From: jj@alice.att.com (j.d.johnston)
Newsgroups: rec.games.frp.misc
Subject: Re: Dumb Moves By Game Companies
Date: 2 Jan 93 17:33:15 GMT
Article-I.D.: alice.24535
Reply-To: jj@alice.UUCP (j.d.johnston)
Organization: NJ State Home for Bewildered Terminals


First, you are politely but firmly requested to immediately cancel
your article in which you have edited my copyright notice.

Your inclusion of quotes for argumentitive purposes is
entirely legitimate, your inclusion of an incomplete
copyright notice is not.

Second, those of you who don't like flames are welcome to
hit 'n' right now.  I strongly dislike ad-hominem
attacks, but the one I'm replying to is so egregious that
I feel some necesity to respond, occasionally in kind,
given my self-chosen opponent's argumentitive style.

In article <STXTNT.93Jan1173016@rs733.GSFC.NASA.Gov> stxtnt@rs733.GSFC.NASA.Gov (Nigel Tzeng) writes:
>In article <24528@alice.att.com> jj@alice.att.com (J. Johnston) writes:
>
>>And this is where you have an important point. SIMPLE games
>>have a social use quite divorced from real "gaming".

>>Real gamers, on the other hand, are few and far between.

>Real Gamers?  Gee and what might the definition of real gamer be?
>Someone who plays some narrow subset of games you approve of?
"Real gamers" as usually used refers to people who game
regularly, (yeah, including bridge players, chess players,
go players, and the like), and who play games in which the
result of the game is not determined primarily by chance.
Some "parlor games" indeed fit this description.

Given this, and the fact that people conventionally
use the words to mean that, suggests to me that your deliberate
ad-hominem attack shows that you have no real way to dispute
my article, hence your choice of ad-hominem attacks.  Why
are you wasting our time with this?

>Maybe "cerebral" game companies are producing products that aren't
>"cerebral" but simply convoluted...chess and go have damn few rules
>but are considered by most as far more "cerebral" than say ASL or SFB
>that has volume after volume of rules.
I see, since you know of two games with far too many rules, that
are far too complicated, non-hirerarchical (note that this
was about the anthesis of SFB and ASL, rule sets that
are hierarchical, not more or less arbitrary and confusing,
despite the presentation as organized), that makes it
OK to attack someone and their argument without further
ado. (Yeah, I quit playing SFB a LONG time ago, about the time
their "complete ruleset" came out.  NO, I don't mean the
Doomsday rulebook, this was about 10 years ago, just at the
beginning of ADB rule.)  There exist many games, oh,
say, Diplomacy, for instance, that are simple, elegant,
and yet have few, albiet dedicated players.  Diplomancy
was once a "parlor game", in fact, but its slip from that
into "unusual game" status proves my point below.

>Simply because mainstream America doesn't appreciate the types of
>games you feel are "cerebral" doesn't support any of your premises
>either. 
Which kinds of games do I feel are "cerebral"?  
You seem incapable of reading the word as written.  You seem
more concerned with introducing your own assumptions as my
prejudices; that is rhetorically dishonest, and I request
that you stop.  What premise are you attacking here?
You seem to think some exist, but you fail to say which
or what.  Frankly, nothing you've said conflicts with what
I've said, so far.

>That some people cannot or probably more accurately will not
>spend the time to learn complex rules for pleasure proves nothing
>other than they don't like wasting their free hours working though
>poorly written convolutions from some game company for "fun".

So, why you seem to be claiming is that any game that people
won't learn the rules of is "...poorly written convolutions..."
by definition?  I think I see where you're headed now, didn't
some royalist guy call it the tyranny of the majority?
Diplomacy is a good example of simple, hirearchical rules,
with simple structure, that people reject and have
trouble with.  Go is another good example. Chess is actually
more complicated than either. Titan is really pretty simple,
in rule-content, the complications are in the "database"
part; since they are indeed necessary to play well, yes,
that counts, but it's still not "difficult" by any means.
Feudal is another kind of example.  It has more complication than chess,
but is fundamentally uninteresting and not very playable.

The public rejects all of them at about the same level.  A simple
examination of obvious fact shows the failure of your statement.

>Maybe these "normals" have a point eh?
What?  Perhaps you think they have a point? Perhaps
you think you speak for them?  Perhaps you have tried to
make a point based on purely fantastic assumptions that
you've internally generated and projected on me because
you felt the emotional need to attack something?

>Does the fact that so many good, even brilliant PD products come from
>non-programmers imply that programmers are not appreciated or inferior
>in some way to non-professional programmers?  No...I don't quite think
>that follows. 
Good for you, you can exercise basic logic.  Unfortunately,
it has no relevance to the issues at hand.  What IS your
disgression here attempting to show? It's nothing important to
the original discussion.

>Likewise the fact that some brilliant gamers are
>non-professional and in marginal employment does not imply that
>society does not appreciate thinking or that professionals are in some
>way less "cerebral".
Indeed.  Of course, it seems that you are dedicated to proving obvious
truths, without regard to the necessity of such in the context
of this dispute.  Most professionals I know, including myself,
are quite cerebral, yet those people don't play challenging games
with any greater probability than non-professionals, in my
experience.  (before you grasp the fallicy of the excluded middle
and wave it about, they game no less, either)

>Perhaps American society rewards productive brilliance over gaming
>brilliance.  I'll worry more when we run out of scientists, engineers,
>generals, businessmen or even politicians and laywers than when we run out
>of brilliant gamers.

Perhaps you don't live or work here.  It's quite clear that
American society places little or no importance whatsoever on
productive brilliance, for reasons quite unrelated
to gaming, which you may determine at your leasure while
talking to the average MBA.  Why you think this has something
to do with gaming is beyond me.  You seem determined to read
something into my words that wasn't put there.

The luddite, anti-science, anti-skeptical nature of the
American (meaning USA) public is blatantly obvious to the
casual observer.  Any look at popular entertainment (now,
I have nothing against mindless entertainment, it's necessary
and useful sometimes, as well as parlor games are also
necessary and useful sometimes) will show the incapability
of the American public.  The "dial-a-psychic".  The "true crime"
shows. The "mysterious mysteries that prove the existance of
flying saucer" shows, an so on leave little doubt.  The success
of such demigogues as Ted Kennedy and Jesse Helms likewise.

>Perhaps...but attacking something is trivial...no thinking required.
I see that you believe that, given your insubsantial attack
on an article that actually claimed most of what you thought
necessary to prove in opposition, made statements easily refuted
by both observation and common sense, and likewise, but the
truth of the matter is that constructive attack is quite difficult;
it is both a skill and an art, and I think you would do well
to attempt to master it. 

>The American public may not be as bright as you might like but you
>certainly have not shown that thinking ability (wrt gaming) is of
>benefit to society (more than any other hobby) or serves as a useful
>indication of general intelligence.

Quite true.  Why do you think otherwise?  Since when did I try
to prove it?  I didn't. What's your problem, fella?

>Perhaps all the truly "thinking" folks have decided use that "thinking
>ability" in the "real world" solving real problems as opposed to
>solving fantasy problems in a fantasy world.  Certainly moving
>cardboard counters around a board is a ton less difficult than moving
>real troops across a battlefield.

Perhaps your opponent is sick and tired of watching people fail
to deal with trivial real-world problems, and perhaps your opponent
is also tired of observing that the reason for their failure is
the Luddite trend of society to ignore and scorn both technology
and skepticism rather than reward either or both.

It has been my experience that people who chose to exercise their
minds by gaming (no, I don't mean SFB, either) are also those
who are capable of solving real-world problems, who are able
to make a decision, gather the information necessary to make the
decision, evalutate the information, and so on.  There are people
who do not game who share the same abilties, there are people
who have OTHER hobbies who share those abilities.  Certainly
there are counterexamples in any hobby (or none at all),
just like there are bigots and racists of all races, colors,
creeds, sexes, etc, etc.  People aren't perfect. People
don't HAVE to handicap themsleves, though, and don't have
to accept social pressures to do so, either.

None the less, experience and educational sciences have shown
that exercising one's critical abilities is necessary
for survival in the real world, despite the "don't question"
and Luddite attitudes usually put forth for the consumption of
the american public.

>Well...I hacked out portions of the text including the rest of the
>copyright to save bandwidth...which I am promptly wasting on this
>line...
Dont' do it again.  You can quote the article with attribution
without the copyright notice, as long as you observe that it's
copyrighted material.  If you include the notice, you're obligated
to include the whole notice, so next time get it right.
-- 
Copyright alice!jj 1992, all rights reserved, except transmission by USENET and like facilities granted. Said permission is granted only for complete copies that include this notice. Use on pay-for-read services specifically disallowed.
---------
Member HASA - Athiest Scum Division
"Extremism in the defense of liberty is no vice" - AuH2O for President
Newsgroups: rec.games.frp.misc