On Wed, 2008-11-12 at 12:56 -0500, comex wrote: > Yesterday I was playing Monopoly with my brother and he loaned me some > money. Later in the game he asked for it back. The Monopoly rules > expressly forbid official loans, so by the rules of the game he > actually gave me mone for free; but I gave him the money back anyway, > because to act otherwise would be Highly Improper. > > I would act differently in an Agoran Monopoly contest.
Where has this tendency come from that breaking the rules in a nomic is acceptable? In most games, people abide by the rules out of choice; if they didn't, you couldn't play otherwise. Even the initial Suber ruleset has people obeying the rules (Suber rule 101; apparently, it's there so it can be amended or repealed.) For pragmatic reasons (people stop playing and don't do things they should have done is the most common), Nomics normally introduce criminal rules as well as platonic rules; Agora uses this a lot in its pragmatisations (the CotC CAN but SHALL NOT rotate the bench when there are standing players, for instance). I'm of the view that it would be unacceptable for the CotC to deliberately rotate the bench whilst knowing there were standing players; that's effectively cheating, breaking the rules for an advantage. I seem to be in a minority, though; many nomic players seem to think it's acceptable to break the rules and either scam around or accept the punishment. But really, what makes Werewolves embedded into Agora and B different from Werewolves in RL? -- ais523
