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: Re: BUS: (@Herald) Smaller thesis that is hopefully easier to get a smaller degree for and easier to resubmit
oh crud I forgot I was the herald... Uh I'll figure this out soon properly
On Fri, Jun 9, 2023 at 5:27 PM Forest Sweeney via agora-business <
agora-busin...@agoranomic.org> 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. 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.
>
>
> 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
>
> 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 creativity, and
> also is the most versatile mechanic of Nomic. It appeals to primarily to
> free spirits, explorers, and disruptors due to this versatility.
>
> The judgement system generally maps to relatedness/fellowship, narrative,
> fantasy, meaning, and mastery. It appeals primarily to achievers and
> philanthropists: to show a mastery over the ruleset and its interpretation
> for the good of the game and the
