Player Features and Ideas Discussion

no

No, it really doesn't. The casual, common-day use of the term, where it's just a synonym to “chance” might do so but that's why that usage has been rejected for a more formal and useful definition. Once you're talking about actual risk calculations, there is no implication about the probability or the result.

Risk is simply probability × outcome. The outcome may be positive or negative; the probability may be anywhere in the span 0–1. The value does not determine the nature of the parameter. It does not stop being a risk just because the probability reaches one of the extremes, just like probabilities don't stop being probabilities just because they're zero or one — the risk just becomes zero or total, respectively. And while the former may, somewhat sloppily, be called “no risk”, the latter certainly does not qualify for that description since the risk is >0 (assuming there's an actual non-zero outcome at least).

The other beauty of the risk concept is that costs are indeed risks. After all, they can always be expressed in the format p × o, and that lets us include all the probabilities, all the costs, all the gains, in a single equation without having to pre-judge what is or isn't guaranteed. You may couch such p=1 risks in terms such as “investments” or “costs” or “kick-backs”, but that's a post-hoc categorisation and fundamentally they're still risks.

Again, risk is the effect of probabilities on outcomes; if the probability is 1, the effect of that is that the outcome is projected to happen at its total value. That is all.
…and, of course, then there's the funny fact that p is never 1.

Except that none of it is guaranteed, so you can't say anything with any certainty about the costs or benefits — in other words, it's a risk analysis. The question you're asking is “do I risk earning more than I risk losing?” Does the sum total of probable costs and gains come out above zero? Trying to be prejudiced about the outcomes does not simplify the calculation — it just introduces unfounded biases.

It's not the OP's fault. It's a (semi)known forum bug. It seems to be connected to the draft saving mechanic.

If you've looked closely, you might have noticed that threads occasionally get bumped to first place even though there are no new posts when you open them, or that there is a new last posted listed, but there is no new post. This seems to be because once a draft is saved, the thread is flagged as having received a new post. If this happens to a thread that doesn't exist yet, it probably occasionally makes the thread exist but with no actual post in it yet (because it's still only a draft).

There's obviously more to it than that, or pretty much every thread ever would show up like this, but there is definitely some way of triggering an “early save” of a post or a thread to make it indexed before it actually exists.


As for the formal definition of risk — it matters because if people want to make claims about what risks exists, they need to understand what a risk actually is. People get understandably upset about the definition since they're trying to use “no risk” as a rhetoric point to paint their opposition in a bad light, and the correct usage of the term exposes this and/or their lack of understanding of both the concept and the activity they're trying to bash.

The problem with your idea is not about the definition of risk, it's about what is included into "outcome" you're speaking about, and it has nothing to do with the fate of expendable materials used in activity, but with whether their investment will pay off or not. Loot fairy makes a risk here, not Concord.