Re: spoon-discuss: winning

[Rob Speer <rob@xxxxxxxxxxxx>]

On Fri, Jun 22, 2001 at 01:44:04AM -0500, Benjamin Bradley wrote:
> it seems to me that most of the fun of Nomic comes from the playing and
> the winning (as we have it set up) is just a trivial measure of who's been
> the most active.
> 
> I would like to see winning take on the role of an award for 'most
> manipulative' - getting back to the roots of suber's game in which one
> could win if the game was brought to a standstill because of paradox or
> other such zaniness.
> 
> any more votes for manipulation vs simple activity?

Well, the "making the game unplayable" way of winning still exists. (And it's a
damn good thing it does. I heard of one Nomic where it became impossible to
make a Proposal, and there was no rule about winning by maknig the game
unplayable - so they're hypothetically all still playing the Nomic and nobody
can ever win.)

In fact, I wonder - if Joerg's RFC (that Poker Hands and Hands were the same)
hadn't been withdrawn and was ruled TRUE, who would have won? The Judge who
ruled it true, Joerg for making it, or me for pointing out the paradox?

Anyway, keep in mind that it seems no Nomic has ever been won by simply
accumulating points anyway; but the more points you have, the more subtle your
manipulations can be to make up the rest of the points.

I get the feeling that from here on, people are going to look very carefully at
any rule (like Pooker) that has the potential in any way to make a large number
of points change hands.
-- 
Rob Speer