Asensio & Associates: Enlisting the Cyber-Nazis
Some time ago I commented that the Stockhouse thread was, in microcosm, an example of virulent cultural fascism. I will now go further. The thread consists primarily of members who claim a certain difference and superiority relative to others; dissent is not tolerated; the KRY-Police enforce adherence to doctrine; and those deemed unworthy of membership are eliminated, the exigencies of 'war' often invoked as justification. If this were a 'real' community rather than a 'virtual' one, it would hopefully be viewed as a pariah. It is, nonetheless, an association that exhibits many of the main elements that manifested themselves in the real world as National Socialism. These Cyber-Nazis, in my opinion, bear more responsibility for the harm that was done to so many by Asensio's assault than all the liars, sleaze-bags, and other perceived miscreants that they so loudly decry. Asensio owes them a debt of gratitude; they have been his allies. This is true, to a lesser extent, on this thread.
The stifling of discussion through heaping scorn and ridicule on anyone perceived to be questioning the supremacy of the group and its cause, and the elimination of posters classified as the 'enemy' has had deleterious and very real effects on this stock. The information and commentary that is available is clearly one-sided. On the one hand, this may have had the effect of inflating the price. On the other hand, it created a situation in which doubts about the stock could not help but flourish. I think it is clear to almost everyone--including the Cyber-Nazis--that only one side of a very complicated story is being aired. When Asensio, an acknowledged shorter, launched his attack those doubts could not be contained. People started to bail out and more were forced out through margin calls.
In many ways, this play and especially the events surrounding Asensio's assault are a classic case of Prisoner's Dilemma. I will expand on the term somewhat for those who are unfamiliar with it. Its modern origins are found in the political writings of Jean-Jacques Rousseau, writing in the 1700s. Rousseau proposed a simple tale. A number of hunters, on the verge of starvation, come together in a joint effort to kill a stag. Having taken up their positions out of sight of one another, a rabbit passes close by one of the hunters. He faces a dilemma. Does he try to capture the rabbit, providing food for himself at the risk of jeopardizing the success of the stag hunt, or does he hold his position? Much depends on what he thinks another member of the group in a similar position might do.
This simple tale has been widely taken up in contemporary game theory under the rubric of Prisoners' Dilemma. It has been the subject of complex mathematical modelling and is not something to be taken lightly--it informs much of the foreign policy of major military powers and is a staple of most strategic think tanks. In its basic form, the rational actor has two choices: cooperate; or defect. In iterated games of Prisoners' Dilemma the best long-term strategy is undeniably cooperation.
The Crystallex play is an excellent example of an iterated game. At every moment of every trading day shareholders either 'cooperate' (hold their shares) or 'defect' (sell their shares). Under normal circumstances, that is to say in the absence of a perceived crisis, the individual actions have little effect on the 'pay-off'. When Asensio began his attack, however, the cumulative effect of the 'defectors' drove the price down dramatically. If shareholders had cooperated (held their shares) Asensio would have had little impact. So, why didn't they cooperate? Well, the rub is that cooperation is predicated on trust--the stag hunter has to trust the other hunters in the group, the prisoner has to trust that the other prisoner isn't going to rat on him, and the shareholder has to trust that the other shareholders aren't going to bail and leave him or her in the lurch.
It is very difficult to extend that type of trust when it is abundantly clear that the group with which you are associated has been complicit in denying free access to all information, where discussion is strictly regulated and compliance enforced, and where doubts over certain issues have not been freely set to rest. In the final analysis trust requires mutual understanding and, as I said some time ago, unfettered discourse is the key to mutual understanding. The Cyber-Nazis created the ideal circumstances for Asensio. I don't have to name names--who they are is quite clear.
Perhaps Asensio has unwittingly accomplished what the Cyber-Nazis couldn't. The stock may, in fact, be in stronger hands now. But the Cyber-Nazis share culpability for the financial corpses left in the wake of this attack.
By the way, Eric, I agree with the statement in your post regarding the issues previously under discussion being 'moot'. As has been established before, however, I use the term in its proper sense 'arguable, undecided', not in the vernacular sense 'irrelevant'. I'll have to check to see what Mein Fuehrer had to say about the proper approach to discussion. I wouldn't be surprised to find a certain resonance with your own claim. My own approach is more modest. I listen to an argument and decide whether it meets the test of reason before deciding whether or not the position is wrong.
Regards. |
