Re: [spoon-discuss] Re: [Spoon-business] Re: NWEEK 58 BALLOT

[SkArcher <SkArcher@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

On Mon, 1 Mar 2004 14:21:28 -0500, Zarpint Jeremy Cook 
<mcfoufou@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:

> Well, points here are not zero-sum, and neither are Wins. And I think
> the distinction between a competitive and cooperative game is moot
> when the game doesn't terminate with a winner.

for a brief moment there I read that as "the game doesn't terminate the 
Winner", with flashes of that Aztec game where the teams competed for the 
honour of being ritually sacrificed.

> But one can still competitively try to scam Wins while not caring if
> someone gets points from proposals. Suber distinguished between
> a Substantive Nomic game, where players tried to win by accumulating
> points, and a Procedural Nomic game, where players tried to paradox and
> scam a Win.

Ours does at least have the appearance of a Substantive Nomic, and in 
theory one could win by accumulating 1000 points.

But in general it is a procedural Nomic, with paradox and scams aplenty. 
This isn't entirely anathema to the idea of co-operative play, it just 
makes waiting for the backstab more obvious. Like Diplomacy on 
Amphetemines.

> I would think our game is the second kind generally. And I doubt we
> have any direction in this game, or will, except in the direction
> of increasing entropy. Long live the increase of entropy!

I smear Zarpint with Entropy. Then I eat all the Entropy.

> Zarpint

By the way, did anyone else record a spam mail coming from the -business 
list, or is it just me?


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