Dan on 2 Feb 2002 04:16:18 -0000

[Date Prev] [Date Next] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next] [Date Index] [Thread Index]

RE: spoon-discuss: Re: spoon-business: Fixing the mess

On Fri, 1 Feb 2002, Gavin Doig wrote:

> > We don't need to do this.  We can just all sit in the other thread and let
> > the playerless one die out.  A thread with only one player isn't a thread
> > anymore.  It's the ultimate passive resistance strategy--if enough of the
> > players of the game want something to be done to the game they can just
> > make the change and refuse to play in any thread in which it is not done.
> >
> That's... cheating. ;-)
> If you're going to play nomic, you *have* to stick within the rules.
> You can, maybe even *should*, attempt to twist the intent of the rules
> as much as possible, but what you're suggesting above is that we
> ignore the rules and (effectively) start a new copy of the game with a
> gamestate that we like more. That's not fun, it's not elegant, and
> it's *not* nomic.

Why not?  People have revolutions all the time in real life.  We can have
a game with players but no rules, although eventually we will probably
decide on some rules.  But we cannot have a game with rules but no

The rules are supposed to be a means to entertainment.  They provide us
with an organized way to get together and have fun tinkering with legal
and legislative problems and general silliness.  The rules are only useful
so long as we are enjoying the game.  And if ever a significant number of
players stop enjoying the game I hope we will change the rules to
accomodate them, by whatever means are available.