shitty_author

@Murphy I've been trying think of a rule that acts as a workaround for pollution deaths but I haven't been able to figure one out without creating another degree of separation called "nature"/"chance" that could be exploited.

@Murphy "I was directly involved and handed him some of the drinks. Do I end up in murder-afterlife?" If the alcohol in those drinks contributed to his death, yes. If the alcohol in those drinks did not contribute, no. It essentially comes down to chance. To think of it another way, replace "alcohol" with "bullet", and "bloodstream" with "revolver" and now you and everyone else that served the man alcohol are playing Russian roulette. The same thing applies to smoking and pollution. If those smoke molecules contributed, you're a killer.

@LeeLeon "Why is your victim, in your examples, always a boy" I could make it a girl if that's what you prefer. I only used "boy" so I wouldn't be using "man" twice. "or do you differentiate in some way?" Nope.

@Aify "You said the bully had intent. I said he didn't." You implied there was intent, so I assumed there was intent. You then later said he didn't have intent. That was clearly miscommunication, not a difference in views. "Clearly we had different views on intent" No, we don't.

@a4android "You have ignored the military." Not at all, I just didn't mention them. The first example could be a serial killer or a Marine or anyone with a gun, but I choose to keep it simple by just saying "man". "Why restrict to crime or accidental death?" I'm not.

@NathanBasanese "I think this is a good question, and it can be answered authoritatively on the basis of known manslaughter and murder demographics, as well as conviction rates and a whole slew of modern studies." Could you link me to some of those studies?

@Aify "Therefore, it is impossible to limit your demographic to anything other than "anything is possible"". Wrong. The note specifies that further degrees of separation without intent are not killers. There is a limit.

@Aify "The bully has no intent to kill though" that was implied. If there isn't any, then it's no intent and one-degree of separation.

@Aify "A kid bullies another kid to the point of depression. That kid kills himself. Is the bully a killer?" Yes. Intent and one-degree of separation.

@Aify "A kid scares a grandparent as a joke, grandparent can't take it, adrenaline rush triggers heart issues, grandparent dies. Is the kid a killer?" Yes.

@Aify Given the examples and the note, you should be able to figure out what I mean by degrees of separation. In your example, "A man falls over from having a heart attack, accidentally pushing someone down a flight of stairs." if the person that fell down the stairs dies, the man is a killer. In the next sentence: "The man hit by the car dies, while the man that fell over survives." you mention a car, but didn't mention it previously. I'm not sure what that sentence means exactly.

@Aify Bystanders would not be. Natural causes =/= equal accidents. If a person caused the heart attack, they would be a killer, but the bystanders would not be indirect killers for failing to save the life.

I did specify the exact circumstances one would get there though. I'm basically asking what the world's population of killers are like.

@RonJohn How could I change the question so the answers are not opinion based?

@sphennings I know, but that's why I'm asking. I was going to make a list myself but I have no idea where to start.

Ahhh, that's perfect. Thanks again!

@Bellerophon Thanks! How did you get those numbers?

@Bellerophon is there a conversion rate between information and Watts?

I'm trying to create a magic system that uses information as it's source of power but I don't know how one would convert information into useful energy.