(2011.Oct.07 11:33 PM)MrPapagiorgio Wrote: That's a fair criticism. It's impossible to prove a negative, so I won't try. It's an opinion based on my belief that no one is minding the store. I can't prove it, but there is some circumstantial evidence.
When was the last time that anyone was Fed jailed? My guess is that no one has been jailed for months, despite the fairly clear multitude of multis. I don't know this, but I would guess that it was before w00k left, 200 days ago. His stated reason for leaving was his perception of a gross unfairness in rule enforcement.
It's also my opinion that this lack of admin involvement dates back to the Christmas hack. I can imagine no greater intellectual violation than having your property stolen and published to a worldwide audience. She's entitled to whatever action or reaction she wants.
Would you agree, though, that a game is only a game if if has an agreed upon set of rules that are applied and enforced fairly?
The multi "problem" is certainly one of merit, and one that I had not thought of. However, I ask you, why is it such a big deal. It would take a looong time for a multi to come to fruition and become profitable, so, from my viewpoint, there's still time to correct this error. And kinda funny that w00k would be complaining of unfairness, as he extorted a sum of money from me a while back (not that he didn't have a legitimate claim to the money - but extortion is extortion).
(First off, I am going to assume you meant "if and only if" instead of "if if" - correct me if I am misinterpreting) I'm not terribly sure I'd agree that rules are the primary, defining characteristic of a game; while it certainly may be an important facet, as your definition would imply. To elaborate, the use of a biconditional allows swapping of the premise and conclusion; I think that we can both agree that there are things that have rules that are not games, and so therefore the dichotomy you set up is flawed at best. As to the more general premise, rather than the issue in particular, I would tend to say that that defines a fun game (though there are fun games not like that), but not necessarily any game. As a counterexample to that (and therefore your statement), I would offer the example of the card game Mao. The premise of the game (if you are not familiar) is that the rules of the card game are only known by the leader of the round. While they do enforce these originally unknown rules fairly and consistently, they are not agreed upon. And, trust me, it is really fun to play, especially if you get crazy round leaders who use complex rules. As to the point of enforcement, I'm still not entirely sure I agree with you, but am unable to find a counterargument, so will cede that for now.
