Re: [spoon-discuss] Re: [Spoon-business] More on scams

["Baron von Skippy" <bvs@xxxxxxxxxx>]

>> -Mmm, whether the Overlord Scam was an attempt at instant victory is 
>> debatable... also, find me a definition that includes those two but 
>> not any of a hundred lesser idiocies perpetrated by the players of 
>> this game (changing "Jesus" to "Jeebus" springs to mind - it was a 
>> loophole, but not a scam), and I'll use it. Until then, we'll just 
>> have to unofficially declare Scams that aren't victory-related.-
>
>I don't see why we should bother setting up an official system of 
>determining these things when A) the unofficial system works fine, and 
>B) we can't come up with a way to make the official version work as 
>well.

-I think I answered that late in this message, but I'll address it here so it's perfectly clear. This new system both ensures that scams are recognized - something the unofficial system doesn't - and awards people who pull scams elsewhere. We could do this on a case-by-case basis, yes, but that's a much more sporadic system. Also, knowing that people will be rewarded for just trying to break through your rules should encourage more care in proposal-writing, to prevent such holes from existing.-
>
>> -You suggest problems but no solutions. Again, phrasing. What I mean 
>> by "instant" is "faster than 3d6 points per proposal plus extras, five 
>> proposals per nweek." Now, how can I put that? "An attempt to quickly 
>> win" might include an aggressive proposal campaign, or a Nomvivor 
>> victory, or chugging PGGBs as fast as the rules will allow, but these 
>> are not scams. And I can't say "non-methodical" (which would eliminate 
>> those three), because then the Gnome, Infinite Style, and Ballot Scams 
>> are all de-scammified.-
>
>Well, the solution is simply to propose titles on a scam-by-scam basis, 
>rather than trying to make a rule that will do it automatically. Too 
>much depends on judgment to make it into a rule.

-On the other hand, if this doesn't cover everything, we're still allowed to do things the old-fashioned way and update the definition of "scam" based on past scams. No rule is immutable, after all.-

>>> Plus you've got another infinite style engine -
>>> ever heard of Solitaire Nomic? I could create objects called 'Wins' in
>>> a Solitaire game, then make a deliberate loophole that results in my
>>> gaining an infinite number of them, and... well, nothing would change
>>> for me, because I still have infinite Style, but if anyone else did
>>> this, Style would become meaningless, because everyone would have
>>> infinite quantities of it.
>> -Yes, but you forget: "If a player shows proof of a Scam they 
>> performed in another game," they get the Style. Now, maybe I should 
>> reword that to be more clear, but it looks to me like you'd have a 
>> hard time convincing us that you deserve Style points for scamming in 
>> a game you made up. Now, you could get Style points for calling that a 
>> scam in /our/ game, but that only works once.-
>
>So three of us get together and make a new game, keeping records online 
>so we can prove what happened. Or we join another game and agree with 
>some players there to vote for their proposals if they'll agree to 
>grant us infinite "wins".
>
-It's amazing to me that you would bother to take the time to do that over and over. And that you think we wouldn't start ignoring you after a while, say, long before you could win from it. (I'm still fuzzy on how you win through /Style/ anyway...) Really, if you want to gang up on this rule and beat a win through with such a lack of finesse, that's great. Have fun. Of course, that hardly counts as an "instant" win... so so much for that idea, eh?-

[[BvS]]
_______________________________________________
spoon-discuss mailing list
spoon-discuss@xxxxxxxxx
http://lists.ellipsis.cx/mailman/listinfo/spoon-discuss