Revisionist History: Mechanics Clarity Check

[clehrich]

I think in the new writeup of the game I will propose that you must write an article to refute all or part of an existing article.  Your refutation can either present new originial documents that disprove the evidence of the original article or it can be an analysis of an existing article and its evidence.  Either way you get both your earning and investment privelages.

Just to play Devil's Advocate here, the disadvantage of this system is that there is no incentive to add primary documentation, which just makes the whole discussion increasingly involuted.

I'm not so sure on how to require an analysis type article be more detailed than the original.  I've always thought of the articles themselves as rather short affairs, maybe a page or so.  There is no GM to act as a threshold on this and that's how I want to keep it.  I don't think people who are interested in the game would be all that short about it all anyhow.

Yes, this is a problem.  I remain convinced that there should be some sort of threshold difference, or formal distinction made, because otherwise as I say there is no incentive to provide primary documents.  I'll have to think about that.

PS.  I looked up your book on Amazon.  Wow, it looks like something I would like to read.  I have an edition of the Three Books of Occult Philosophy because I'm fascinated with sign and symbol systems (its a part of my artwork.)  Alas I don't have the 80 bucks for it, but perhaps someday.

I'm hoping you have the Llewellyn edition (ed. Donald Tyson, trans. J.F.), which is the only complete English edition available off of microfilm or a 17th-century English book.  What I recommend about my book, since as you say $80 is an awful lot (not my fault, really!), is that you get your library to borrow it from someone else.  Libraries are generally very good about this, through InterLibrary Loan (ILL for short), because they'd rather have you using the library.  If you have access to an academic library, they will surely do ILL; if not, you will need to explain what you want and why, but I'd be surprised if the librarians didn't go to the trouble to get you what you want.

You may, however, find that you can only have the book for 2 weeks, which is a little short for a book as (I admit it) dense as this.  Consider this right here my blessing to xerox as much of the text as you want, for your own private use (this is legal anyway, but there you go).  Do let me know if you have questions or comments; I'm genuinely interested in what people other than professional academics think about it.  Given your interests, chapter 3 will be most directly valuable, but won't I think make a lot of sense if you haven't read chapter 2.

[Trevis Martin]

The most obvious solution to the primary document issue is to adjust the reward mechanism.  For example either saying that you earn 2 tokens per primary article and 1 per analytical.   Or flip the ratios.  For a primary you earn 1 token and can invest 2 tokens, for an analysis you earn 2 tokens but can invest only 1, or vice versa.  It should cause players to bounce back and forth depending on what they want to do. What do you think?

As for the threshold issue I'll have to think a little more. I suppose you could just go by word count but that seems inelegant some how.  Quantity is not quality after all. Perhaps each post has to be accepted by a quorom of the other players?  Or maybe just seconded by 1 other player?  Hmmm...


Yes, the Llewellyn edition is the one I have.  The cost is only a temporary deterrent, I do buy expensive books and that one looks worthy.  I'll see if my library can get it but our system here is KC is not the best.

best,

Trevis