62631705nah bruh you don't get it! we get like, mr. Beast, and he will like, pay each month, for 100M+ people, like 1000$ each, month and month after month!Why we even needed to have jobs, we have S T R E A M E R S.buaahahahahahhahhaaaaaaa
>>62631703>>62631708Why $1000? The current rate is already competing with the official minimum wage in Venezuela. But I think people will be surprised at just how high the rate will get, we've already seen it peak at $40/hr, higher than any minimum wage in the world
>>62631705>there will always be some kind of stringsThat's completely different. UBI is unconditional. You don't have to do a job in order to receive payment. I do not need to create value for another party to receive money. And in fact, I can incur a cost to the other party and still be paid. >This is a separate debate It really isn't though. It's the precise mechanism that's preventing it from being UBI. The fact that you are required to "do" something is the very thing that prevents it from being UBI. This would be like calling BAT UBI. It functions on the same premise. >I wouldn't put too much weight on the current rateI would say the exact opposite. Because it points to the very thing I've been talking about. Do you think a single viewer can generate $40 an hour for a streamer? If not, the streamer is operating at a negative ROI. Which means it's a job. And not UBI.
>>62631755>That's completely different.You have to complete some action to get paid. How is it different?>The fact that you are required to "do" something is the very thing that prevents it from being UBI.Sure, I want to debate that -- meaning we should put aside the rate concerns>This would be like calling BAT UBIBAT shot itself in the foot with KYC requirements afaik, + being a viewer of a livestream provides more value. To your point, yes I would agree, but nanodrops is a cleaner implementation>Do you think a single viewer can generate $40 an hour for a streamer?No, but I think when you combine all the potential sources of funding to the faucets across every streamer, game category and platform, the amount of money passing through would be much, much higher than what anyone could guess at today
>>62631715Bro really went from calling me a commie to demanding a price control of $1000 LOLLLLLLLLLLL HHHHHhahahHAHAHAHAHAHAHHAHAHAHAHAHHAAH!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
>>62631768You don't have to complete an action to be paid in a UBI system. That's the point, it's not a job. Putting your signature on a piece of paper and verifying a bank account to receive the payment isn't doing a job. >meaning we should put aside the rate concernsThe two are inextricably connected. That's what I'm trying to tell you. Because it's a job, the rate will be directly connected to the value input of the employee. Buying viewers is not a new concept, and it hardly qualifies as UBI.>but nanodrops is a cleaner implementationIt seems to be about the same as BAT, honestly. With the added upside of not needing KYC to receive tokens.>o, but I think when you combine all the potential sources of funding to the faucets across every streamerIt runs into the same problem. The value generated by one viewer for a streamer. The more viewers that utilize the system, the lower the payment will be. It cannot function as UBI for this reason.
>>62631848>You don't have to complete an action to be paid in a UBI system.>Putting your signature on a piece of paper and verifying a bank account to receive the payment isn't doing a job.Two contradicting statements. By this logic I can just claim that that watching a stream isn't doing a job>Buying viewers is not a new conceptCan you point out a (non-viewbotting) version of this? Nanodrops is the first of its kind AFAIK>It seems to be about the same as BATNot really, BAT is a constant stream of ads, which paradoxically is less valuable than being a viewer of a stream that occasionally serves ads. It's also paid in a true cryptocurrency, rather than a specific token just for this purpose>The value generated by one viewer for a streamerMany of the funding sources are independent of the streamer, e.g. fans donating to their faucet for them
>>62631868>By this logic I can just claim that that watching a stream isn't doing a jobWell, I guess there's no more room for this conversation. Since you want to warp what the term "job" means.
>>62631883Ignore the term "job": you just said that "you don't have to complete an action to be paid in a UBI system" but then conceded that you would have to "put your signature on a piece of paper and verify a bank account" (which is an action that needs to be completed in order to be paid).How is that not a contradicting series of statements?
>>62631569May as well have UBI at this point. 75% of jobs are jewish day care, with literally zero purpose other than to waste your life.
>>62631776>>62631715>Why $1000?lol because basic income should provide survivalbut sure, if you want start paying me just 500$ for now then go for it, I post btc address here or?you will pay, right?me and my 99,999,999 homieswhen are you sending it?
>>62631892Because obviously what we're talking about is the differences between having a job, and UBI.It's abundantly clear for anyone with two brain cells to rub together that putting your name on a paper once a year, or every four years, or whatever, isn't a job.Whereas viewing a stream for x hours to earn y payment per hour is a job.One is an enrollment into a financial aid system.The other is a job compensating you for your attention over time.Again, if you cannot draw the distinction between these two things, there's no room for this conversation to progress.
>>62631907>May as well have UBI at this point.ok lets do it. when are you sending the 100,000,000x500$ for me and my everyone else (it's UNIVERSAL)?you and I think 2 other faggots stepped up for the task, so your share is ~16,600,000,000. chop chop, we are getting hungry
Jobless cunts will literally do anything other than get a fucking job
>>62631911>when are you sending it?Every minute, just enter your address on nanodrops and start watching. The free market will determine what that minute is worth... you should be fine with that, right? Or are you one of them commies?>It's abundantly clear for anyone with two brain cells to rub together that putting your name on a paper once a year, or every four years, or whatever, isn't a job.It's abundantly clear that sitting at home watching a livestream (which millions of people are doing right now, unpaid) isn't a job. See how this works?>One is an enrollment into a financial aid system.Still an action that requires completing to get paid>Again, if you cannot draw the distinction between these two things, there's no room for this conversation to progress.The conversation has no room to progress if you continue to pedantically tear apart the definition of UBI rather than addressing the spirit of the argument, which comes from assessing the outcomes of both systems.I'd suggest returning to my original outcome based argument: >>62631612
>>62631922>>62631912Forgot to reply>>62631917>still demanding a price controlFilthy commy
>>62631917No problem, the government has a money printer.
>>62631929you rekted him
>>62631922I already answered your question.The difference is that the payment isn't enough to cover anything. $0.02/hr isn't a livable wage anywhere in the world. Even the absolute poorest countries in the world make 20x that. 1. It doesn't provide competition. The pay is literally 1/750th of minimum wage. The cost of internet to view a stream would put any viewer into a negative ROI. 2. It doesn't replace means tested welfare. It IS means tested. It's a JOB. For the 100th time. If you cannot/do not complete the job you do not get paid. UBI does not require the completion of a job to receive payment.Attention is an economic good you are providing to a streamer, they are compensating you for that good with pay. You are exchanging your time and attention for pay. That's a trade, a job, employment. NOT UBI.And since it's a job, the payment received will be proportional to the monetary value of attention. Which is around $0.05/hr per viewer. Such a system will likely never function as UBI because the monetary value of a view will not be enough to support a viewer. Especially in developed countries.
>>62631965>The difference is that the payment isn't enough to cover anything.You realise the rate is dynamic right? Again, it has peaked at 40 DOLLARS AN HOUR, and that's with only 1 streamer utilising it.Given that your primary contention is with the mechanism of watching to earn (and not the rate, which you keep conflating), let's assume that the rate of a fully adopted system is indeed "basic", surely then:>jobs would need to at a minimum pay more than the nanodrops rate, worldwide>means tested welfare could be drastically reduced>people can always fall back to watching to earn
>>62631569im a UBI proponent. however, i dont think it will work as long as there is rent seeking. if they implement UBI, what is to stop rent seekers from adjusting their price to capture as much of that money as possible? they raise rents every year now due to inflation, so obviously they will raise them more when UBI is implemented. further, your landlord knows your income, so they can tailor your rent to exactly what your UBI+income can afford.
>>62632096housing wouldn't need to be concentrated in cities, driving prices down due to reduced competition
>>62631986The rate of pay is dependent on the pool of rewards, which is dependent on the streamers income, which is dependent on the monetary value generated by the viewers. The system will never work as UBI because the value generated by all streamers will never be enough to support more than a handful of people. It will never be enough to replace a full time job. A company cannot pay its employees more than the total amount of money the company has earned. That's called bankruptcy. At best, it's a job. A streamer is buying views.That's it.But there's sites that do the same thing. AMF is one that comes to mind. This is not new.
>>62632132this implies rent seekers compete and dont collude
>>62632134I couldn't find "AMF"? What's that?But you're avoiding the substance of my argument; just assume a bunch of philanthropic billionaires fund the faucets as well, then answer the question
>>62632153Addmefast. It was a crypto that was exchanged for clicks/like/views/etc. Looks like it's completely dead now, though. Likely the same path nanodrops will go, since there's no demand. Streamers don't want to pay for viewers.>just assume a bunch of philanthropic billionaires fund the faucets as wellNo. Because there's no reason for that to happen. You're assuming money will just appear out of thin air. It won't. It always comes from somewhere. And people with a lot of money don't waste it.BAT, AMF and now Nanodrops. All the same trajectory. Into the ground.It's not a viable product.
>>62632142why aren't house prices uniform worldwide already then?
>>62632184houses are sold, not rented. why are rents uniform in a narrow bound within cities?
>>62632175The reason is irrelevant to what the free market produces. If nanodrops offers $40/hr (which it did), jobs will be forced to compete. It's common sense. Your refusal to engage with the basic hypothetical shows the strength of my argument
>>62632199why are rent prices not uniform worldwide?
>>62632209because they obviously dont collude at a global scaleanything else? are you perhaps a rent-seeker?
>>62632268I live at home still (/biz/ approved life hack)>because they obviously dont collude at a global scaleThat's my point. With UBI you can just move to a cheaper place in the country, or even a different country
>>62632203Nobody has to compete with nanodrops. Because the pool will never be large enough to sustain $40/hr, or even $1/hr.What you're saying is complete nonsense. It's like you don't understand how money works.
>>62632312It's already sustained over a dollar for a whole stream, so what you're saying stands against the free market reality. Why aren't you able to engage with the hypothetical? Are you claiming philanthropic billionaires don't exist?
>>62631580You do realize UBI isn't actually a commie thing, right? When and if it comes it'll be brought by your people, liberals/neoliberals (or let me guess, you're a lolbertarian, in which case I guess you're just divorced from reality entirely), because its just a stop gap measure to ensure our current economic system doesn't implode.
Jobs programs are better.There is a lot of labor to be performed in this world, much of which is uneconomical to have at scale.For instance, a Civilian Conservation Corps to take care of protected wildlife and forest areas. Armies of gardeners and carpenters to make cities beautiful. More policemen and ICE agents to take care of the blacks and immigrants.
>>62632275UBI will probably just raise the price floori still dont see how we avoid the problem
>>62632326Yep, that's why it's at $0.02/hr. Because it's so sustainable. >It was 1/hr for 8 hours for one day!!What about the other 364 days where it was 0.02/hr?>Just pretend that isn't real!!This is your argument. Some magic billionaire isn't going to dump an infinite amount of money into some random faucet simply so you can eat tendies and watch twitch.There is no benefit to them for that. If they want to advertise, they'll pay advertisers.
>>62632348It's already here (see OP) and it was brought to you by gamers.>>62632361There's still only one streamer utilising it; neither one of us knows what the rate could sustain with full adoption.What's the benefit to Warren Buffett giving away all his money to charity? What's the benefit to fans of massive streamers when they send them thousands of dollars just to get their names read out briefly? Your worldview is myopic
>>62631612a job for "UBI" =/= UBIubi is supposed to be UNIVERSAL which means it applies to everyone, including people who won't work the job.it will have to be means-tested of course, the middle class and anyone above should be flatly ineligible, but conditioning it on a job means it's not UBI. it's just I. a job, for a wage.
>>62632412>neither one of us knows what the rate could sustain with full adoption.It's extremely easy to find. It will always average around $0.02/hr. Because that's about half the monetary value of a single viewer. The amount of people that use it doesn't change anything. It will never get large scale adoption for the same reason Twitch streamers don't do giveaways every month.>What's the benefit to Warren Buffett giving away all his money to charity?While he's alive, tax breaks.When he's dead, his kids don't get it.>What's the benefit to fans of massive streamers when they send them thousands of dollars just to get their names read out briefly?You literally said it. They get their names (and sometimes a message) read out. They get their 5 minutes of fame and get to feel like a part of the community.If streamers wanted to do giveaways, they would just host their own giveaway, like they already do. You're failing to comprehend the most basic of business concepts.
>>62632453No, universal means there's no means-test, anyone can participate>>62632456But there's no ecomonic incentive to give money to charity or to spend thousands on a name read, yet people still do these things. Nanodrops is vying to capture the giveaway spend, which is significant due to all these gambling promoters
>>62632493>No, universal means there's no means-testit has to be means-tested or it's just going to contribute to inflation.funny thing is if we just stopped paying for rich boomers medical care (tens of thousands of $$ every month per fat old rich boomer) we could afford to give everyone below the poverty line a UBI.
>>62632539That's not what universal means in that context though, it specifically speaks to no means test
>>62632544i think that's debateable, and i really think it's more about not conditioning the income on a job. most income is premised on contributing something in exchange for money. UBI is about giving a BASIC amount of money to everyone. since this would be a smaller amount of money than a middle-class income (by necessity) it makes sense to means-test it so the program can remain solvent for longer. the reason Social Security is in such trouble is because>there's no means testing>payments exceed revenues
>>62631569This video does not account for the sky high inflation that occurs under UBI to pay for that massive expense
>>62632643The expense isn't paid by a single body, but a group of different sources, (and not all economically motivated). The payouts themselves are with a digital currency with 0 inflation (fully distributed a decade ago)
So farmers still spend effort growing food and in exchange the consumers.. sit around yapping about video games?
>>62631569>the rank 1 Mordhau player designed a functioning Universal Basic Income systemif he would be rank 10000 that would be completely different, so glad you made that clear>a functioning Universal Basic Income systemrigorously impossible> where the participants provide value as viewers of livestreamskek
>>62631569what are you brown men who love socialism doing on /biz/? this is off-topic.
>>62632691farmers do very well for themselves, don't cry for the poor farmer. most of them are millionaires.
>>62632705What the fuck are you talking about you mindless subhuman?
>>62632692>rigorously impossibleWhy's that?>>62632697>what are you brown menThat's why I led with "rank 1 in Mordhau", to get chuds like you onside
Interesting
>>62632794>Why's that?Anything that takes work to produce or is scarce to any degree can't be universally accessible to people who don't produce anything or there's no reason to produce anything. If you have robots or whatever producing a vast excess of apples you can give the dependents apple tokens with minimal negative effects but they'll have to work if they want anything but apples. This is already the case in practice, there's free food everywhere, there's not a single person in the entire west dying of hunger.
>>62632709have you considered putting a bullet in your brain, bitch?
>>62632836>Anything that takes work to produce or is scarce to any degree can't be universally accessible to people who don't produce anythingYeah so the solution is to pay people to be a viewer of a livestream -- this provides value, people are willing to pay for it constantly (there's always an unquenchable thirst for views) and anyone can do it globally
>>62632854>this provides valueThe "value" comes from advertisers valuing eyeballs and the attention of someone whose only income is from those advertisers paying them to watch their ads is not worth anything. Besides the economics not working out advertising is pure evil, mind control should be globally outlawed.>>62632839There's an epidemic of retards like you who can't even pretend you ever put together a coherent thought in your lives demanding everyone else submits to your deranged whims.
>>62632456>It's extremely easy to find. It will always average around $0.02/hr. Because that's about half the monetary value of a single viewer.That aged poorly
>>62632871>The "value" comes from advertisers valuing eyeballs Actually, the most competitive views are those on Kick.com, where no ads are currently being served. Beyond the pure economics of what a viewer is worth, there's also giveaways, donations (e.g. donating money to chat), viewership record attempts, the list goes on>advertising is pure evilA fully adopted nanodrops would likely kill the VOD model of adverts in livestreams (which are totally incompatible imo), really brands should be integrated within the streams themselves, e.g. live product placements
>>62632883>the list goes onThe list of ways you're fucked in the head? You listed no source of value. Kick uses investor money, mostly from gambling to subsidize views in an attempt to secure future customers for future ads. They're buying market share.
>>62632905>You listed no source of value.>Kick uses investor moneyImmediate self-own, you hate to see it!
>>62632883>live product placementsSo the advertiser gives me money to watch streams with product placement and I then use a portion of that money to buy their product. That's a net loss for the advertiser.>>62632910They're buying market share for future advertiser revenue. What the fuck is wrong with your brain?
>>62632872bahahaha it keeps getting worse for him!>>62632911>So the advertiser gives me money to watch streams with product placement and I then use a portion of that money to buy their product.You're assuming the product costs less than what you're earning in total>They're buying market shareCool, so views on Kick are valuable, which was my original point
>>62632916>so views on Kick are valuableAssuming the viewers have an income they'll spend on advertiser products and they'll spend more than the advertisers spend on their attention or the viewers pay part of their external income to the streamer in exchange for being entertained. If their income is only from watching adverts that's a guaranteed loss for any advertisers. How is basic logic this difficult for you?>You're assuming the product costs less than what you're earning in totalDeranged levels of retardation.
>>62632931>Assuming the viewers have an income they'll spend on advertiser productsThere are no ads on Kick, keep up>Deranged levels of retardation.Tell me about it! >I pay you $5 to watch me play a game>By the end of the session, you decide to buy the $60 game>$60 - $5 = $55Do I need to get crayons out?
>>62631605>>62631569Okay but what if I just leave my computer on or something.
>>62633043You have to check in every ~15 minutes to complete a captcha but yeah you can semi-idle it, put it on a second screen and do whatever (like you would with a normal stream)
>>62633050Seems like an Indianmaxing kind of thing if multiple people did this. I expect it would be patched quite quickly though.
>>62633056People living in countries with weak currencies are the target audience
>>62632942Pretending to be retarded is not funny. There really are people out there this fucked in the head.>There are no ads on KickAnd they're losing money, to buy future market dominance, to sell ads in the future.>you decide to buy the $60 gameWith money I got from my job, not from you.
>>62633198>And they're losing moneyDoesn't matter, there's no ads on Kick yet Kick viewers are the most valuable. What they do with that market dominance later stands to be seen, maybe they sell the data to AI companies or something (like Twitch is now doing)>With money I got from my job, not from you.Exactly, but the $5 might have piqued your interest to watch the stream in the first place. It's just another form of marketing, like how paid clipping has revolutionised streaming
>>62633214>doesn't matterIt does. You're temporarily funnelling out money from a gambling website spending money to buy market dominance, not creating a sustainable ecosystem like you previously described.>ExactlyThen it has nothing to do with UBI. You're just extracting money from wagies.>>62633065Their attention is worthless because they don't have money to spend on products.
>>62633260>You're temporarily funnelling out money from a gambling website Let's say Kick stopped paying streamers and Twitch stopped running ads; views would STILL be worth money due to external brand collaborations (which typically pay depending on how many views the streamer gets during the sponsored segment). And not every faucet contribution needs to be economically motivated (expecting a return), e.g. it also acts as a way to donate indirectly to the streamer, getting them attention whilst creating a "hype" moment for everyone else watching>Then it has nothing to do with UBIIt's universal (no means test) and provides income -- whether the free market rate reaches a stable level that can be considered "basic" stands to be seen>Their attention is worthless because they don't have money to spend on products.Pays the same on Kick, doesn't matter where the viewer is from
good morning (bump)
rate is mooning
>>62633285i don’t understand how ads work since i have immunity to them. see if it needs advertising to convince me i need the product then its either junk or i don’t really need it.
good morning sars
just pay people to dig holes and other people to fill in the same holeshole-based economy is the future
>>62637923you've just described bitcoin mining
>>62637928no. bitcoin mining ends.hole-economy is circular and infinite.holecoin when.
>>62638020I'd be a holecoin wholecoiner
good evening
>>62631569ubi is way better than welfarefuck rewarding doing nothing
>>62639337This. We need to reward people watching livestreams.
>>62636404Dude FUCKING SAME. I was out in a “farmer market” (more like knickknack market) the other day and I just saw junk, like key chain and charms and shit like that and I saw hoard of people over them cause “they looked cute” and I am like “but WHY DO NEED TO OWN THIS SHIT”I mean ads works if say I need something, say a shampoo, but introducing me to a new brand with different mix of molecules , but it doesn’t gonna make me wanna buy THE BRAND, rather it opens my eye to the possibility that better things can be possible and I go from there, looking for something that satisfies me.I don’t know, if it’s call ad works on me or not, but I never buy something just because media told me to (I understand someone might need a hoodie or a cap, or a mouse pad; and they go buy the one expensive one because it was advertised on TikTok or whatever, and so it’s a “need” but i never do this even if I need something, I just find the best option by searching it myself)Why I say this? Because I am really struggling to find a business to make me money because I don’t understand the consumer. They always say makes something that make consumer life easier or better or happier (aka bringing value) but the fuck is value of knicknacks or water bottle and a 1001 other shit that people buy for some reason?How to understand this bros???!
good morning
https://x.com/ChivStouty/status/2093765216542617705
This is the most "My village is starving" thread I've seen in a while.
