You are reading content from Scuttlebutt
@mix

oh fuck, this game feels like #enspiral , but with fucking made up points - all the reading and detail, but empty of meaning.

I think I was excited about this game before I read the rules about points. Maybe I'll hang in long enough to see if I can trash those rules, so that we can do something interesting with this game, like supercede democracy, or launch a business.

@ansuz
Voted this
User has chosen not to be hosted publicly
@neftaly
Voted this
@Rich
Voted this
@Gordon
Voted this
@Dominic
Liked this
@Dominic

it would be pretty halirious to play the first game of nomic that legally incorporated or founded a country or settled another planet

@mikey
Voted this
@Dominic

there is only one immutable rules that mentions points or winning.

R112:

The state of affairs that constitutes winning may not be altered from achieving n points to any other state of affairs. The magnitude of n and the means of earning points may be changed, and rules that establish a winner when play cannot continue may be enacted and (while they are mutable) be amended or repealed.

otherwise, they are all mutable rules. for example:

R208:

The winner is the first player to achieve 100 (positive) points.

In mail and computer games, the winner is the first player to achieve 200 (positive) points.

Also, I didn't see a rule that says game play stops once someone has won. Similar to how you can "win the internet" then someone else can win.

@ktorn

@mix I'm pretty sure this simplistic points + win threshold will disappear pretty soon.

This game is exciting me because after all the governance issues in Bitcoin, it became clear to me that one set of rules will never fit everyone, global consensus is impossible, and in hindsight it was silly to think otherwise. So nomic is basically a social experiment that allows us to quickly explore alternatives. I'm playing with the following ideas:

  • forking rules within the game, like branching in git, so the same set of players can play with different "versions" at every turn;
  • actual forks, where players decide to go in a totally different direction, basically creating a separate game, but possibly keeping links between forks (to allow for mutual credit style things), this could be done via a common set of immutable rules (on which all forks need to vote for changes)

This may sound like a foolish thing to even attempt, which is basically bring order and promote cooperation between "divorcees". But that's why it's a good idea to do it in a game that requires no more than a little of our time.

I am investing time and money into Tezos, which will basically follow a nomic-style governance model. I'm hoping I can take what I learn from this game and contribute with sensible proposals and informed voting towards that project.

@dominic

it would be pretty halirious to play the first game of nomic that legally incorporated or founded a country or settled another planet

Not sure about settling planets, but you already know I like the idea of floating jurisdictions :wink: #seasteading

Jokes aside, if we evolve this into a tokenized smart-contract style rule system, then it might get serious for me. Like job-quitting serious :smile:

@Dominic

Not sure about settling planets,

If we have an ambitious goal, we can miss and still do well!

I've been having similar thoughts regarding forks! The ability to fork is really a unwritten rule, like the fact you can always have a revolution, it doesn't need to be "legal". Like, any unanimious subset of players can simply unamiously decide that their are some new rules and the other players have forfiet. In digital space you need any form of violence to fork, so forks are very common, but mergers are also very common!

So, we could totally imagine a game of nomic splitting into two games, then forming a treaty between them, then later merging again.

I think a more interesting "winningness" metric, is how many people are playing!

@ktorn

I also think a game of this nature with one winner is lame, reminds me of monopoly.

In a game where people can join and leave at will then your "how many people are playing" is a great metric indeed!

I was thinking along the lines of a goal that needs to be achieved and maintained by all players, which can then be multiplied by the number of players who achieved it. The players who haven't achieved that goal would subtract from the total score. I think of goal as something like basic needs in real life.

@Dominic

well, the goal is obviously to get everyone on earth to play and then build a space ship and go find cool aliens who would like to play too

@ktorn

And to keep things interesting, we can create regular challenges that require the cooperation of many players to be achieved, similarly to slaying the dragon in MMORPGs.

User has chosen not to be hosted publicly
@Howard Klein

"I think a more interesting "winningness" metric, is how many people are playing!"

@Dominic Sounds like an auspicious beginning of a new Space Cult!

@Soggypretzels

I am reminded of the social experiment, "The Third Wave" carried out by a California high school history teacher to help explain the appeal of fascism to his students. If we are going to speak of the potentials of this game to be good (space communism obviously), we must also confront the fact that it has just as much potential if not more, to turn into something quite the opposite (space fascism).

@Dominic

hahaha subquests!

So, we create a rule that specifies a challenge (which may also put us a step towards the greater goal) for example, write code to make tracking the status of active players or votes easier and thus enabling the game to scale to more people. I think such rules should also assign possibly large numbers of points, to reflect the magnitude of the challenge.

@Dominic

@soggypretzels I had an english teacher who made quite a point of teaching us that stuff, so I saw a thing about that.

But how can we make a rule about that? maybe we need a loose condition where everyone looses if the decision making power becomes too centralized?

@ktorn

@dominic @Soggypretzels we have it easy in cyberspace. Forks are the answer to fascism.

@Dominic

Forks seems like basically the right idea but to make that possible we must maintain forkability. We can fork ssb, but we can't fork fb, goog, or amzn. We'd have to start a competing business from scratch. I can think of one software fork that started as a rewrite (merb from rails, then later merged, again as a rewrite) but usually they take the code and start maintaining it under different policies (usually, merging changes faster)

@mix

@dominic did you see I wrote code for tracking the state?
It's in an open PR

Join Scuttlebutt now