World Building Shenzhiwu 2210 | Setting & Roleplay Concept

[Idea]

No? If it was rhetorical that would mean I have the answer to it. Which I don't. I'm just trying to phrase the question.

In that case, to give a basic rundown of the idea (and keep in mind, my understanding of the subject is still pretty rudementary, I'm just another economics college student) the changes to an economy over time is that more money enters the economy which means everyone has more money which means the prices of products go higher because people can pay more. The value of the product’s relation with the money spent to buy them doesn’t change overall in an economy with no regulation, though the money does increase and technological advances still mean the people get more value in their hands.

The issue lays however in things like international trade (because the value of a given currency, especially with speculators around, can become overblown) and what happens when companies abuse their market presence. When a company can afford not to uphold a contract you know you have a problem in your hands. That said, it's not like even without regulation a company who holds a monopoly is unstoppable. Fads go away, innovation comes, and over time as long as there are people being abused by a company's pratices, there are clients whose best choices will be that company's competitors, even if they have lesser products or are just a small business.

You probably can figure as much, but the world of finances and market competition is extremely complicated. The "natural" solution for the economy's balance, this is, what brings a market closer to a balanced free market without government interfierence, is simply time. But it can take a really long time, especially if the company can essentially act like dictators and use other means than economic ones to "deal with" the competition, like i suspect they would in your setting.




On a side note, one shrewd strategy certain monopolies employ in real life is to attempt to disguise themselves as several companies in the eyes of the public. Many large corporations opened several small businesses controlled by the large corporation, so to the public you have all these different shops of similar products when in reality they all belong to the same group.

It wouldn't fool the government or other companies, but it could help quell public outrage, thus helping the scenario you are trying to achieve be more plausible.

 

[MDL]

The value of the product’s relation with the money spent to buy them doesn’t change overall in an economy with no regulation, though the money does increase and technological advances still mean the people get more value in their hands.

Could you perhaps rephrase this part? I don't get the "value of the relation" thing, it's too jargonny for me atm.

The issue lays however in things like international trade (because the value of a given currency, especially with speculators around, can become overblown) and what happens when companies abuse their market presence. When a company can afford not to uphold a contract you know you have a problem in your hands. That said, it's not like even without regulation a company who holds a monopoly is unstoppable. Fads go away, innovation comes, and over time as long as there are people being abused by a company's pratices, there are clients whose best choices will be that company's competitors, even if they have lesser products or are just a small business.

So there is only one state. One megacity in the setting. Which settles the international trade thing. But I guess it's something to consider for the history leading up to the established world. The "abuse market presence" and "contract upholding" is interesting. Right now I am at the point where I've established that in the relative near future, say 30-20 years back, there was a major conflict between the corporations which was a result of the unstable environment that emerged after the relative dismantlement of the government. To fix these instabilities and end the "war" that was keeping them from maximizing profits and creating anti-corp sentiment among the public they decided together that some functions of government need to be in place, although EXTREMELY limited. So right now I am trying to establish what those base necessities are for a stable economy to function semi-well. What needs to be there to prevent total economic anarchy in corporate relations, or whatever.

Small business is another thing I'm tackling. How much of it still exists. I'm leaning towards that small business is virtually only around in the areas and social-groups of the city that are "lawless", anti-corp, somehow resisting corporate influence or when said influence is lower than the majority of society.

Interesting thoughts, thanks.

On a side note, one shrewd strategy certain monopolies employ in real life is to attempt to disguise themselves as several companies in the eyes of the public. Many large corporations opened several small businesses controlled by the large corporation, so to the public you have all these different shops of similar products when in reality they all belong to the same group.

It wouldn't fool the government or other companies, but it could help quell public outrage, thus helping the scenario you are trying to achieve be more plausible.

I do have a major concept about this that I'm working on, but I won't disclose any details as it is connected to the main plot and won't be publicly available through setting documentation.

Nice post fam

 

[Idea]

Could you perhaps rephrase this part? I don't get the "value of the relation" thing, it's too jargonny for me atm.

Sure. Maybe a real life example will help.

So around 1921 Germany was drowning in debt. In an attempt to settle that debt with their already damaged economy, the government had the banks print a huge amount of their currency, the Papiermark. However, the result of this was hyperinflation. A bread that could cost 5 papiermarks one day costed a 1000 or 100000 the next.

The reason for this is that the value of the product to you doesn't change because of the amount of money there is available, nor vice versa but the amount of money you have affects how much your money is worth to you and if there are five breads available, those breads will be more valuable than if there are 50 breads.

So if everyone had twice the amount of money, then they wouldn't be able to buy a single thing more, because their money would have half the value. So there is an inherent relation between the amount of product available, and the amount of money available.

Is this more clear?

Nice post fam

Thank you

 

[MDL]

Sure. Maybe a real life example will help.

So around 1921 Germany was drowning in debt. In an attempt to settle that debt with their already damaged economy, the government had the banks print a huge amount of their currency, the Papiermark. However, the result of this was hyperinflation. A bread that could cost 5 papiermarks one day costed a 1000 or 100000 the next.

The reason for this is that the value of the product to you doesn't change because of the amount of money there is available, nor vice versa but the amount of money you have affects how much your money is worth to you and if there are five breads available, those breads will be more valuable than if there are 50 breads.

So if everyone had twice the amount of money, then they wouldn't be able to buy a single thing more, because their money would have half the value. So there is an inherent relation between the amount of product available, and the amount of money available.

Is this more clear?

Yes. I get that now. So without a central bank to prevent hyperinflation or no inflation, what would be the effects of that do you think?

 

[Idea]

Yes. I get that now. So without a central bank to prevent hyperinflation or no inflation, what would be the effects of that do you think?

Well, as explained the relation between products and money isn't usually that impacted (other than in how much more difficult to pay a thousand of something in cash than it is to pay 5), so what is most affected are:
1. Wages
2. Savings
3. Stability

Hyperinflation has the biggest impact on wages and savings. While wages eventually adjust to inflation and hyperinflation, if the money you're being paid is suddenly worth 10 times less that means your fixed waged is now worth a tenth of what it was worth before. Likewise, unlike money you invest money you keep with yourself as your savings and though to a lesser extent, also any money kept on a bank, your money is suddenly worth a lot less. Those college tuition funds you've been saving may barely be worth feeding yourself for a week if the inflation gets bad enough.

While both hyperinflation and stagnation (the opposite of hyperinflation) affect the stability of businesses, who very quickly have to try to adjust their prices and may not be able to, stagnation has a much bigger impact on it, as while hyperinflation will often result from the entry of money on the circulation, stagnation happens from the removal of money from circulation to extreme degrees. It is an extremely rare event historically to the point that the one case I can think of it ever happening (the great depression of 1929) required a remodelling of economic theory just to understand it. I won't go into too much detail on that since it's not super relevant. What IS relevant for now is that when money gets removed from the economy in excess, that money isn't circulating which means suddenly businesses have less money to spend. This normally isn't a hard thing to adjust for, but the conditions for stagnation are very dire and so these matters tend to have a greater impact than they should. Businesses see the deficit, they need to lay off workers. Bigger unemployment means that there are less people who can afford to spend money, which means bigger savings from them and others who fear they may be next. This means even less money circulates which means more companies suffer bigger losses, more people lose their jobs, more money is saved, and the vicious cycle continues for a while until the economy at large finds a new point of equilibrium.

While the savings and wages may be worth more than they were before, that's not worth much if people aren't willing to actually go and spend them. On top of that failing businesses and greater unemployment is also the result of the shaking of stability caused by stagnation and though to a lesser extent, also hyperinflation.

Important Note: Just a reminder that again, this is coming from someone who has yet limited knowledge on the subject. Someone more knowledgeable could probably point to a lot more effects of both situations and far more nuances to the things I attempted to explain.

 

[MDL]

Hyperinflation has the biggest impact on wages and savings. While wages eventually adjust to inflation and hyperinflation, if the money you're being paid is suddenly worth 10 times less that means your fixed waged is now worth a tenth of what it was worth before. Likewise, unlike money you invest money you keep with yourself as your savings and though to a lesser extent, also any money kept on a bank, your money is suddenly worth a lot less. Those college tuition funds you've been saving may barely be worth feeding yourself for a week if the inflation gets bad enough.

The savings thing I hadn't thought of. This could be used as an event during the unstable times of the economy during the corporate conflict.

While both hyperinflation and stagnation (the opposite of hyperinflation) affect the stability of businesses, who very quickly have to try to adjust their prices and may not be able to, stagnation has a much bigger impact on it, as while hyperinflation will often result from the entry of money on the circulation, stagnation happens from the removal of money from circulation to extreme degrees. It is an extremely rare event historically to the point that the one case I can think of it ever happening (the great depression of 1929) required a remodelling of economic theory just to understand it. I won't go into too much detail on that since it's not super relevant. What IS relevant for now is that when money gets removed from the economy in excess, that money isn't circulating which means suddenly businesses have less money to spend. This normally isn't a hard thing to adjust for, but the conditions for stagnation are very dire and so these matters tend to have a greater impact than they should. Businesses see the deficit, they need to lay off workers. Bigger unemployment means that there are less people who can afford to spend money, which means bigger savings from them and others who fear they may be next. This means even less money circulates which means more companies suffer bigger losses, more people lose their jobs, more money is saved, and the vicious cycle continues for a while until the economy at large finds a new point of equilibrium.

Fascinating. When I read this the first thing I think about is the black market. Lets say that there are immensely powerful criminal organizations in this setting im building. And they run an alternative currency that is only spent on illegal goods. If they were to make huge amounts of money from a legal investment and then take all that money and invest it in the parallel, illegal economy, that would create this kind of effect? Or what do you think.

until the economy at large finds a new point of equilibrium.

Do you know any example of how that happens? Or maybe that's a bad question.

Important Note: Just a reminder that again, this is coming from someone who has yet limited knowledge on the subject. Someone more knowledgeable could probably point to a lot more effects of both situations and far more nuances to the things I attempted to explain.

I think you seem very knowledgeable. At least a lot more than me, and I read a shit-ton of political theory.

 

[Idea]

Fascinating. When I read this the first thing I think about is the black market. Lets say that there are immensely powerful criminal organizations in this setting im building. And they run an alternative currency that is only spent on illegal goods. If they were to make huge amounts of money from a legal investment and then take all that money and invest it in the parallel, illegal economy, that would create this kind of effect? Or what do you think.

This is an incredibly complex question, which involves the interplay of international economic dynamics being mixed with the economics of smuggling and other types, as well as financial management. Frankly speaking, it's quite impossible to know what such a bizarre event would lead to.

Still, for the sake of giving you a more productive answer, I will attempt to speculate.

The determining causes of hyperinflation and stagnation have to do, in essence, with the amount of money circulating in the economy and the trust people have in the system (when people don't trust, they don't give away their precious money for investment and the like). There are mixed messages here, as on one hand a criminal undertaking doesn't sound like the trustworthy sort, but on the other hand in the kind of setting you have it may be seen as still more trustworthy than the companies. Currency-wise, neither currency is really changing in amount in any unnusual manner (or at least so I'm presuming in my model) which means that itself doesn't provoke a change in the inflation of currencies.

However...

That thing I told you in an earlier post about international currency flunctuations and comparative values (I don't think I used those words, but bear with me here)? Well, suddenly if you have a widely known and as massive as you seem to be suggesting black market, you essentially have a new country inside the "one country", from an economic perspective.

From there, it's important to talk about things like piracy and smuggling from an economic perspective. Purely economically, criminal undertakings that seek to seel them outside the law, are just more unrestricted competitors. They can sell you in bigger amounts and adjust their prices more freely, which can beat the price of even a normal business, but will have a much bigger impact against a monopoly, because they tend to highly inflate prices.

This will attract a lot of commerce to the black market, especially in these dystopian conditons of your setting, which makes the black market currency that much more valuable compared to the legal currency. People, especially speculators, will seek to obtain the black market's currency and keep it while ridding themselves of the legal currency.

From there, it really falls outside of my "area of expertize" though, at least for now. There would likely be phenomenons similar to stagnation and hyperinflation, but I'm not sure on which side of the economy they would fall on. However, I suspect you'd see a phenomenon called an "speculation bubble", where people see the prize of something rising and invest bigger and bigger amounts into it, feeding into the bubble, with hopes to see the prices grow even more and sell their investment for a much higher price than they bought it. Cryptocurrencies and back in 2008 the real estate industry had phenomenon's like this. The problem with the bubble is that eventually it pops, and by the point it does you probably have people who took loans of thousands or millions just to invest on the thing they expected to get much higher returns for, but suddenly the price is so high nobody's willing to actually buy them anymore.

So basically you'd eventually end up in a situation where people have extreme debts they took to buy the higher and higher comparatively inflated black market dollars, and eventually they'd be left with just the black market dollars, unable to make a bigger profit by selling them.


-----------------

With all this said, it's important not to forget the black market in question is a massive criminal undertaking. Frankly something of the scale you seem to be suggesting wouldn't stay unconspicuous for long. If it kept running, I can honestly see it probably being a ploy by some company to give people a false alernative and with it false hope.

Do you know any example of how that happens? Or maybe that's a bad question.

Example unfortunately none comes to mind. But it should be relatively simple to figure out. The new point of equilibrium happens when people can no longer afford to not spend. If you let an economy in a state of stagnation like that of the great depression go on until the economy fixes itself, you'll probably find very few people still buying any sort of luxury goods, and probably the economy would be reduced to goods based on necessity. We're talking food, housing, water and energy suppliers etc... From that point the economy will recover a little bit, as people actually start investing some businesses flourish, but the economy is ina pretty wrecked state, it takes a lot more to build a business than it does to tear one down.

I think you seem very knowledgeable. At least a lot more than me, and I read a shit-ton of political theory.

I think I've just been lucky on this particular topic, as it happens to be one which we covered in my first year in college.

 

[MDL]

That thing I told you in an earlier post about international currency flunctuations and comparative values (I don't think I used those words, but bear with me here)? Well, suddenly if you have a widely known and as massive as you seem to be suggesting black market, you essentially have a new country inside the "one country", from an economic perspective.

Now that is a very eye-opening way to look at this. I will consider that as I write.

They can sell you in bigger amounts and adjust their prices more freely, which can beat the price of even a normal business, but will have a much bigger impact against a monopoly, because they tend to highly inflate prices.

So essentially one of the counter-weights to the monopolization of the economy could be this second economy that seeks to avoid the rules by not playing the game at all, and just making their own game.

People, especially speculators, will seek to obtain the black market's currency and keep it while ridding themselves of the legal currency.

So are you saying that the black market would be so lucrative in this monopolized environment that legal investors would be foolish not to speculate in the criminal market?

However, I suspect you'd see a phenomenon called an "speculation bubble",
.....
they'd be left with just the black market dollars, unable to make a bigger profit by selling them.

This is even more likely as the "mafia" who would control the majority of the electronic currency are just looking to screw people over. But I would assume that if they did just fuck everyone and run with the money, the whole system would be undermined and people wouldn't invest so fervently. Kind of like the anti-corporate sentiment that has been growing since 2008 crisis, but much worse since there is a legal alternative in my universe where people can turn once the black market have failed them.

With all this said, it's important not to forget the black market in question is a massive criminal undertaking. Frankly something of the scale you seem to be suggesting wouldn't stay unconspicuous for long. If it kept running, I can honestly see it probably being a ploy by some company to give people a false alernative and with it false hope.

I'm planning to have 2 types of criminal organizations. If we discount hacker groups or political activist groups, that may or may not be "illegal". One side of criminality are the thuggish, street oriented groups that are visible. And the other are the mafia, that have essentially become allied with the corporate elite to control all aspects of the economy, and set the terms of the street game. To what extent that relationship is I have yet to expand on.

This is so much good info for me. So much food for thought. Thanks a bunch!

 

[Idea]

So essentially one of the counter-weights to the monopolization of the economy could be this second economy that seeks to avoid the rules by not playing the game at all, and just making their own game.

It could very well be. That is, of course, under the condition that they have the means to not be caught.

So are you saying that the black market would be so lucrative in this monopolized environment that legal investors would be foolish not to speculate in the criminal market?

Not so much. Participating in a speculative bubble is akin to gambling on Jumanji if you get the reference: You stand to make quite a profit, but it's a game you only win by getting out of it.

In this case, people in general will seek the money because for them the black market would be a lot better to get goods from. This creates bigger demand for a given type of money over another, and where there's an imbalance of demand, there's an imbalance of value.

For an example, let's take Brexit. The climate provoked by Brexit has led to, among many other things, an increase of people who want to leave England and (let's say for this example) to Europe. In order to live in Europe, one needs Euros, not pounds. For those people, Euros are now more valuable than pounds. They will seek to acquire heroes and give out pounds in exchange. However, the other side doesn't have more people now who want to give up Euros to get pounds. So, to aquire Euros, the people who want to move out may have to balance this by giving out more pounds than the Euros would otherwise be valued at. While if we're talking one person this won't affect the real price they get, do this for enough people and suddenly you have the compartive price of an euro relative to a pound steadily rising.

So if you were someone who got a lot of Euros at the start, your euros will be worth more and more pounds as time goes on (until the price is too high to buy and you need to handle yourself with the euros you can't sell anymore).

This is even more likely as the "mafia" who would control the majority of the electronic currency are just looking to screw people over. But I would assume that if they did just fuck everyone and run with the money, the whole system would be undermined and people wouldn't invest so fervently. Kind of like the anti-corporate sentiment that has been growing since 2008 crisis, but much worse since there is a legal alternative in my universe where people can turn once the black market have failed them.

yep

I'm planning to have 2 types of criminal organizations. If we discount hacker groups or political activist groups, that may or may not be "illegal". One side of criminality are the thuggish, street oriented groups that are visible. And the other are the mafia, that have essentially become allied with the corporate elite to control all aspects of the economy, and set the terms of the street game. To what extent that relationship is I have yet to expand on.

Interesting. Those corporations are playing a dangerous game.

This is so much good info for me. So much food for thought. Thanks a bunch!

You're welcome Happy to help!

 

[MDL]

gambling on Jumanji

Haha. Yes. The original Jumanji I wouldn't bet on, but the sequel has The Rock, and I would bet my life insurance on him.

They will seek to acquire heroes

Yes. Brexit has become us and we must call upon the heroes of brittain (I get the typo, just thought it was funny)

do this for enough people and suddenly you have the compartive price of an euro relative to a pound steadily rising.

That's interesting. I did write a short document on pricing and currency where I determined that the most valuable one would be the black market currency, not because of my knowledge of economics, but based on cryptos and how the majority holders of cryptos can control the value.

 

[Idea]

Yes. Brexit has become us and we must call upon the heroes of brittain (I get the typo, just thought it was funny)

Lol that's what I get for writing that stuff at 2 AM

 

[MDL]

Lol that's what I get for writing that stuff at 2 AM

But a real quality typo isn't worthless, if it can hit the spot like that

 

[Breech Loader]

Just a simple question: Does it have to be a dystopia? Can it just be a reguarly crap world like ours is right now?

 

[MDL]

Just a simple question: Does it have to be a dystopia? Can it just be a reguarly crap world like ours is right now?

Well. My world isn't cyberpunk, so it's not dystopian in the way that the word dystopian is traditionally associated with. I'm creating an experiment to explore what could actually be the future of our world, not that I'm claiming to be George Orwell-accurate. But going with the trends of increasing corporate influence and continuing that trend into the future. Where do we end up?

So there is no crazy body-modification and hackers running around inside networks fighting viruses with swords. I'm also incorporating space into the world, with the moon close to the earth-like planet and a mars-equivalent being colonized. But no huge settlements, just a corporate domain outside the main planet, where there is a goldrush going on for resources. But I'll attack that after the main setting on the main planet is done.

But yeah, I am adamant about not making it to dark and brooding like I think you're hinting at.

 

[Breech Loader]

Sounds like the kind of world I'm trying to envision (for a romance, though - the setting is for different reasons). The tough part is making other people see it. It's easy when you've got a visual medium to show that the world is now apparently ruled by Neon lighting.

 

[MDL]

Sounds like the kind of world I'm trying to envision (for a romance, though - the setting is for different reasons). The tough part is making other people see it. It's easy when you've got a visual medium to show that the world is now apparently ruled by Neon lighting.

I see. I am not interested in romance personally, so I don't know that scene. Are you talking about images to use for showing environments or describing it through descriptive writing?

 

[Breech Loader]

Not quite sure how to describe it. I've got a couple of paragraphs that might work but I'm not even slightly sure.

"The Other Federal Agency

Dale Roberts had been working for Them for seven years and he still hated that he was good at it. There were two kinds of job – the kind of job that made you a hero by busting some crazy scientist single-handed, and the kind of job that saw you trekking through a sewer in search of a 200 year old stasis tube for some Project that turned out to be unrestorable. Knowing that they were equally important didn’t help.

Still, he liked sitting up on the roof, watching the sun go down. It was still strangely new to him now. Those few seconds between the day, and the moment when you were reminded that neon lighting ruled the world."

 

[MDL]

Well. If you want to convey that the setting is not grim and not invoke those associations with cyberpunk or traditional dystopia I think the sewer example goes against that a bit. Not that you couldn't have that, as long as you convey the lighter mood in your continued writing. But it's something to consider.

And the disgruntled head-buster working for the elite is also a classic cyberpunk trope. So if you want that and still convey more normalcy, you could add a counterweight to that when you expand on the text.

 

[Breech Loader]

I kind of want a mid-way thing. It's a classic cyberpunk setting, without the thick dystopia, investigating how romance would happen in the future. I mean, if you go and get parts of your body replaced, how's that going to affect your love life?

There also exists time travel - or at least, there's time travel in the future of this future.

The reason it's not a horrific, polluted future is later explained that spoiling the Earth did happen, and led to a plague that wiped out about 2 billion people 100 years before (culling over-population and allowing the Earth to heal). This is Earth's second chance. But people are still people. Cities need sewers, and crime happens.

 

[MDL]

I kind of want a mid-way thing. It's a classic cyberpunk setting, without the thick dystopia, investigating how romance would happen in the future. I mean, if you go and get parts of your body replaced, how's that going to affect your love life?

There also exists time travel - or at least, there's time travel in the future of this future.

The reason it's not a horrific, polluted future is later explained that spoiling the Earth did happen, and led to a plague that wiped out about 2 billion people 100 years before (culling over-population and allowing the Earth to heal). This is Earth's second chance. But people are still people. Cities need sewers, and crime happens.

Alright. But I think, without anything to back it up with, that cyberpunk without the thick dystopia isn't really cyberpunk? If you have a cleaner setting with bodymodifications it's more like a Black Mirror kind of a deal. But idk maybe "light cyberpunk" is a thing.

 

[Breech Loader]

Not sure. Maybe I just don't know the right word? Might be a Ghost In The Shell approach. The Anime, not the movie.

 

[MDL]

Not sure. Maybe I just don't know the right word? Might be a Ghost In The Shell approach. The Anime, not the movie.

Do you mean the anime movie or a series? Because i know they made a live action version which I heard was a bit of a travesty. I haven't seen the original movie or a potential series, but I heard the movie is a real banger.

 

[Breech Loader]

ANIME. You missed the edit. Ugh. Live action. Yuck. So Americanised.

 

[MDL]

he edit. Ugh. Live action. Yuck. So Americanised.

Yeah I heard it was pretty bad. So what's the tone they strike in the anime in respect to dystopian future?

 

[MDL]

So I've finished an aspect of the world that I thought turned out pretty well. It concerns hacking, how it's done and what the relationship between corporates and hackers is. Thought I might as well throw this out here to see if anyone has any ideas pop into their head as they read it.

Spoiler: Exploitfarms & Hacker Teams

Exploitfarms and hacker teams are outlaw groups that infiltrate computer systems and networks to examine them for exploits (methods of breaking into a system). This process is known as “cracking”. The difference between exploitfarms and hacker teams is that farms opt to sell new exploits to the highest bidder, or deliver them directly to the client that hired them. Hacking teams - on the other hand - use their own exploits personally. They access accounts to steal money, acquire leaks of corporate secrets, or hold entire networks hostage for ransom - if they can swing it.

Both exploitfarms and hacking teams perpetuate a dangerous existence - but hacking teams are running especially high stakes. Depending on how they go about their business they can be increasingly targeted by private intelligence or corporate security. The PCCO does not investigate hackers or exploiters unless a violent crime started the investigation. This is often to the detriment of the groups themselves as PCCO divisions are far less violent than corporate security or private intelligence. Corporates generally detest hacking teams and have a complicated relationship with exploitfarms. They both seek the services of farms when they wish to go outside internal channels for intelligence, but they are well aware that the exploitfarm they’re dealing with could be selling data against them at the same time.

There are also ideological hacker teams that don’t hack for profit. They instead do it to further an agenda, be it political, religious (rare), or otherwise. The vast majority of ideological hacker teams are anti-corporate in nature and seek to sabotage corporate networks, or acquire damaging leaks that might induce scandal and align public opinion with their own. These groups are the most dangerous hacker teams to be a part of as they are a collectively high priority for private intelligence.

Being a hacker on Terra can leave you dead in the street mighty quick if you don’t stay constantly vigilant. Especially if you don’t possess the advanced technical skills or high-level social awareness required to remain anonymous. It can take just a single member’s sloppiness to expose the entire group. Sometimes hacking teams get sold out by one of its own members. These individuals are then labeled as “game” and their personal information is exposed to the entire hacking and exploit community. When an individual is tagged “game”, hacking groups and exploitfarms will go to great lengths to get to the individual, usually ending in assassination. The reality for these individuals has become so dire that certain private intelligence groups have begun providing source-protection for exposed insiders. Some hacking groups demand that members submit some form of collateral to ensure that they do not sell out.

The Cracking Process

Cracking has gotten increasingly hard during the last century and has reached a near impossible state in the last 50 years or so. The process is now solely in the domain of the utmost skilled and well organized. The unprecedented sophistication of megacorporate cybersecurity has demanded that cracking evolve into a more multifaceted endeavor. A combination of skills is required to make it work, which is why hackers working alone has become unthinkable. In today’s world cracking is a three-part process:

• Technical: The conventional hacking is done by an individual known in hacker circles as a “techie”. They spend most of their time in front of their workstation, exploring whatever network the group is trying to access and using their know-how to breach further into the system.
• Social engineering: The social engineer is the engine of the operation. They are experts in corporate culture and organizational structure, sometimes coming out of the corporate world themselves. They also maintain a plethora of fake identities that are as realized as any fake person could be. Any decent fake identity will be a registered citizen with bank accounts, daily expenses, an online presence, restaurant appointments, apartments, vehicles, you name it.
• Fieldwork: The final piece of the puzzle. “Agents” do all the work that can’t be done remotely, they also play the role of the social engineer’s many identities when necessary. They use these fake identities to gain access to corporate areas where they can pave the way for a “techie”. Often by planting software manually in server-rooms, or breaking into executive apartments to plant bugs into their security-cleared computers. Another aspect of their job is to be somewhat present as the day-to-day version of the fake identities they use, all done to strengthen the illusion.

Anybody got any ideas?

Purr Kaerri Wolf Rawrrr Beckoncall FoolsErin Idea