it is a strong expectation in every game that every player can win the game, and has a decent chance of doing so. that's just what games do.
On Thu, Nov 23, 2017 at 9:51 AM, VJ Rada <[email protected]> wrote: > in that sense so is every game mechanic in every game ever created. > > On Thu, Nov 23, 2017 at 9:50 AM, Corona <[email protected]> wrote: >> Yes, but enacting ribbons that everyone has a roughly equal chance of >> winning is kind of "trading wins" >> >> On 11/22/17, Aris Merchant <[email protected]> wrote: >>> What about ribbons? One of those can be one by deceit, but most of >>> them are a matter of skill. What about victory elections, or medals of >>> honor? None of these are intended to be won by deceit, nor do I think >>> the players who enacted them each expected to win by them. >>> >>> -Aris >>> >>> On Wed, Nov 22, 2017 at 2:43 PM, Corona <[email protected]> >>> wrote: >>>> I would not vote for such a mechanic unless I estimated, based on past >>>> experience, my proposal-voting abilities to be above these of other >>>> players. If it turns out a player is capable of voting on more >>>> proposals per month than I estimated, they have arguably commited some >>>> deceit by not correcting my misconception about their voting ability. >>>> (And perhaps by rarely voting on proposals prior to the win mechanic's >>>> introduction, even if they had the time and it did not bore them or >>>> anything) >>>> >>>> On 11/22/17, Alexis Hunt <[email protected]> wrote: >>>>> That's not true at all. Many meaningful win mechanics are as those in >>>>> other >>>>> games: the person who does best at something. For instance, we could >>>>> decide >>>>> to award a win to the player who votes on the most proposals in a month; >>>>> no >>>>> deceit is necessary for the competition. >>>>> >>>>> On Wed, Nov 22, 2017, 17:29 Corona, <[email protected]> wrote: >>>>> >>>>>> Indeed, if one is not willing to participate in the questionable >>>>>> practice of trading wins (I'll support your proposal to award yourself >>>>>> a win if you support mine), every win in nomics must involve some >>>>>> level of deceit, as one can't force a win, or offer anything less than >>>>>> a win for a win, as 'wins' are the most valuable 'asset'. >>>>>> >>>>>> On 11/22/17, ATMunn <[email protected]> wrote: >>>>>> > Yes, me neither, I don't like the idea of breaking the rules just to >>>>>> prevent >>>>>> > a win. A win is a win, and if someone wins because of a scam, so >>>>>> > what? >>>>>> They >>>>>> > become the Speaker, and the game moves on. >>>>>> > >>>>>> > On 11/22/2017 3:44 PM, Alex Smith wrote: >>>>>> >> On Wed, 2017-11-22 at 20:39 +0000, Alexis Hunt wrote: >>>>>> >>> Ahh, hmm, I think that might work provided we can get a non-player >>>>>> >>> to >>>>>> >>> call sufficient CFJs. Given the volume we couldn't do it with >>>>>> >>> Shinies >>>>>> >>> alone. >>>>>> >> >>>>>> >> I can do 5, but am unwilling to violate the rules as part of a >>>>>> >> counterscam. (Also, I haven't thought of good topics for them yet.) >>>>>> >> >>>>>> > >>>>>> >>>>> >>> > > > > -- > From V.J. Rada -- >From V.J. Rada
