Re: spoon-discuss: winning

[Joel Uckelman <uckelman@xxxxxxxxx>]

Quoth Rob Speer:
> 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 hadn't been withdrawn and was ruled TRUE, who would have won?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 you
> r
> 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 numb
> er
> of points change hands.
> -- 
> Rob Speer

Maybe for a while, but then people seem to forget again. I recall one of my 
wins in Berserker netting me in excess of a million points because I was 
treasurer. Heh.

-- 
J.