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

[Daniel Lepage <dplepage@xxxxxxxxxxxx>]

On Tuesday, July 22, 2003, at 12:08  AM, Baron von Skippy wrote:

> > > I alter the proposal __Scams__ to read:
> > >
> > > {{
> > > __Scams__
> > >
> > > A. Definition
> > > A Scam is any attempt by a player to achieve an instant win in any
> > > online game of Nomic by circumventing the spirit, but not the 
> > > wording,
> > > of one or more rules, utilizing a loophole in one or more rules, or
> > > utilizing an unforseen interaction between two or more rules. The
> > > player(s) who perform a scam is (are) the Scammer(s) of that Scam.
> >
> > I disagree with this definition - the Stock Scam and the Overlord 
> > Scams
> > were both definitely scams, I would say to a rather higher degree than
> > anything any of us have done this nweek ('cause they both worked
> > (although I did find the right counterargument to the Overlord Scam,
> > but not until the statute had lapsed for a month or so), and 'cause
> > (especially in the case of the Stock Scam) it was agreed upon by
> > everyone that they did what the scammer claimed); but under your
> > definition, since neither was an attempt at instant victory, neither
> > would qualify as a Scam.
>
> -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.

> > Also, something like my Infinite Style Scam - it would have gotten me 
> > a
> > Win in two nweeks if I'd just found a way to prolong it... you 
> > claimin'
> > that my infinite gain of points wasn't a scam just 'cause the Win 
> > would
> > have been delayed if I'd pulled it off?
> -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.

> > > D. Guerrila Warfare
> > > B Nomic players are encouraged to perform Scams in other games of
> > > Nomic. If a player shows proof of a Scam they performed in another
> > > game, that player recieves 15 Style plus 10 Style for each Win they
> > > were awarded as a result of the Scam, and the title "Lord of the XXXX
> > > YYYY Scam," with "XXXX" replaced with the whole name of the other
> > > Nomic [[B Nomic, Nomicron, The Curvature Of The Earth Is Overwhelmed
> > > By Local Noise Nomic]], and with "YYYY" replaced with the name the
> > > Scammer has given to the Scam.
> >
> > Oboy. Don't we have enough PR issues when we're just *joking* about
> > doing unpleasant things to other Nomics? This actually encourages
> > people to focus on Scamming other games over scamming our own, because
> > they get more Style.
> -Please tell me you're joking... there wouldn't be a point to 
> proposing this, were it not for this last section. The rest is making 
> concrete what we've been doing all along, which makes it a little 
> unweildy. The idea is to encourage outside scams. Not to do unpleasant 
> things, but to go debug their rulesets. Really, for someone who 
> perpetrates so many scams, you should know that they aren't /that/ 
> damaging.-
>
> > 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".

--
Wonko

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