Joe emerges from behind a dumpster, as you're walking home after seeing The Hunger Games. He's shaking and holding a revolver. He hands you a plastic grocery back and tells you to piss into it. Since you drank a Large Mountain Dew (for like six dollars) at the theatre, you easily comply, though it's hard to hold both handles of the bag and aim. Once you've emptied yourself into the bag he rattles the gun with glee and says "Good..." and gestures for you to hand it to him. He cinches the bag off by twisting the handles, and then begins whirling it over his head, screaming with laughter. His eyes are full of a special sort of violence. He then lets go, hurling the bag with all of its piss inertia up in to the air, where it collides with the wall of the building. A few drops get on you and a few drops get on him.

You think you've satisfied him, and are almost sure you're home free, when he pulls another folded up grocery store bag from his back pocket and says "Again."

I see only one person making sweeping truth claims here. No, I'm not going to defend "his" claims, because he isn't making them to begin with.

Saying that atheists need religion to be consistently moral and integrate properly into communities are pretty hefty truth claims-- how could you honestly not see that?  You keep saying I don't understand his arguments, and then go on to say what you think they are (morality reinforcement being based in emotional states, as an example, which in of itself is an even larger truth claim), without having read the book--  I was prepared to lend an ear to your clarifications of his arguments, assuming that you'd read the book.  Since you haven't, we're pretty much forced to agree to disagree, but considering I've had three separate friends, the opinions of whom I trust in matters like this, express frustration at the author's baseless presumptions about atheism-as-a-whole and 'what it needs', I really see no reason to give the book the benefit of the doubt.

~~~

If we're going to suggest books that should appeal to people interested in Dawkins or whatever, I'll put forth "True to Life:  Why Truth Matters" by Michael P. Lynch, and something I've actually read.  It provides a very clear overview on the nature of truth, and why truth in its own right is an inherent good.  Truth, being central to belief, and thus action, is something one should take care to comprehend and 'get right'.  It's brisk, short, easy enough to understand for the layman.  It cuts straight to the heart of postmodern reasoning, and several 'objective' truth views that collapse into subjectivism when strained through their own logic- specifically various blends of pragmatism.

If you want to sink your teeth into more readily applicable sociological/psychological issues pertaining to "why are people so damned crazy and dumb sometimes", Bob Altemeyer's "The Authoritarians" is what you need.  Bob's a very cool dude, and has a very relaxed, and often humorously conversational tone, despite the immense gravity of his work.  Put short, there are specific personality types that have a strong tendency towards mob styled thinking, othering, and us vs them mentality.  Further, there are other types of peoples, social dominators, who have personalities almost made to take advantage of this.  There is a lot of data that Altemeyer has collected over the years detailing the nuances of these types of minds:  a strong compartmentalization of ideas, allowing easy access to completely disparate beliefs without any realization of the conflict.  It explains doublethink, more or less, both in people who don't realize they are utilizing it, and in those who are perfectly fine with acting counter to their own stated beliefs.  There is a very interesting, albeit non-entirely-scientific section where, through the years with various classes, he's secretly held a sort of United Nations roleplaying game, with groups of all Authoritarian type personalities, and groups of all non-Authoritarian types, and the absolutely huge disparity of how they handle 'disaster' situations, trade, etc, is despairing, given the implications of how the mindset affects, say, the real world.

An important part, I feel, is accessibility.  This isn't just a matter of broad appeal- to use Eres's examples above, Canabalt, Angry Birds, and Peggle all have a general appeal in terms of content- generic cityscape, birds and generic themed zones, abstract colored shapes and more basic themed zones- but there are tons of generic games out there that don't catch much love.  Canabalt, Angry Birds, and Peggle all have some level of attention paid to making the game as easy to come to grips with as possible, I feel.  Canabalt only has one button to deal with, Angry Birds has a very forgiving system and reflexive GOOD JOB noises, and Peggle likewise has fun time noises to let you know you're doing the right thing, on top of colorful friendly characters to tell you explicitly what every new thing in the game does, and then giving you a level to show you as plainly as possible.  

It's sort of like how for writing you have to hook someone with the first sentence to get them to read the first paragraph to get them to read the first page, etc.  With a lot of games being cheap or free, there isn't as much of a pressure to be locked in to any one game for a while just to get your money's worth.  If a game's mechanics aren't readily apparent for someone to sink their teeth into, they'll move on.

As much as I love niche stuff, or complex stuff, I have to be honest and indicate that as much as I love the idea of Knights in the Nightmare or Sword & Sworcery, there are times when, for straight relaxation, I'd rather drift on with Tiny Wings or something.

Based on everything I've read and heard, you don't need a marketing budget, but you do need to work your ass off. Do social media, do interviews, make a good website, make a good trailer, talk about your game, get your game featured on blogs, do temporary price cuts, go to conferences- it will all probably help your game a lot.

This is pretty solid basic advice.  Be prepared to hustle to get your name out there, and have it easy for people to learn more once they have that name.  Keen social senses on top of sincere enthusiasm can go a long way. 

i heard from fartron or crowe or someone that only the first one is worth reading, and i've only read the first one; i did like the reviews of the god-emperor on amazon though so i may eventually read those

I forget the deal, but Frank Herbert originally wanted to handle Dune in a different structure, either he wanted to do the first book as two or three books, or the second two books as one book, or something.  Basically, the second two books are sort of the middle children, in terms of story structure, for a number of reasons.  Dune, as a self contained story, comes across as complete.  The second two books indicate that this is not so at all, but are also about the logical conclusions of the events of the first book (Specifically regarding what happens when you have a messiah-emperor snagging the throne of the galactic empire, etc).  There's a lot of delving into the intricacies of the galaxy beyond Arrakis, the fleshing out of some of the core factions, and some neat interactions.  The problem is that, after the huge world-changing events of Dune, none of these things have any comparable thrust.

Of course, it all builds up to God-Emperor, which is equally as solid as Dune, in terms of scope, if not more so.  It pulls a lot of the themes woven into the first three books directly into the foreground.  The majority of it is dialogue, or monologue with a mostly-silent sounding board, but given the sort of story it is telling, it's the only way to really handle a lot of it.

The reason I am afraid to snag a copy of Chapterhouse is because I hear it sort of unravels a lot of the force God-Emperor has as a monolithic ending point to the series, and never successfully ties it back together.

Edit, re Fallsburg:  While I can see why someone would be down on Messiah and Children, God-Emperor is arguably as good or better than Dune, solely for taking the same themes and widening the scope while building upon them in an intricate manner.  The problem is that it is fundamentally a different sort of story, and lacks a lot of the adventurous quality of the first book.  Someone put it clearly to me that the second, third, and fourth Dune books lack a lot of the wish-fulfillment aspects of Paul-Being-The-Best, and while I wouldn't put it quite that way, I can easily see why a ton of people wouldn't cope well with the shift from Desert Adventure Knife Fights to People Talking And Making Allusions for 400 Pages.

Edit, MORE WORDS:  It's important to note that the setting of Dune, and the situations it presents, are truly enhanced by the deep level of worldbuilding.  You have certain ecological rules, technological rules, cultural rules, firing on all cylinders to the point that subtle actions carry a huge amount of context with them.  I feel that this is where the series really goes all out.

Wow, you sure know much about a book you haven't even read!

I've heard enough from people who have read it, and read enough about it (reviews, articles, excerpts) to know that it's premises are flawed.  It is entirely possible to be familiar with a work on a basic level without having personally read it.  I don't hinge my entire argument on the one part I quoted above, either- I just used it to show that he truly makes the claim that without adhering to specific tenets, atheists are somehow unable to form the answers to day to day moral issues.  It's absurd, and it does not follow that his conception of a person, incapable of forming rational decisions, would somehow be able to do so merely by following a religion.

He very much seems to be working backwards from the idea that 'hey maybe some religions do have some good to them' and trying to make up concrete reasoning for why those good things are only available through religious ideology.

I mean, even in your 'more fleshed out' interview he states, clearly, that atheists don't form their non-belief due to evidence-based decision making, that people can't consistently be good or kind without religion, that communities need religion as a basis.  That's actually super offensive.

You propped this book up as a followup to Dawkins, which almost implies it'd be the same sort of fact-based, non-spiritual, scientific stuff.  Instead it's just some guy, prolific and well read as he is, portraying atheists as these almost inhuman, soulless beings incapable of acting within a community, etc. 

I mean, if you can show me that this dude isn't just making sweeping truth claims without any basis in reality, go ahead, I'll be glad to consider them.  Does he even have any reason to assert that atheists are inferior at behaving within communities, or coming to decent moral decisions? As it is, the book just seems sort of like it's coasting on how fringe it is, compared to the views of most atheists.  Bragging about how many atheists disagree with his idea of there being atheist temples sort of cements that, as well.

So yes, if you've read the book, and you're keen on defending it, you should be able to address some of the specific issues I see with his entire premise.  Feel free to do so in PM if you'd like.

[QED, it's a bad book.]

You will probably love "Religion for Atheists" by Alain de Botton.

While I've only heard of this book second hand, I have to disagree. De Botton tries to make the point that atheists need religious ideology engrained into their day to day life to maintain their moral compass, more or less.  It misses the mark so hard to the point that the idea that de Botton is a false flag author doesn't seem too absurd to me.  I mean, the guy straight up claims that atheists categorically hate being part of a community.

Here's from the Q&A on his own Amazon page for the book:

"Q: Is it possible to be a good person without religion?

A: The problem of the man without religion is that he forgets. We all know in theory what we should do to be good. The problem is that in practice, we forget. And we forget because the modern secular world always thinks that it is enough to tell someone something once (be good, remember the poor etc.) But all religions disagree here: they insist that if anyone is to stand a chance of remembering anything, they need reminders on a daily, perhaps even hourly basis."

He is saying that atheists are incapable of making correct or justifiable moral choices without adhering to religious tenets.  Regardless of one's views pertaining to religion, it straight up paints an incorrect view of secular life, to the point of parody.  QED, it's a bad book.

[Toady One]

If anyone here has any questions for Dwarf Fortress's Toady One, we're recording the next DF Podcast tomorrow.

Yeah, like 90% of the money goes to the person who made the KS, and the rest goes to KS who takes their fee, and Amazon Marketplace takes another small portion.  Most pledges aren't 'purchases' as such anyways.

I don't get what you mean by money for 'nothing'-- pretty much all monetary transactions are charged for or taxed in one way or another.  What do you think banks do?  What do you think credit card companies do?  Liquidity of assets is an asset in of itself.

It's not so much a 'scheme' as the nature of the financial industry in general, for better or worse.  (Worse, usually).

Your entire premise, starting from "he's deep in bed with kickstarter" to calling him a bum, a fake jackoff and a fucking hoaxer is pretty all just made up.  You say people should do some 'deep checking' on him when you're more than content to just make things up.

I mean, Kickstarter isn't even primarily for games-- it's just been leaning that way due to tons of activity on that front. 

But if you seriously think that a dude who has been a dyed in the wool game developer for like, decades, is going to ruin his reputation, piss off his industry contacts, for maybe two million dollars which will be extracted from him in court, for fraud, then it's apparent you haven't really thought this through from his perspective.

Look, Little Red Hen, I know you're completely capable of planting, tending, and harvesting wheat, and then milling it, and then baking it, so why not just give me some bread?

We need some soothing background music.

[what good is the publisher?]

It's not "I should get a discount because I'm an early adopter", it's "I want this to happen so I'm putting money towards it."

Hey it's cool you want to support the project, there's nothing wrong with that, but that doesn't address the issues I brought up.

If the publisher is making him raise money, is not helping him raise the money by giving him some easrly-adopter rewards, is not even giving him a discount on buying copies to give to backers, etc, what good is the publisher? They're merely giving him the grand honor of raising money for them to print his book, on which they will profit either way. They're literally just exploiting him.  And that exploitation is passed on to the backers. The fact that they won't even sell him copies at-cost is incredibly telling.

He should either find a publisher that will actually support the project in some way, or he should straight up do it print on demand, cutting out the middle-man.  There's no reason that all of the work and financial risk should be shifted onto the author.

If "I want this to happen so I'm going to put money towards it" were the core motivation here, then there would be literally no problem with letting people get the ebook copy, which costs nothing to the publisher, be had for a 10 dollar pledge.  Instead, the publisher wants forty dollars for something they're making the author pay to have made, and that costs them nothing.  If you don't see what's wrong with that, and why that sort of behavior shouldn't be supported, I don't know what to tell you.

Dune, Dune Messiah, Children of Dune, God-Emperor.   That's four!

(I've heard that Chapterhouse is alright but I'm totally fine with capping the series off at God-Emperor, its logical conclusion.)

Ah yes, licenses, the mark of a true pirate broadcaster.

I started reading Dune, finally. I think I'll actually be able to get through all the politicking this time.

The politicking is important but the real gem of Dune is the worldbuilding.  I just finished the 4th and final Dune book the other month and it's an excellent capper to the series.

Rewards seem a little nonsensical, I'm not sure why I'd want to pay full for the book up front and not get it for who knows how long. The other reward tiers are basically just asking me to donate money :|

That's kinda how Kickstarter works.

Yeah except as stated, backers aren't expected, at least in the better ones, to front the full cost of a product.  As stated, the Wasteland 2 kickstarter sets one up with the full game at 15 dollars, because it's a digital download, and there's no reason to limit how many people get that- especially when the more people donate, the more money they get.

If you have a publisher who is not going to budge on basically giving people a discount at all for funding the creation of the product, then what is the point of having both a publisher and a kickstarter?  It's the publisher's job to have funds to make the product and pay the dude, so why have pledgers back the costs and end up paying more for the final product?

I understand he wants some up front money to do interviews and get some more art in, and stuff, but either have the publisher pay for that, or give the people who are paying for it to be made a discount.  Or break away from a traditional publisher and do print on demand.  

There's just so many flaws in the way he's going about this.

This is Joss Whedon saying "yeah a film company has decided to let me make another season of Firefly and put it out on DVD.  But I need to front the costs.  And if you donate, your reward is that you get to pay more for the DVD than everyone else will."

So the film company isn't doing anything other than making pure profit off of it-- why have them be involved?  Even if you really want the project to succeed, that's fine, but it's still a really wonky system that places all the costs on not just the consumer- but the core fans who should be treated with maybe a little more respect.   Since they're the ones who are working to make it happen.

Edit:  To clarify, there was a wildly popular KS for an espresso machine a few months back.  For the lower tier pledges you'd get neat little coffee goodies, like a tamp and a measuring spoon or whatever.  The KS was to get money to put the design they had into mass production, to sell for 400 dollars- which is about as much as decent espresso machines run.  If you donated 200 dollars though, you would get one of the espresso machine, because they have no problem basically selling you one at cost, or even a loss, because without those sales they would have no money to produce anything at all.  People who donate early get a nice discount on the product, and know they helped out, where the company itself gets to help early adopters and actually make their product a reality.

The idea that the publisher, who is making the dude pay upfront for the book to be produced, can't spare 100 copies, or even 100 ebook copies, to Allow The Book To Be Sold At All So Everyone Benefits is kind of shady.

Did you watch the Uncle Willie video, PB?

My understanding is that the FCC will find you and shut you down within a month of operation unless you're almost prohibitively cautious (changing locations and such), or you're only broadcasting to like, your next door neighbor.

While not as romanticized, just doing an internet radio station is easier and less likely to result in a dude kicking your door down with fines.