>optimally playing this game isn't really that interesting
Disagreed completely. Doesn't become uninteresting to me. Of course I watch it to see how many questions I know and shout the answers out at the TV. ;)
If they didn't want people to play the game that way, then they can change the damn rules.
> So if this is supposed to be an example of how content moderation rules are unclear to follow, it's achieving precisely the opposite.
The game gives a super simple 2-paragraph-instruction that I feel could not be any clearer, but that you chose to ignore in favor of your own interpretation of what is being asked (because you deem the intent "crystal-clear").
> If this was about a purely intellectual roleplaying game with internal rules there would be no discussion in the first place.
Which is what makes the discussion bullshit. Because if you're starting your experiment with "assume that", that's what you're signalling you're doing.
> If I type “Create an Orc,” then I don’t want to be asked 20 follow-up questions to exactly specify the nature of the Orc; I just want it to take a guess.
This is the exact point where everything falls apart. Good games have simple rules that combine in robust ways to allow for varied expression.
Each roll of the dice here is baking in assumptions that will not play nice with the last unit, or the next one.
games in themselves have no point. The act of playing games may have a point: it is generally to have fun, not to win.
> edit: In a way, it feels like people who wave you on when they have the right of way at a stop sign. It's not nice, just follow the rules and drive predictably. /rant
> but they are clearly playing the game they are also trying to change, and this is hypocritical.
No, it's practical. Playing by the rules of the game you're currently playing (rather than the rules of the one you wish you were playing) isn't incompatible with wanting to change the rules.
You can only cheat rules/agreements/contracts. No rules, no cheating.
I'd agree that learning has no rules. There are some natural laws I guess, like the "forgetting curve", but those cannot be cheated (hence natural laws).
> I think the act of cheating is a call for help
Or a lack of respect for the rules, or sheer curiosity. Maybe there are more reasons.
> a cooperative game that limits communication (which is essential for any cooperative game, to prevent quarterbacking)
Just no. The very point of cooperative games is learning to work together as a team. If you can't do that, then you lost the game. Ruining the rules so the game can't be lost is counterproductive.
Exactly.
Also, answers (by themselves) cannot be closed, only questions can be closed.
reply