Re: spoon-discuss: On win conditions

[Joel Uckelman <uckelman@xxxxxxxxx>]

Quoth Rob Speer:
> I would like to say that, having achieved it, I don't like the 20-rule
> requirement to win, for various reasons.
> 
> 1. Firstly, this rule seems to have no purpose except to separate out an elit
> e
> class of Nomic players who have been around long enough to own 20 Rules. I
> think that if a newbie can manipulate the game as well as a seasoned player,
> more power to him. Additionally...
> 
> 2. Counting Rules in the winning requirements is rather like double-dipping.
> Rules already allow you to change the game to a form that you like better. A
> strategic Nomic player would also make sure that Rules subtly increase eir
> chance of winning, so there is no need to define Rule ownership as a
> _requirement_ of winning, especially since...
> 
> 3. Rules are a very arbitrary count. As I demonstrated with "cards", you can
> make seven Rules with one Proposal with no difficulty at all. A restriction
> like having 10 proposals passed (since the last win or since player creation)
> would be more reasonable, but...
> 
> 4. Having two separate winning conditions screws with the strategy of winning
> .
> I almost blew my chance to win by making the Pooker proposal too soon, when I
> didn't yet have 20 rules, and having it _require_ an automatic Showdown. The
> result would have been that I would have more than 500 points (unless I chose
> to take less, but then I wouldn't get away with that plan a second time), but
> less than 20 rules. If that had happened, my hope of winning would essentiall
> y
> lie in starting with a new Player. It only makes sense that no player who has
> more than 500 points will ever get to create a rule.
> 
> In fact, I could only meet the 20-rule requirement either because it's
> extremely difficult to keep track of who owns which rule, and thus nobody cou
> ld
> tell which rule would be my 20th, or because nobody believed there was any wa
> y
> for me to get 500 points.
> 
> I think that the resolution to all of these flaws in the winning requirement
> would be to eliminate the 20-rule stipulation, and make the minimum Adopted
> Proposal Award something high like 20. This would reward contributing to the
> game, even if you make entirely altruistic Proposals with no ulterior motives
> .
> This would also make objects such as the Stamp of Failure and Extra Votes les
> s
> obscenely expensive. The winning score should then be set to 1000 because of
> the inflationary effect of the above.
> 
> -- 
> Rob Speer

I'd be in favor of all of what you mentioned above...

-- 
J.