End of Round 1 Morale Barometer

[Robin_C]

One drawback of not playing face-to-face is that it's hard to gauge the level of excitement and enjoyment around the digital table - so i thought i'd ask how we're feeling.

I, for one, am enjoying it. Specifcally pleased with the sort of deconstruction that goes on, even after one round. Also, i think we're good at Assuming Good Faith in the face of text that could be read as mean. We also haven't mentioned Hitler yet.

I think it would be good with a few more players, but it's interesting with three - and we get to work out the mechanics etc, so next time we can smoothly bring in extras.

What do you think?

[Neil]

Yeah, we nearly went down a dark avenue with purist game theory; which I started, oops.

Agree with your sentiments. I see this as an enjoyable warm up for a bigger, better game. From what I can tell, though, a lot of online nomics never end. I can see non-unanimous proposals which prevent imminent victory should happen often. Along the lines of - "you'd be an idiot not to propose something which would prevent someone else winning next go".

[Robin_C]

Indeed - i can see a (near-)endless cycle of:

P1: i propose P2 loses all their points
P1: vote for
P2: vote against
P3: vote for

Which cycles round with each player moving round one role; how do we avoid this?

(note: this would end after a couple hundred goes, as once it passes the proposer gets points dependent on the proposal number)

[Neil]

I think if we build more than one rule with a scoring component (as I proposed to amend yours, and one of the first versions of mine) would help with the issue as I outlined it. It wouldn't improve what you've described, but perhaps we should render illegal rules which specifically address individual's scores?

[Robin_C]

It's an option. But it seems at odds with existing rules which change scores, and also rules out balancing mechnisms like you discuss wrt the Judge decision. Also, it seems that we will need / want to play with rules that change people's scores.

Currently, it feels like we are making fixes to the game rules to improve play, but this is only a means to an end: having mechanics that work to allow us to interfere / compete effectively.

So I'm saying that we should have a more sophisticated way of dealing with it. Not sure what that is yet. Gosh this game is good.

[Neil]

I mean allow changes like: "if a player does such and such, they'll lose 10 points", but not, "Mike loses 10 points". There is an obvious open door, a la "if a player has a birthday on dd/mm they lose ten points", but you could probably word carefully to rule that out too.

I agree, and I'm trying to create rules to spice it up too, by wrapping incentives around game mechanics (ref losing points for failed invoked judgements). If this continues to be a slightly peculiar collective editing process for a set of rules, rather than a game too, it might get dull. Not the only way of making it more interesting. Addition of multiple victory criteria might be another good avenue. Basically, I just want it to be more complicated so it's easier to get in knots!

[Robin_C]

Agree - multiple victory conditions is a good one.

"If this continues to be a slightly peculiar collective editing process for a set of rules, rather than a game too, it might get dull" - this sums up what i was trying to articulate.

[Neil]

conditions =/= criteria

I meant conditions. But your correction made me think multiple criteria could also be fun.

[Robin_C]

It seems that the enforced two rounds of consensus lets you collectively tweak things - like agreeing common terms of engagment. Once it becomes majority rule, and these ground rules are established, i think the interaction rate will increase

[Neil]

I think you mean unanimity, rather than consensus. I don't see how it helps - although I do see reasons for almost everything else, can you elaborate?

For future games, there is no mandate to start with the Suber set. There is an original nomic, we don't have to play that.

[michaelenstone]

Morning Guys,

Looks like you've been having a good conversation while I was at band last night.

WRT to Morale I am also enjoying this game quite a lot and agree with the point about assuming good faith. I did think there was the possibility that this game could descend in to pedantry.

I think the point about not being able to reach a victory condition is a good one but is part of the point of the game. My understanding is that the original concept for Nomic is that it is suppose to represent or simulate a government (or any rule setting body). In this respect it should be evident that any body setting rules (via majority voting) will not be able to set rules that specifically advantage or disadvantage those fully involved with the setting of the rules.

[Neil]

Yeah, seems we learned pretty quickly that playing in pure self-interest (which is frankly the right way to play almost all other games) pretty well ruins the game in a couple of plays. Reminds me of this TED talk.

Raises one of the more radical points of the game. Is it possible to legislate good faith?

[michaelenstone]

This has some interesting parallels between nuclear safety in the UK and US. In the US they have a long list of prescriptive rules and compliance with these rules is deemed to make for a safe nuclear plant. In the UK they have one rule "demonstrate your plant is safe".

As you said do the rules need to enforce good faith? Is compliance with the letter of the rules in the spirit of the game in all situations?

[Sponsored content]