DIS: Re: BUS: (@Herald) Smaller thesis that is hopefully easier to get a smaller degree for and easier to resubmit
The idea behind this thesis is solid, but the execution leaves some holes where
i'd expect more to be. I assign this REVISE AND RESUBMIT, and think it will be
worthy of a degree once the criticisms of myself and others are addressed.
> On Jun 9, 2023, at 7:27 PM, Forest Sweeney via agora-business
> wrote:
>
> I submit another thesis, shorter, more to the point, more organised, and
> more fact based. Hopefully this makes it easy enough to edit when it
> ultimately and inevitably is given "REVISE AND RESUBMIT".
>
> {Agoran Sources of Fun:
> Shoving things into boxes.
>
> 0) Introduction
> I'm writing an entirely different thesis, again. Hopefully this one is
> focused and precise, and is easy-to-modify when, inevitably, (rightfully
> due) criticism arrives.
It feels like this part shouldn't be in a finished thesis :P.
> This thesis comes from a place where I do feel that
> something exists that I want to address, but I haven't adequately or
> scientifically done so, so I will try to base everything on external
> sources/fact, then relate Agora to those sources, and keep all that
> separate from my (valid) feelings about it all.
Instead of this, just say what you actually want to address! I'm still not sure
what that is.
>
>
> 1) Sources
> a) Atomic Dissections
> [0] https://users.cs.northwestern.edu/~hunicke/pubs/MDA.pdf
> The Mechanics, Dynamics, and Aesthetics framework of game design, along
> with a sample breakdown of aesthetics you might examine.
> [1]
> https://gamedesignconcepts.wordpress.com/2009/07/23/level-8-kinds-of-fun-kinds-of-players/
> The 8 kinds of fun (aesthetic) in detail identified in [1].
> (Sensation, Fantasy, Narrative, Challenge, Fellowship, Discovery,
> Expression, and Submission)
> [2]
> https://www.gamified.uk/2013/06/05/gamification-user-types-and-the-4-keys-2-fun/
> Lazarro's 4 kinds of fun: Friendship, Novelty, Challenge, and Meaning.
> Along with Marczewski's 4 kinds of fun : Relatedness, Autonomy, Mastery,
> and Purpose.
> (Purpose and meaning seem to go together, as do Challenge and Mastery.
> Friendship is slightly different than Relatedness, because competition
> isn't necessarily super friendly, but also fellowship from the 8 kinds of
> fun)
> [3] https://lushdesignsblog.wordpress.com/2015/07/07/anatomy-of-fun/
> A listing of more taxonomies of fun. (just shows that there's no one
> "correct" taxonomy)
> [4]
> https://www.interaction-design.org/literature/article/bartle-s-player-types-for-gamification
> Bartle's taxonomy is a framework to think about the players and how to
> improve the engagement from that standpoint. (seems he later expanded this
> into 8 types, but didn't go looking for it.)
> Player types: Killer, Achiever, Socializer, Explorer.
> [5] https://www.gamified.uk/user-types/
> a different player taxonomy that builds directly off of Lazarro's with
> another axis.
> Player types:
> Socialiser, Free Spirit, Philanthropist, and Achiever
> Player (subtypes are) Self-seeker, Consumer, Networker, Exploiter
> Disruptor (subtypes are) Griefer, Destroyer, Improver, Influencer
The use of these sources is unclear until further into the thesis, so they
should instead be introduced as needed.
>
> 2) Relating To Agora
> a) Classifying Things Into Player and Fun Taxonomies
> Firstly, lets begin with (1a). An overview of this is that Agora is the
> Dynamic play of modifying Mechanics[0]. The Aesthetic appeal of this, at a
> high level then, is that all of the Aesthetics can, and do, apply. Using
> many of the taxonomies provided, Agora can fill nearly any requirement. So
> why bother?
> In the context of Agora, I feel that the most helpful taxonomies are the
> ones that reduce options to the least number of choices: for example
> Bartle's Taxonomy[4], Marczewski’s Hexad [5], or Lazarro's 4 keys to fun
> [2]. I say this because of what Agora is at its heart: a game of changing
> the mechanics of itself. That and due to the relatively low amount of
> players at any given time, a taxonomy will not be too helpful unless it can
> capture larger swaths of the population. I think the point in bothering is
> the similarities of the taxonomies, even if we don't have the exact right
> complexities trapped within them.
>
> That being said, given what Agora is at it's core, a game of nomic, of
> self-amendment and change, then what are the core mechanics of Agora? I
> would say that it would be getting players to agree to the game and changes
> thereof.
> That means, we have a few core mechanics:
> Proposals, Judgement, Offices, Rules, Assets (Points
> by any other name), Voting, Blots (punishment by any other name), Degrees,
> Subgames, and Contracts
>
> Relating these mechanics to the few main taxonomies (Marczewski's fun and
> player types[2,5], Lazarro's fun types[2], and Bartle's player types[4]),
> then, we have the following:
> The proposal system generally maps to expression, novelty,
> fellowship/relatedness, discovery, meaning, autonomy, and
DIS: Some Agoran thoughts
1. I think... Agora is a game of politics more than it is of rules. The
current politics of Agora, however, seem to favor textualism and the rules,
however, to me at least, it is currently swaying back the other direction
as dissidents speak their minds.
2. However, if it weren't for the dissidents actually having an effect, I
would personally rule Agora to be ossified: maybe not in any technical way,
but the player base would NEVER allow for arbitrary changes to be adopted.
I was feeling really frustrated at this (this is where the Birthday Tourney
suggestion came from), and again recently, which is why I started writing
this... (as a pseudo Cantus Cygnus), but I'm recognizing that I think it IS
changing.
3. Being a game of politics, we have persuasion. Most of the time, most
arguments seem to be focused on the logical argument ("we shouldn't because
it would break xyz." "that rule is already broken here here and here" "we
need to fix xyz."). These FEEL like logical arguments, but I think it's
more like an appeal to authority: the authority being the current rules,
and the precedents set by the prior and current players of the game. We
have full power TO change the rules, how they work, and what they mean, and
what the precedent is, when we work together. However... with all the
silence abound, it is difficult to know where eachother stands on these
subjects. The authority has silenced us to be "this is how it works, this
is what is right". The authority DOES have some say on the matter, but to
not question authority is wrong.
4. Our newer content seems to come from an emotional argument of "we're
bored" which I agree is a REALLY poor emotional argument.. It's definitely
something to think about. (And rarely do we use the ethical argument:
Although juan did recently draft something about exploring that space.)
In my most recent proposal, Rule UNDEFINED, I attempted to build a
different emotional argument: "yes, we're bored, but also, this is scary!"
It is weak, but I'm having trouble building more than that. I hope it gives
us something to patch over and over again, on purpose, because that's
traditionally what Agora does with other things.
Also, in my recent judgement of CFJ 4044, I did try to argue logically, and
gave up, because I didn't want to. I could have put my emotional argument
"on record", but I didn't, because I didn't even realize that was what I
was doing at the time.
I think we've leaned heavily in this logical argument direction, which is
why it can feel so academic, bland, and mechanical. If anything, I think
Agora should be a parody on academia, not a literal reenactment.
5. I keep saying "oh wins are hard, we should award more of them", but... a
black ribbon is an important part of a win, in of itself, and it is secured
at power 1. That's kinda like saying half the players say you win, so you
win. Then we have wins for "nobody paid attention, so you win" (apathy).
Then we have "ok, well, I did this repetitive motion and grinded my way to
a win" (radiance).
So no wonder I feel disinterested in my personal ability to win. It might
be time to rethink how wins work at all: maybe limit it to any individual
player CAN win once per method per year. I see snail grinding out win after
win on the whatever points system we have in place. Stamps, radiance...
etc.
So maybe wins are at the right level, it's just the methods to do so are
(personally) boring. I do *want* a win, eventually, to celebrate my
laudability, for status... but the difficulty level feels so high for
everything in this game.
As for a win type I'd like to see instead... something "meta" level. A scam
in the rules, accumulating the most rules in some sort of rules-as-items,
bug bounty hunting... This is really why I'm going for Ribbons I think, is
because ribbons are focused on the core of Agora, the actual game, instead
of the odd subgames here and there. It'd be nice to have something
different that focuses on that, personally.
6. I notice that I've given up on reading rules. for now. I did read them
at some point... but it's all so much "blah blah blah technical details".
That's important if that's the way you play, sure, but I... don't play that
way. I just muck about. It usually works out anyways, or otherwise, I am
corrected. I haven't even been blotted for it, and I've sometimes caused a
little upset here and there, but not banned or even significantly chewed
out... so it works! :) And there's weird stuff when you don't even look at
rules or tradition: like CFJ 4044 is just me saying something in a dumb way
and it seems to be working fine for now, because I have no legal
responsibility to CFJs other than judging it! The persuasion there is only
to reach an agreement on what the judgement is.
7. Most of the time, in discussions, it feels like players are just waiting
for the next thing to argue about or to clarify, but it seems like Agora
has the potential to be so much more than just a system vaguely
incentivizing
