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
> <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.
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&Scams, Assets&Badges&Radiance (Points
> by any other name), Voting, Blots (punishment by any other name), Degrees,
> Subgames&Tourneys, and Contracts&Promises.
>
> 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 benefit of others, as well as being clear
> and convincing requires strong dark arts of logic and historie. Notably,
> these are decision points for the legal fiction.
>
> Offices, generally, map to submission, fellowship/relatedness, narrative,
> and purpose. It appeals primarily to philanthropists, improvers, and
> influencers, as the habitual nature, and the tendency to reward those
> offices, allows continued and meaningful interaction with the game and the
> participants. Specifically, offices allow the narrative of each
> participant's actions to have an effect.
>
> Rules and scams generally map to fantasy, challenge, and discovery. They
> primarily appeal to socialisers, philanthropists, players, killers,
> griefers, and destroyers. Rules lay down the law, but also can be
> disempowered by a scam. They also create the legal fiction we play in.
>
> Assets, badges, points, and ribbons are for relatedness(competition),
> challenge, meaning, mastery, and submission. They primarily appeal to
> philanthropists, achievers, and players, as they give you the goals to
> churn towards.
>
> Voting is for meaning, narrative, fellowship/relatedness, and submission.
> It primarily appeals to disruptors and socialisers, but as a truly central
> part of nomic, it also appeals to philanthropists. It is the means that the
> game ultimately changes, regardless of the proposal system, and relies
> generally on coordinated effort.
>
> Punishment is for expression, challenge, narrative, meaning, and
> fellowship/relatedness. It primarily appeals to achievers, philanthropists,
> and players. It gives an obstacle to overcome, it represents negative
> social capital, and gives some more meaning behind what it means to follow
> the rules.
>
> Degrees are for expression, challenge, narrative, meaning, mastery,
> fellowship/relatedness, submission, and fantasy. They primarily appeal to
> philanthropists, free spirits, explorers, and achievers. They are an
> academic challenge, but also an entire learning experience unto itself. The
> process also lends itself towards some drama between the reviewers ("the
> professors") and the submitter ("the student").
>
> Subgames and Tourneys are for challenge, mastery, submission, discovery,
> and relatedness(competition). They primarily appeal to achievers, players,
> disruptors, and killers. These small competitions allow for shenanigans to
> take place, but also for fierce competition.
>
> Contracts and promises are for mastery, discovery, relatedness/fellowship,
> expression, and narrative. They primarily appeal to socialisers, players,
> killers, and achievers. These allow for complex relationships to form,
> which can be exploited or show strong companionship.
The above section attempts to classify different mechanics by their core
aesthetics, but I don't find it particularly compelling or useful. I think a
deeper analysis of which core aesthetics a mechanic has is needed, and it
should also likely be limited more to 1-3 "core" aesthetics for each instead of
like 8 aesthetics for one mechanic. There should be convincing reasoning for
each core aesthetic instead of just "okay, I can see that". Also important (and
missing) is why this matters. What can we do with this information? How can we
improve the game with the knowledge of which aesthetic a mechanic produces?
I'm also intrigued about what other players think each core mechanic has as
core aesthetics. Your list of core mechanics also probably needs refining via
player feedback. Polls could be a good tool here.
>
> 3) Moving forward
> I don't want this thesis to be a dead end, like some others have been. So
> I'm not going to go further than I've already gone: I don't feel the need
> to at this point in time. However, I will give a starting point: The
> participation of the game is somewhat low, it hovers between 10 and 20
> active players. What things are we doing that lower the experience and
> cause players to ghost us? What things could we be doing, and aren't, to
> improve engagement? Are these missed opportunities, impossibilities of
> Agora, or something? What evidence do we have? I don't think it is a matter
> of advertising: if we kept every player that came here, or at least more of
> the players that come by, we'd have more participation, so it's more about
> keeping what we earn than getting more.
>
> a) Unproven or incomplete evidence based suggestions
> https://datagame.io/gamification-principles/
> This source provides an easy source to reference for some ideas to
> implement to improve user engagement. These ideas aren't specific (as there
> is some literature around just having "points" or "badges" isn't enough to
> motivate properly, it has to be about motiviation.)
>
> https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S074756321630855X?via%3Dihub
> gives a list of game design elements, and how they relate to psychological
> need satisfaction (which is another way of saying what reasons exist to
> play a game)
>
> https://www.gamified.uk/user-types/gamification-mechanics-elements/
> gives a mapping of suggestions to player types [5] they appeal to.
>
> https://thinkgamedesign.com/player-retention-engagement/
> There should be different levels of goals (short, mid, long) to keep
> players engaged the whole time and yet make progress, and a balance of
> difficulty.
>
> https://thinkgamedesign.com/design-videogame/
> Game design can be broken down as a top down process, or a bottom up
> process. Additionally, its important to ease participants into the gameplay.
> }
>
> --
This feels like an entirely separate issue for another thesis, unless you can
manage to relate it substantially to the previous classifications.
> 4st
> Referee & Deputy (AKA FAKE) Herald
> Uncertified Bad Idea Generator
Overall, the thesis needs to be more connected to itself. It's hard to read,
and hard to connect the dots between sections. I also just don't know what we
get out of this: how is it helpful to know that "Rules and scams" map to
"fantasy"? And i don't know if i agree it does.
Your methods for determining core mechanics and core aesthetics are unclear,
and the discussion of the results of those methods doesn't exist.
Some kind of conclusion based on the classifications would elevate this to
deserving a thesis, even if the classifications aren't perfectly accurate,
though i do recommend refining them (which could warrant a higher level thesis).
--
snail
