Goethe wrote: > In Monopoly, Risk, or any other game, no matter how well the rules are > written, if the game is ruined because you are playing with a sniveling > little rules-breaking shit, the game is ruined because you are playing > with a sniveling little rules-breaking shit.
"Rule 101[/0] is included precisely so that it can be amended; if players amend or repeal it, they deserve what they get." -- Suber Arguably: the rules no longer say you have to obey the rules, so you don't. We replaced that with punishments instaed. Looking at this another way, anything inside the nomic is arguably fair game to modify: CFJs, rules-obeying, etc.. I'm not sure if I agree with this argument, but it seems clear that many players do. If, for instance, you feel that everything about the CFJ system, including the judgements as well as the arguments, is sacred, fine; but either remove it from the ruleset, or make it very clear in the rules that this is the case, or people will continue to try to scam it. Likewise, there is no by-default meta-agreement that people have to obey the rules, it seems (I'm basing this on apparent game custom not personal opinion); at the moment, if a player breaks the rules they're punished if they can't scam eir way out of the resulting criminal cases. There has been a lot of rulebreaking recently, mostly late reports; it's gone unpunished because nobody has gone to the effort of punishing it. What's really causing the rift here is a disagreement in opinion as to the extent to which people have to follow the rules. Goethe and I both seem to think the rules should be literally followed; however, Goethe also wants the spirit of certain rules (such as CFJs) to be followed, whereas I don't necessarily, which leads to a big difference in play style. Most players seem happy to allow rules breaches, though, and just try to punish them via the courts; and if the courts are scammed, the courts are scammed, it's the same as any other sort of scam. I think the real reason that players Leaving in a Huff is so common in Agora is that different people have different ideas about what the nature of the metarules (if any) are like; when people find out that other people have different ideas, that's leave-in-a-huff time. It's so common because there are so many possible interpretations: (ehird) There are no metarules, more or less; although it's best not to scare off other people because the game is better as a result (ais523) The rules are the rules, follow them, and see how well you can do working around them (Goethe, I think, correct me if I'm wrong) Certain parts of the game, such as the CFJ system, are important and have to stay above petty scamming, or the game will become unplayable Three pretty much incompatible viewpoints, I think. -- ais523
<<winmail.dat>>
