SkArcher on 1 Mar 2004 19:48:48 -0000

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

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

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.


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

spoon-discuss mailing list