Prepare To Be Boarded! is a game of message board combat. Slightly more organized and civilized than outright trolling, PTBB should look to oblivious observers like a reasoned debate between two or more earnest individuals. Meanwhile, the two players use numbers on the message board to inflict damage on each other, doing extra damage by their idiotic but harmless manipulation of the non-players who join the discussion.

Let me reiterate that this is not a set of rules for trolling. In old fashioned "freeform" trolling, you simply make outrageous statements designed to provoke responses from your duped victims. In PTBB, the response would only help you win if your duped victim agrees with your viewpoint and repeats an alliterative phrase that you mentioned. Prepare To Be Boarded is to trolling as Candid Camera is to pinhole videocamera hidden in the ceiling of a public restroom.

Innovation?
The possibly innovative thing about this system is the randomizing mechanic that uses the time and date stamps and any other numbers appended to most message board postings. By doing a "numerological reduction" of all the numbers on your post, you'll get a number from 1 to 9, not exactly random, but hopefully difficult to predict or control. (Hard to explain briefly. See the game for full description.)

I need some feedback from some math-wizards on The Forge, those of you with heads shaped like a bell-curve. My hope is that the numerological reduction will be a way to get an effectively random result from the natural junk that's on almost every online message board. But is it possible for players to manipulate these numbers easily? Can you try to get a higher result by posting at an exact time or date?

Is the numerological reduction too time-consuming? Will players be able to calculate their attacks easily, or will it be as tedious as emailing math homework back and forth at each other?

Is PTBB unforgivably close to trolling, or is it innocent enough that no one will mind?

The "Increasingly Silly Extra Attacks" is a weak point, needs more work or needs the decision to cut it out entirely. Let me know if you see ways to make them work better, other "attacks" that would be amusing, or why that section should be amputated.

[As a way of saying thanks for your feedback, I promise not to make any more games for a few months at least.]

First, the game IS trolling, just trolling with rules for who can do it beter. As such, yes, it is unconscionable. With either this activity or with "normal" trolling you have people wasting their time responding to useless attacks. Those responding usually believe that they are doing a public service, and as such are being abused. Such activities decrease the signal to noise ratio as well, which damages the sites in qustion.

In fact, I'm tempted to call this post an elaborate troll.

OTOH, I am interested in the use of the time stamp as a randomizing element. In another light, I could see this being usefull. The simple way to do this is to simply calculate the difference n minutes between each post, and do modulo division to get the number you're looking for. Thus, if my random range is 1 to 10, I simply divide the minutes by ten, and the remainder is my value. If you wanted to have time be part of the calculation, and high numbers are good in the system, simply subtract the result of the aformentioned method from elevento get your number. Thus if I were to get a response in 1 minute, 11 minutes, or 21 minutes I would score a ten. A difference of 9 minutes would be a score of 1.

I could see this used in a game forum where the posters were all aware of the implications of what time they posted. It would involve trying to capture other posts just as they came out. If you wait too long, and the post comes out, you miss it, but if you post in the minute previous to the post, you get to count it for score against another earlier post (another "Price is Right mechanic). So, players will be trying to outwait their opponents to cause them to score low. But knowing that makes scoring possible. So dangerous "firing early" strategies will evolve, which can be responded to. Or somthing like that.

I see some potential here, but please do not do anythiong to encourage actual trolling. This reminds me of tht silly British game called something like "Morninglory Station". Max, was it you or Paul that told me about that?

Mike

The game feels a lot like a drinking game, actually.

I crave a rule for sudden death: if any follower or crew mentions Adolph Hitler or the Holocaust, that supporter dies and no longer contributes points.

The math for this is a little complex to chart out, and would depend on the board you were playing on, as well as the month and year you were playing. Considering the incredibly Gameist nature of these rules, I think that's ok. Players will have to consider their timing carefully. I'd even venture to say that you want them manipulating the times the post.

Given how competitive this game is, though, I'd be worried about ringers. What's to stop me from telling all my friends about the game and getting them to help me win? I'm not sure I have a solution to this, but it's worth asking.

Oh, and for the love of all that's good, don't play this here (not that I expect you would).

1)The link doesn't work for me, so I can't comment on the full mechanics, so I'll go from what's implied in your post.

2)The numbers as mechanics thing sounds interesting. Depending on what numbers are present and how their reduced, it could work. You basicly get score from when other people post replies, correct?


3)Without reading the actuall rules it's hard to tell, but it seems to me that this could be played on top of a serious debate appropriate to the board. That would remove the trolling objection. Also possibly you could have a solo varient. Start a discussion and see how 'good' it turns out. Lose points for starting a flamewar, gain for good points, that sorta thing. Probably difficult to impartially score, but hey.

Mike Holmes wrote: First, the game IS trolling, just trolling with rules for who can do it beter. As such, yes, it is unconscionable. With either this activity or with "normal" trolling you have people wasting their time responding to useless attacks. Those responding usually believe that they are doing a public service, and as such are being abused. Such activities decrease the signal to noise ratio as well, which damages the sites in qustion.

In fact, I'm tempted to call this post an elaborate troll.

I see some potential here, but please do not do anything to encourage actual trolling. This reminds me of that silly British game called something like "Morninglory Station". Max, was it you or Paul that told me about that?

Ring Kichard wrote: I crave a rule for sudden death: if any follower or crew mentions Adolph Hitler or the Holocaust, that supporter dies and no longer contributes points.

The math for this is a little complex to chart out, and would depend on the board you were playing on, as well as the month and year you were playing. Considering the incredibly Gameist nature of these rules, I think that's ok. Players will have to consider their timing carefully. I'd even venture to say that you want them manipulating the times the post.

Given how competitive this game is, though, I'd be worried about ringers. What's to stop me from telling all my friends about the game and getting them to help me win? I'm not sure I have a solution to this, but it's worth asking.

Oh, and for the love of all that's good, don't play this here (not that I expect you would).

(Then again, you might have to look twice at the next "debate" you see on these boards. Are they really arguing over embedded Premises, or are they just exchanging broadsides?)

Diedzoeb,

I've been thinking about this. The game you propose squicks my consensuality nerve. I've this funny notion that people should have the right to how to dispose of theri time, including whether or not they consent to play a game. This it part of a larger ethic based on obscure concepts like free will and informed consent, and that the best expression of the one depends on the other. I don't say that you have to agree with me, but I wouldn't play your game.

And, yes, quite a number of people would be angered once you revealed that they'd been toyed with. To many, manipulation like this denotes a lack of respect.

At the very least, your players wouldn't be trusted again on the board where they'd played. The best they could hope for would be to be regarded as vaguely annoying.

Lon

Hey there,

Deidzoeb wrote,
"[Clinton R. Nixon specifically gave his permission for me to use the colors and layout of the Forge forum in this parody, but asked me not to use any disclaimer.] "

Permit me to clarify. The format of the Forge is open source software. Using it does not require permission from us.

Clinton and I are currently musing over the topic of this thread, regarding all sorts of appropriateness issues. A decision should be reached later today.

Best,
Ron

Uncle Dark wrote: I've this funny notion that people should have the right to how to dispose of theri time, including whether or not they consent to play a game. This is part of a larger ethic based on obscure concepts like free will and informed consent, and that the best expression of the one depends on the other.

Hi Ron,

If there are "all sorts of appropriateness issues" that would require a "decision" (presumably to moderate this thread out of existence), could you please explain what other sorts of appropriateness issues are in question beyond allegedly encouraging trolling? I'd like to defend myself against the other specific accusations if you're going to imply that I'm posting things that are inappropriate in "all sorts" of ways.

Hey,

You are being defensive enough to discourage me from talking to you about it. You're already blazing with arguments about what you assume I'm concerned with.

So, basically - No. I'm not going to fling a barrage of accusations at you and then listen to your defense. As Moderator, I will - presently - tell you exactly what is permitted for you to be posting at the Forge.

This may surprise you, but I have no interest in the "is this trolling" issue whatsoever. My concern is whether you are describing a role-playing game, or if not, whether it's close enough to count anyway (like, say, Bedlam).

Please be patient and recognize (1) that you are not on trial, and (2) that you are not going to be called on to defend your position about the social niceties of the activity. Also please recognize that this is not a debate situation and as Moderator, I will state what the policy is and you have the ultimate choice of whether you approve or disapprove, and whether you do or do not keep posting at the Forge.

Best,
Ron

Deidzoeb,

If someone appropaches me and solicits funds for a charity, and they keep the money for themselves, then I can have them jailed for fraud. Time is money. If I spend my time arguing with you, then the argument had better be genuine, because that is why I am spending my precious time arguing. I see a benerfit in doing so, which is my recompense. If you are absorbing that effort fraudulently, then you are ethically out of bounds.

Yes, this includes Candid Camera type activities. They rely on people's good humor to allow them to continue, which in general works. Because it is funny; a benefit to all. Trolling is not funny, except possibly to those doing it. Those trolled feel abused, and disrespected (thanks Lon). Does your activity provide humor for those defrauded? Even if you come out afterwards? I doubt it. To whit, one couple who was recently subjected to a Candid Camera-type show in which they found a mock-up of a hacked up corpse in their hotel bathtub, are now in court suing the producers of said show. They are expected to win a large settlment. See how important the funny part is? Even when funny, Candid Camera often had to pay people off to get them to allow the tapes to air. People value their respect.

I believe that people have a right to freedom of speech on the internet. But, as always, that freedom is limited in cetain important ways. You can claim that a person buying into any argument should heed Caveat Emptor, but then you are doing something that damages trust between the users of the internet. Just as sellers of shoddy used cars may be within their legal rights to do so, they are ethically wrong. This is the substance of ethics, to hold oneself to a higher standard than just the level that, say, the law allows. Trolling behavior defies the categorical imperative (golden rule) in a way that would have Kant rolling in his grave.

The signal to noise ratio has nothing to do with available space. It has eveything to do with having to read through a ton of crap to get to the important information. By the definition of your process, you are creating noise. This is the bane of every moderator on the internet.

The moderators here are not considering whether to remove your post (I feel that I can say that with relative certainty). They are merely considering their position on the matter. Their policy is to allow people freedom to post, and to assume that posts are provided honestly. This is their dilemma; how do they know when someone is being honest? Still, despite having a policy that assumes the honesty of posts, they don't have to encourage behavior that would lead to a degradation of service at this or any other internet site.

Why would I speculate that this idea is a troll? Because it would be very clever if it were. Here you'd have me arguing vehemently against trolling in response to a troll. And we know that you think that trolling or at least similar activities are OK, or so you've argued.

But, I have given you the benefit of a doubt, as I assume will the moderators. Are you deserving of their trust?

Mike

Mike,

I know you feel strongly about this, and your points are well-stated. However, they belong in private messages. This dialogue is so far away from what Indie Design is supposed to be, that I'm tempted to close it on that basis alone.

I'm not even going to get a chance to Moderate the topic if you guys force me to Moderate (not very moderately) the discussion first.

I'll say it now: quit blazing away at each other about what is or is not trolling. For purposes of the Forge, that is one person's privilege to define, and that person is me.

Best,
Ron

Let’s cool this down before the moderators lock this thread as more trouble than it's worth. There’s been more heat than light on both sides of this issue, and I, for one, don’t want to lose this design to the moderation void.

For starters, I think consensual play of this game might be an option, and would neatly sidestep most of the ethical issues and also provide insulation against the "ringers" I mentioned in an earlier post. It would also alleviate the need for multiple communications channels, and simplify the design requirements.

As to the question of, "Is this an RPG", I yield to the decisions of the moderators, but I would be interested in being pointed to historical threads on the nature of RPGs and possibly starting a new thread on that subject.

Hey Ring...I agree, the idea is interesting enough to pursue. I think what might make for a cool interpretation (although clearly not an RPG) is to take a page from the fantasy sports leagues.

Lurk on a discussion forum for awhile...do some scouting...than draft your "team" of regular posters, and then just observe the naturally occuring discussions. Treat each "thread" as a battle and evaluate the winning "side" based on the scoring system above. Then award points to the players on a composite basis...

Heh...kind of funny to think about it... "I'll trade you Mike Holmes for Le Jouer and Paul Czege...", "I never should have drafted Supplanter in the first round...he stopped posting half way through the season..." ;-)

Darn it, the Forge is acting funny. I thought I had a double-post and then the double-post disappeared.

Anyway, I originally posted a method to make the original game less trollish. I'm not saying the original game is or isn't trollish, just suggesting a way to make it less so.

1. The participants agree to debate a topic they actually disagree on.
2. Eliminate the "Authorities Agree" rule.
3. Instead of bowing out when dead, the killed participant utters a code phrase acknoledging death and the thread continues.

This way one can have a serious discussion AND play the game, and this way no one's time is wasted. In fact, putting a silly game atop a serious debate could be good for relieving stress. "That post makes me mad but at least I killed a member of his Crew."

Possible compromise: I suggest we limit further discussion on this thread to the mechanics of the game. Send me an email at deidzoeb@yahoo.com if you'd like to debate whether the game is ethically flawed, and we can run that discussion like an unmoderated email list. I promise not to say, "Oh please" any more, and we can try to have a civil, flame-less discussion off The Forge.

Mike, I don't want to respond in full here, but I just want to say that I honestly wrote the game thinking it would be fun, and I honestly posted it here to get feedback on it. My intent was not to provoke emotions or waste anyone's time on The Forge.

Piping in counter to Mike and Lon's position,

I've made cakes out of some really awful crap on the 'net, and vice versa as well, I'm sorry to say. It isn't about whether you are consenting to "play the game," it's about what you do with what you've got.
So, you've been the victim of a fake debate thread...and? What did you do with it? Did you learn anything? Did anyone else? Can you continue the conversation started by the game players? Sure, why not? What's stopping you?

Seems to me those vehemently opposed to this are placing an unnecessary amount of burden upon the individuals who start the thread, assigning them "leadership" roles, and assuming their continuing debate or actual involvement/investment in the debate matters.
But...why should it? If you are responding to it, the only person's involvement or investment you should care about or even pay attention to is your own.

Let's say the first post in this thread was a clever troll (hypothetical)...well, if it were revealed that the post were merely made to score points in a game and lure the unsuspecting (me) into responding to gain more points, would I be upset?

No. Not a bit.
I chose to respond.
And I got something out of the idea.
It made me think about the topic.
Is that a waste of my time? No, because I wanted to respond, I wanted to think about the idea, I wanted to. I can't blame someone else for wasting my own time if it isn't "really" what I thought it was...what is an internet discussion "really" anyways?
Does it have meaning to you? Yes? Then even if it is a game, it isn't a waste of time.

What is there to be upset about?
Wasting one's time? Whose time? Your own? Did you think about the subject? Did you get something out of it? Yes? Then how is it a waste of time?

Hey, you don't have control over 95% of the things which affect your life; the only thing you really have control of is your own attitude and choices...not the results of those choice
Nor are you reasonably informed about the results of your choices in the vast majority of situations. You can make good guesses, but everything, ultimately, is a gamble.

Actually, I find the idea of this game a fascinating study in social manipulation and human behavior. And, like it or not, as humans we are all about social manipulation...at our job, with out spouse, with our neighbors, at the gas station...but that is neither here nor there for this forum.

As to "Is it an RPG?"
Hrm...good question...right now I would have to say "No."
What "role" (ie: fictional persona) are you playing in what setting?

One could make a case that you are playing a fictional debater in a fictional debate, but that's pretty thin, I think.
No, I don't think it is an RPG...that's IMO.
That said, what do other folks think about the status of it as an RPG, or could it be made into an RPG in some fashion?

Hi there,

I should like to ask everyone concerned with this issue to take it to private email using the address deidzoeb provided. Please do not respond further to this thread.

Deid-man, I hear you, and there are no hard feelings. I think it's pretty clear to me that this topic needs discussion, but your suggestion seems like the best way to handle it. When and if the game gets knocked together, feel free to post it in the Resource Library.

Best,
Ron