Comments on: You Have Entered A Maze Of Twisty Arguments, All Alike

By: amber

amber — Fri, 13 Jun 2008 03:42:12 +0000

benro, I’ll look into this.

By: benro

benro — Thu, 12 Jun 2008 12:08:07 +0000

It’s generally not a lot of fun debating with someone who plays the ‘God is all powerful’ card.

Anyway, on a more serious note, Amber, what happened to my Wordpress account? I click on your ‘log in’ button and try to login with my old ‘benro’ account (with password remembered from when I used to login regularly to the previous incarnation of your website) and it has no recollection of me. I don’t see anything on the login screen that is like a ‘register’ or ‘create account’. Am I destined to be an Anonymous Coward for the rest of my life? Will I ever be able to get my YPOJ avatar back?

By: Adam Tiler

Adam Tiler — Wed, 11 Jun 2008 15:27:52 +0000

This is like something I programmed in high school. Random number generator, random argument, random outcome. With graphics.

By: Amel

Amel — Fri, 30 May 2008 07:59:15 +0000

If they didn’t have platforms for intelligent debate, what would would they bitch about?

But seriously, that Crevoscope thing just sounds like a scam to me.

By: amber

amber — Wed, 28 May 2008 15:13:41 +0000

@Amel: Heh. It hadn’t occurred to me. But I doubt a platform for intelligent debate would interest The Resistance at all.

@Daniel: I agree that there are those who don’t mind paying real money to avoid the grind, and it does tend to work out well. But in the case of Crevoscope, I see a TON of 1st level players in the rankings, and relatively few higher level players. This tells me (and I could be misinterpreting the data) that the grind to earn the amount of in-game money that it would take to buy a fossil from another player (and this is the *only* way to obtain a fossil, other than referring someone to the game) is just too high. So you either have a ton of players quitting at level 1, or you’ve got a ton of fake referrals so players can earn their fossils that way.

By: Daniel Chapman

Daniel Chapman — Wed, 28 May 2008 08:04:07 +0000

Actually, in regards to the “for cash” versus “free” currencies, there was a page I remember reading where a designer of a game using that sort of methodology said it works out real well. It’s just real tricky to make sure that there are things worth paying while still not being overpowering. People who actually use real currency to buy in game items are not opposed to skipping a few steps, while those who are willing to farm in game currency in exchange (for what would be “fossils” in this example) still have a way of earning those same items.

By: Amel

Amel — Wed, 28 May 2008 03:55:20 +0000

Hmm, this one could gain the attention of The Resistance as well, Amber. Are you going for that? If you are, you should go for a hat-trick.

By: Bissrok

Bissrok — Wed, 28 May 2008 01:36:47 +0000

I usually make it a point not to debate with people that believe in talking snakes. But I like the idea of a text-based debate game. The only problem would be that, if you used real written text instead of a “roll of the dice” system, you’d need to have real people judging the outcome.

You’d have to have a message board-like system and you’d need strict guidelines for awarding points. Like, points awarded for supporting your own arguement, attacking the opponents, and for defending against the opponents comments, but points deducted for not being able to counter their comments. And then give players a certain number of times to respond (say three posts each), and just have it go back and forth between the two players until they finish the round (or let them call it quits instead of writing a new message).

It’d be just like yelling at someone on a forum, but you’d get points for it, so everyone can clearly see that you’re WAY smarter than that asshole who disagreed with you.

A game like that would take about a month to set up, and I imagine it’d be fairly popular. Yelling at strangers is one of the main appeals of the internet, after all.

By: amber

amber — Tue, 27 May 2008 19:29:39 +0000

Actually, the first thing that occurred to me on a revamped “debate engine” would be to incorporate logical fallacies. In a turn-based system you could “attack” with, say, a straw-man argument. If the defender can identify your argument as a straw-man, and has the necessary skillage or whatever, then the attack is blocked, for instance. You could boost your attacks with your leet “advocacy” skill, use “spin,” “charisma,” etc. You could boost defense with “eye rolling” and “objection.” You could initiate different styles of debate, such as “Lincoln-Douglas,” or “FOX News Rant-fest.” I think something that incorporated actual debate flavor could be pretty fun. But just clicking a button and being told that you have won or lost your debate is not fun, especially when the flavor text shows you to be a complete moron for having lost that debate.

By: Dave T. Game

Dave T. Game — Tue, 27 May 2008 19:00:52 +0000

I like the idea that I could pimp out my 60th level Philosopher, and activate my “post hoc ergo propter hoc” power to defend.

It seems like at some level, an intricate debate system would require an extremely sophisticated AI that could be doing better things toward problem solving than a Massively Multiplayer Argument Machine.

Have you checked out the Passive Multiplayer Online Game yet? I’m working on my review now.