Please don't all start with the hating, but I may have discovered another possible flaw in Capes, which may also be fixed in post via the Social Contract.

When you win a conflict, you get to award your debt to all the players that opposed you, in any way you see fit, right?

*Note:  Can you award tokens to a player that opposed you but is currently aligned with your side of the conflict?  Or is it more accurate to say you can divide your tokens only amongst those who are currenly aligned with a losing side?

In any case, the Capes rules say that a minimum on one token must go to the author of the Conflict.

Let's say that Bob throws down a conflict that pisses me off - and I engage.  Bob stakes 3 or 4 debt making me work for the victory I eventually am able to squeak out. Two other player, try to help Bob - Dan used one action to roll down one of my dice, and Gary did the same. Bob committed around 17 actions against me, he was really my main opponent.  Still, I won - perhaps a fifth player, Alice, stakes one of her debt to help me out.

*Note: As the resolver of the conflict, do I decide who gets Alice's token, or as the staker does she?

Now I staked 4 debt of my own, which I now have to distribute.  I must give one to Bob, but if he pissed me off enough, why wouldn't I give my other tokens to Dan and Gary?  As I understand it, Dan and Gary are valid recipients, even if they each represented a tenth of the work that Bob did.  Perhaps they say I was pissed at Bob, and wanted to make sure that I could give tokens to them., in case that would be profitable.

So even though Bob provided 9/10's of the opposition, even though he stake his own debt which he is now getting back double, for his trouble he gets 1 measly token because even though I engaged in the conflict, I was mad about it. 

As far as I can see, this is VALID Capes play - is that correct, and is that acceptable within the Social Contract?

Of course, it may not even be a flaw, but a strength - If you piss someone off with your conflict, don't expect to get more than 1 token in return if anyone else has aided you.

Is it valid if Bob does piss me off for me to *ask* and recruit another player to engage once on Bob's side in order to not have to give Bob more than one?

For example, at the beginning of the game, one could make a table announcement:
"Just so you guys know, if you lay down a conflict that I feel is abusive, coercive, or innapropriate, I am gonna ask for it to be rewritten or retracted.  If you play it anyways, so be it.  All I want you to know is that if I win that conflict I will be awarding the bulk of my resources to the player on the opposing side that *least* opposed me - so if you see me thinking that someone is being an asshat to me, this could be a chance for you to get some easy tokens!  Just try to roll down one of my dice, and don't accept any result.  Then when payout time comes you rake in the tokens and they guy who  felt was an asshat gets one"

I this valid Capes play.  Does it break the Social Contract?

If the answer to the first is Yes and the second is No, then this may be indeed a mechanism to prevent asshatery.

Sindyr, why do all of your examples and your worries that Capes rules may be "broken" involve you playing with people who are actively trying to hurt you or otherwise make your gaming experience unpleasant? Has this actually happened to you each and everytime you play Capes? Or is this just a general fear that you'll wind up playing with people who are trying to make your gaming experience suck and are unsympathetic to your feelings?

The moral of this story: Don't play Capes with people who suck.

Vaxalon wrote:
The moral of this story: Don't play Capes with people who suck.

Damn, dude... find other people to play with, seriously.

Or... what Josh said, because... wow.  Capes may be the wrong venue through which to air personal grievances.

Joshua's questions are pertinant and you really should consider them carefully.

However, I'm going to address your stated questions while you do that.

Giving out ST to the losers of a Conflict is a reward mechanic and as such is designed to allow players to reward the type of play that they like.  People will notice who gets the ST and for what and they will tend to behave in ways that will garner them resources.  However, your tactic for dealing with Conflicts you don't like is flawed.  If Player A drops a Conflict that pisses you off (in a not good way) then ignore it.  Don't oppose it.  Don't dump any resources into it at all.  Let it sit there and die.  If you spend 4 Debt fighting tooth and nail to win the Conflict, the other players are going to see that and say, "Hey!  Those kinds of Conflicts are gold mines.  Let's make some more!"

Negative reinforcement in Capes doesn't come from opposition.  It comes from being ignored.
Positive reinforcement in Capes comes in the form of opposition.

So, if you don't want certain types of Conflict, ignore them.

joshua wrote:
Sindyr, why do all of your examples and your worries that Capes rules may be "broken" involve you playing with people who are actively trying to hurt you or otherwise make your gaming experience unpleasant? Has this actually happened to you each and everytime you play Capes? Or is this just a general fear that you'll wind up playing with people who are trying to make your gaming experience suck and are unsympathetic to your feelings?

Andrew wrote:
Joshua's questions are pertinant and you really should consider them carefully.

Negative reinforcement in Capes doesn't come from opposition.  It comes from being ignored.
Positive reinforcement in Capes comes in the form of opposition.

So, if you don't want certain types of Conflict, ignore them.

Sindyr wrote:
I understand that, and embrace it.  I still want to know if the things I am asking here are valid and not unacceptable SC wise.

Sindyr wrote: One way in which to analyze a system is how it performs at extremes.  In other words, it is not terribly interesting how a system performs in ideal conditions - it is much more interesting how a system perfoms in less than ideal conditions in which it may break.

You learn much more about a system by considering it in extreme cases than you do otherwise.

Sindyr wrote: For example, if a player at the table know I have six cats, and that I love the little buggers, apart from SC consdieration, he would potentially find it rewarding to come up with a conflict that threatens to off a cat in a gruesome and painful way, to motivate me to engage.

Sindyr wrote:
*Note:  Can you award tokens to a player that opposed you but is currently aligned with your side of the conflict?  Or is it more accurate to say you can divide your tokens only amongst those who are currenly aligned with a losing side?

*Note: As the resolver of the conflict, do I decide who gets Alice's token, or as the staker does she?

Sindyr wrote:
I understand that, and embrace it.  I still want to know if the things I am asking here are valid and not unacceptable SC wise.

A very simple and useful answer, thanks. 

The only issues that remain are mostly the issues that have been here all along.

Such as if I throw down a conflict, work hard and gain double debt for making it interesting, if a third player who is a very popular guy briefly joins me side, then when I eventually lose the conflict to get the tokens, the popular guy may be awarded the bulk of the tokens, though I did the bulk of the work.

I am musing (not even considering, and definately not implementing, so PLEASE don't flip out) about a rule change saying that if debt is staked, the largest share (or maybe at least half) of the resource rewards must go to the person who staked the most debt.

What are your technical thoughts about this idea?

Just give the Story Tokens to those who's play you liked...is that a difficult concept? Positive reinforcement and a narrative you like...win/win

I keep seeing, in this and several other threads that Sindyr's started, a persistent angling to get someone to say something to justify the need for a GM at the table, like some kind of grade-school playground monitor.

No one's going to say that. 

There doesn't have to be a 'master player' in ANY game to whom responsibility to protect a player from getting picked on by another player falls; there have to be people, acting like human beings.  If you're in a group where a GM is required simply to keep the peace between the PLAYERS (not the characters), or to protect the 'weak sister' at the table... well, no game deals with that.

Sindyr wrote:
Such as if I throw down a conflict, work hard and gain double debt for making it interesting, if a third player who is a very popular guy briefly joins me side, then when I eventually lose the conflict to get the tokens, the popular guy may be awarded the bulk of the tokens, though I did the bulk of the work.

joshua wrote:
Then every game is broken. Every one.

Nope.

Let's say my wife and I are playing D&D with a female DM. (snip)

D&D invest all its authority into the DM.  As such it cannot be broken.  It has a failsafe.

Sindyr wrote: For example, if a player at the table know I have six cats, and that I love the little buggers, apart from SC consdieration, he would potentially find it rewarding to come up with a conflict that threatens to off a cat in a gruesome and painful way, to motivate me to engage.

Has this actually happened to you? If so, why would you play with these people again? If it hasn't...then who cares? You can come up with a zillion hypotheticals, but they're meaningless, because all they reveal is your own psychology, not any weakness in the rules of Capes.

Since the above is meaning and content free, there's no need for me to respond to it, save this line.  Thanks.

Doyce wrote:
I keep seeing, in this and several other threads that Sindyr's started, a persistent angling to get someone to say something to justify the need for a GM at the table, like some kind of grade-school playground monitor.

TonyLB wrote:

Sindyr wrote:
Such as if I throw down a conflict, work hard and gain double debt for making it interesting, if a third player who is a very popular guy briefly joins me side, then when I eventually lose the conflict to get the tokens, the popular guy may be awarded the bulk of the tokens, though I did the bulk of the work.

Yes.  Suppose you work and slave to set up a conflict, but people find all of your input ... well, boring.  Then I come in, roll the dice one time, and narrate something so mind-bogglingly awesome that everyone immediately forgets about your contributions and thinks of me as having been the main antagonist.  They will award all of their Story Tokens to me, because I am making the game awesome.

Sindyr wrote:

Doyce wrote:
I keep seeing, in this and several other threads that Sindyr's started, a persistent angling to get someone to say something to justify the need for a GM at the table, like some kind of grade-school playground monitor.

Ah, now there's angling, beware the angler!  Rouse the populace!

(laughter)

What Doyce said.

Having a DM in D&D is not a failsafe. Having a DM in D&D does not mean that D&D is not "broken." Regardless of whether there's a DM or not, it all boils down to social contract. And there will never be a player at the table besides yourself, Sindyr, who will protect you from being hurt.

Doyce wrote:

Sindyr wrote:

Doyce wrote:
I keep seeing, in this and several other threads that Sindyr's started, a persistent angling to get someone to say something to justify the need for a GM at the table, like some kind of grade-school playground monitor.

Ah, now there's angling, beware the angler!  Rouse the populace!

(laughter)

You're right.  You're statement, above, about D&D having a failsafe because all the authority rests in the DM... yeah. That's just a clear and obvious agenda.

It's also utterly laughable.

Don't play Capes. Seriously.  My personal, unaffiliated advice to you.  Don't.

Sindyr, I'm having alot of trouble with your posts.  I'm trying to not be dragged into a pit of Sindyr bashing but its becoming increasingly difficult for me to see your threads as anything but trolling.

See, here at the Forge we don't permit trolling, and so our natural inclination is to take peoples issues and questions as if they are serious issues and questions.  But more and more your posts seem like baiting.  Are you just trolling and laughing every time somebody uses up valuable time in response to you?  If not, I highly recommend reevaluating your posting style, because increasingly you're looking awful trollish to me.

I also don't understand why, in this thread especially, you are dismissing as "without content" peoples responses that are actually exactly the right answer to the question you're asking.

Who are these people whose sole goal at the table is to make you miserable?  If they actually exist...don't friggin' play with them any more...any game...at all.  Hell...don't even ASSOCIATE with these people.  If the majority of people in your life treat you the way the majority of people in your posts treat you...find a better class of people to hang out with. 

If those people don't exist...then quit wasting everyone's time worrying about a situation thats total fiction.  And don't give me any baloney about stress testing the game with extreme examples.  That's complete bunk.  You don't need to build a game that can stand up to asshat play.  You simply trust your players not to play with asshats and then its not a problem.  A game that breaks down under the efforts of jerks and dickheads is not a broken game.  EVERY game breaks down under the efforts of jerks and dickheads, and no vesting all power in a GM is not a solution

Games are just a form of social interaction...like hanging out with friends, having a movie night at your house, going out to dinner, or any other activity you do.  Gaming is not a job where you need an HR manager to protect you from harassment by co-workers.  Gaming is a social activity where you simply don't associate with people who harass you.  Since you don't associate with jerks and dickheads while you game, you don't need rules to protect you from jerks and dickheads.  You certainly don't need a GM to play "playground monitor" to protect your from jerks and dickheads. 

Deal with people like people and if they're your friends you won't need protection from them.  If they're not your friends you won't need protection from them, because you'll just stop playing with them.

Solution found, case closed. 

In the future I would REALLY appreciate it if all further conversations about rules that might need to be tweaked come with actual real world examples of play that you've personally experienced where certain chains of events actually took place.  Not these hypothetical "maybe this could happen and what then" bull shit threads.  And don't tell me that you're trying to find folks to play with but haven't been able to.  If you spent as much effort looking for a group as you do posting on this board you'd have played a dozen games by now. 

Frankly...if you don't have any actual play experience where your fears have been realized...just shut the hell up until you do.

Sindyr wrote:
Or, suppose that I am more popular than you with the players and have more charisma.  You slave over this conflict, but unfortunately, you are not all that likeable a person (in this hypothetical example) - whereas I do one same thing and everyone *loves* it - not because what I did had any comparetive intrinsic value compared to all the tons of stuff you have done, but because these guys love me and will eat up anything I do.  When the time comes, they give me all but one of the token, because in the final analysis, they just like me more.

Yup, I see your point.

Valamir wrote:
Sindyr, I'm having alot of trouble with your posts.  I'm trying to not be dragged into a pit of Sindyr bashing but its becoming increasingly difficult for me to see your threads as anything but trolling.

TonyLB wrote: The system is built to reward what the players actually do like and appreciate.

Sindyr wrote:
You have missed the point (I think).  The system rewards also players who do nothing constructive, but happen to be charismatic and popular.

TonyLB wrote:

Sindyr wrote:
You have missed the point (I think).  The system rewards also players who do nothing constructive, but happen to be charismatic and popular.

The system rewards people who bring fun to the game.  If they do that by being charismatic and popular then I say "Rock on."  As long as the result is more awesome fun in the game, who cares how it happens?

Sindyr wrote:
Same here.  If Capes is a game that rewards natural charisma and punishes those that lack it, then it is a game for the charismatic only

TonyLB wrote:

Sindyr wrote:
Same here.  If Capes is a game that rewards natural charisma and punishes those that lack it, then it is a game for the charismatic only

That's one way to look at it.  Another way to look at it is to say "Hey ... this is a game that gives me a constant feedback metric for how charismatic I'm being at any given moment.  That lets me train to be more charismatic."

Of course I vote (ie give ST) to the people who provided play I liked.  Why in the name of all that is holy would I vote for the stuff I didn't like.  If popular and charismatic people provide more fun in the game, I'm rewarding them.  The other folks at the table need to emulate them and I'll be happy to dish out ST to them too.  I'm in this to have fun.  I'm not going to reward boring people, even if they work hard at being boring.  That's not shallow.  That's holding the other players up to a certain standard of excellent play.  Sink or swim, dude.

Andrew wrote:
Of course I vote (ie give ST) to the people who provided play I liked.  Why in the name of all that is holy would I vote for the stuff I didn't like.  If popular and charismatic people provide more fun in the game, I'm rewarding them.  The other folks at the table need to emulate them and I'll be happy to dish out ST to them too.  I'm in this to have fun.  I'm not going to reward boring people, even if they work hard at being boring.  That's not shallow.  That's holding the other players up to a certain standard of excellent play.  Sink or swim, dude.

TonyLB wrote:
The system isn't built to reward what the players should like and appreciate.  The system is built to reward what the players actually do like and appreciate.

They have to actively participate in order to get the Tokens.  That's in the rules.  Still, what if I like comedy?  Why shouldn't I reward that if it is my preference?  If the guy working hard is shoving serious, gritty shit at me and I'm wanting The Tick, I'm going to reward the guys who give me The Tick, even if they worked less to get the effect.  The smart player will start to give me what I want, if they want my resources.

Hell, this isn't even unique to Capes.  If you sit around a table to play D&D, you figure out what the DM likes and you give him that kind of play.  It results in XP.  If he is a stickler for staying in character and not using meta-knowledge and dark, gritty storylines, that's what you give him or your character doesn't advance as quickly.  If the DM like some other style, you do that.  It happens in every game I've ever been in.  Why shouldn't it work that way in Capes?

I am not saying Capes is any worse than any other rpg when it comes to rewarding popularity. D&D may indeed suffer the same issues - which would make sense as this is a *human* problem.

But what if a player does not do really much of anything, doesn't introduce any conflicts, doesn't participate much in the ones that others make, doesn't add much in the way of narration, BUT his kibitzing has players in stiches, even though it is not relevant at all to the game.

That player way wind up with most of the rewards for the session, for doing nothing more than kibitzing on non Capes related stuff.

It may be a completely different, no charismatic guy who is really responsible for all the Capes fun that was had - and he may get very little in the way of reward.

Is that OK?  There is not one right answer to that, but it is an important question and an important possibility to keep in mind.

Sindyr, that's not going to happen.

You can't get Inspirations if you're not engaging in Conflicts and winning them.
You can't get Story Tokens if you're not providing resistance to people who are staking Debt on Conflicts.

It is simply, by the rules, as impossible for someone to get resources when they're not playing the game as it is for someone to win Monopoly if they're just having a beer nearby and watching.

You really haven't grasped anything I've tried to say have you?  Are you even trying?  

Greed and ambition solves all of these problems.

What's to stop me from giving all my resources to "the popular one"?  Greed and Ambition.

I want resources...I need the rest of the players to give them to me.  If ALL of the other players are regularly giving me resources than I become greater and more powerful.  If, however, I play these stupid popularity games like you're suggesting will be automatic, I shoot myself in the foot.

If you've busted your ass to provide me with opposition but I award all the debt to someone else who doesn't "deserve" it (whatever that means) but whom I "like" better (whatever that means).  Who have I hurt.  Well, I've hurt you.  I've hurt Sindyr.  But I've also hurt ME.  I may not give a rip about you (which is why you keep seeking protective rules) but I do care about me.  If I completely hose you for asshat reasons (as opposed to cool, in-game, reasons you can appreciate) I've now lost a source of future resources for ME.

Don't you see that...can't you see how rampant selfish behavior on my part actually means I HAVE to cater to your desires at at least a minimal level to keep those resources flowing?

Why would I alienate you?  Why would I treat you like garbage? Why would I piss all over your efforts?  Why would I...when the game expressly punishes me for doing that.  It doesn't punish me explicitly...there's none of those protective rules you keep looking for, but punish me it does.  I can't AFFORD to alienate you.  I can't AFFORD to treat you like garbage.  I can't AFFORD to piss on your efforts...because if I do...someone else who treats you better gets your resources.  

I have to make you like me (and what I'm narrating in the game) as much or MORE than you like Tony, otherwise he gets more resources than I do.  I have to make Tony like me (and what I'm narrating in the game) as much or MORE than he likes you, otherwise you get more resources than I do.  If I'm an asshat...you guys freeze me out...and I LOSE.

Can you see that?  Can you see how my own sense of self preservation prevents me from engaging in any of the hypothetical behaviors you're so afraid of?  

Its a brutal system...and it might be hard for you to see because it sounds like you normally prefer a kinder gentler environment where everybody is "excellent to each other" simply because they're all warm and fuzzy.  Well Capes isn't a warm and fuzzy game...but it still requires me to "be excellent to you"...not because we're all warm and fuzzy and are going to sit around holding hands singing kumbaya...but because I NEED you.

I NEED you so that I can win at Capes.  Therefor I can't afford to alienate you.  And ultimately...that's a higher degree of protection for you than any set of rules or "GM authority" could ever provide to you.  I won't piss on you Sindyr...even though the rules allow me to and there's no GM to stop me.   I won't piss on you because I need you...I need you to help me win.

Also, playing with better people isn't [i[A solution...it is THE solution.  Its not a "patch" its common sense.  Do you really need big bold letters on page one of every game saying "don't play this game with asshats"?  I would hope you have the sense to understand that those words are there for every game (and every social activity) without needing to read them in black and white.  There is no "issue inherent in the system" for you to address.  There is only you making the decision to only play games with people you can trust.  If you can't do that, no game and no game rules can save you.

There is no possible way for me to explain it any more clearly than that.  If after reading this you still don't get it, if you still have to reply with some objection...then there's nothing more to say.  If you do get it but don't like it...maybe you'll see why Tony and others have suggested this isn't the game for you.  Maybe you'd prefer Universalis better, because Universalis doesn't have such a cut throat approach (although ultimately it...like most social activity...comes down to the same concept, just presented in a kinder gentler wrapper).

You are correct about one thing.   The "end stinger" of my last post was not appropriate, I apologize.  The concept, however, is accurate.  Until you've had a chance to actually play and see these forces in action and learn how the game corrects for them already, time spent worrying about something (or worse drawing conclusions about something) which you have no first hand experience for is time wasted.  Time spent argueing points with people who DO have that first hand experience as if somehow you can offer superior instruction, is just foolish back street driving.  I did that for awhile...then I gave the increasing number of veteran players who said otherwise the courtesy of assuming they aren't stupid, and stopped.

As for the crack about mobs self perpetuating...if it seems like people are piling on you...you might want to look at yourself and see if you aren't giving them the reason.  There are alot of players who've spent alot more hours than you playing Capes...you might try doing them the courtesy of assuming they aren't idiots and that the game actually does work the way they say until you have some experience of your own to contrast with theres.

Now I'm going to take my own advice and stop posting to these threads for awhile.

I seriously suggest (again) that you do the same...of course, in the time it took me to type this you shot off 3 more posts in rapid succession...so clearly you haven't grasped how counter productive that is.

Sindyr wrote:
But what if a player does not do really much of anything, doesn't introduce any conflicts, doesn't participate much in the ones that others make, doesn't add much in the way of narration, BUT his kibitzing has players in stiches, even though it is not relevant at all to the game.

That player way wind up with most of the rewards for the session, for doing nothing more than kibitzing on non Capes related stuff.

Sindyr wrote:
But what if a player does not do really much of anything, doesn't introduce any conflicts, doesn't participate much in the ones that others make, doesn't add much in the way of narration, BUT his kibitzing has players in stiches, even though it is not relevant at all to the game.

TonyLB wrote:
The system isn't built to reward what the players should like and appreciate.  The system is built to reward what the players actually do like and appreciate.

Bret wrote:
Sindyr, that's not going to happen.

You can't get Inspirations if you're not engaging in Conflicts and winning them.
You can't get Story Tokens if you're not providing resistance to people who are staking Debt on Conflicts.

It is simply, by the rules, as impossible for someone to get resources when they're not playing the game as it is for someone to win Monopoly if they're just having a beer nearby and watching.

Valamir wrote:
Its a brutal system...and it might be hard for you to see because it sounds like you normally prefer a kinder gentler environment where everybody is "excellent to each other" simply because they're all warm and fuzzy.  Well Capes isn't a warm and fuzzy game...but it still requires me to "be excellent to you"...not because we're all warm and fuzzy and are going to sit around holding hands singing kumbaya...but because I NEED you.

Sindyr wrote:

I didn't say he wasn't providing ANY resistance, I said "doesn't participate MUCH in the ones that others make" - so maybe he does a token roll down once per conflict.

See?

Valamir wrote: stuff

Andrew wrote:

Sindyr wrote:
But what if a player does not do really much of anything, doesn't introduce any conflicts, doesn't participate much in the ones that others make, doesn't add much in the way of narration, BUT his kibitzing has players in stiches, even though it is not relevant at all to the game.

That player way wind up with most of the rewards for the session, for doing nothing more than kibitzing on non Capes related stuff.

In all the Actual Play posts here on the forums and all my personal play, this has never once happened that I know of.  Ever.  It's impossible to prove that it can't ever happen due to simple rules of logic but who cares?  The point is that it hasn't ever happened yet (and been reported at least).  Until it does happen, why is it an issue?  Even if it happened once in all the hundreds of games played, why would it be an issue?

TonyLB wrote:

Sindyr wrote:
But what if a player does not do really much of anything, doesn't introduce any conflicts, doesn't participate much in the ones that others make, doesn't add much in the way of narration, BUT his kibitzing has players in stiches, even though it is not relevant at all to the game.

Those can be really fun sessions!

Are you trying to say that it is not a valid choice for people to decide that the kibbitzing is where they're getting their entertainment, and therefore they'll reward it (so as to get more of it)?  Because if you are ... I disagree.  I hate to keep dragging out this quote, but it really is just this simple:

TonyLB wrote:
The system isn't built to reward what the players should like and appreciate.  The system is built to reward what the players actually do like and appreciate.

I think it's more like, "Whether this (the popularity issue) ever happens or not, the system can handle it and the game will go fine."

That's how I'm reading it.  Others are debating whether it would happen or not, Tony is saying that it doesn't really matter if it does, the system can handle it.  Saying that it's /part/ of the system is probably taking it too far.  I could be wrong.  (I should make that my sig, I'm full of disclaimers, heh.)

Jason

"Rewarding popularity" is not what the system does, and Tony's not saying that. If the guy who is "most popular" outside the context of the game is unable to provide entertaining, engaging conflicts that draw in the other players, he won't get as many Inspirations and Story Tokens, no matter how much the other players would defer to him (and it's almost always a "him") in unstructured social settings or less-structured games. As I've said before, I've seen this happen.

Conversely, if a particular person is providing the most entertaining, engaging conflicts and drawing in the other players, s/he'll get the most Story Tokens and Inspirations, and will probably become the "most popular" in the context of the game -- but in that case the popularity is itself the reward, not the thing being rewarded.

Sindyr wrote:
I find that fasincating and it counters an above post that said it would be a bad idea to hose me off, because they are gonna want to not alienate me - maybe you 2 should debate each other?

Sindyr wrote:
In any case, Tony, it seems you are actively saying that rewarding popularity is not a flaw, it's part of the system.

TonyLB wrote:

Hey, Ralph!

• Sometimes a player will reward another player precisely for being a good potential/future source of resources.  They'll let future tactical considerations influence their judgment of where they should distribute their resources, because they value the future chance to earn resources off of people more than they value the current fun of humor and kibbitzing.
• And sometimes people care more about the fun that is happening in out of game kibbitzing, even to the extent that they'll reward it at the cost of reducing their future chance to earn resources off of people who are more engaged with the system.

You cool with that?

Sindyr wrote:
Please don't all start with the hating, but I may have discovered another possible flaw in Capes, which may also be fixed in post via the Social Contract.

Valamir wrote:
Absolutely.  You play Capes to win...whatever your definition of "win" might be at the particular moment of interface.