[Icehouse] Choosing Games wiki page--The First Elitism for Looney Games?

[Brian Campbell]

On Apr 13, 2007, at 11:19 AM, David Artman wrote:

> * Given: Publishing a pyramid game has so far been controlled through
> Looney Labs' ability and willingness to print.
> * Given: The vast majority of Icehouse games have been created after
> Hypothermia went out of print.

An issue of Hypothermia was published just last year with several new  
games.

> * Given: I haven't heard of or seen an Icehouse Game Design contest
> since I've been an owner of pyramids.

The Icehouse game design contest has gone dormant, since it was  
passed on to a new organizer who disappeared for a while. I think  
that the solution to this, however, is to start it back up again,  
perhaps in a slightly different format. I think it's great to  
recognize the best of Icehouse games.

> * Given: Many Icehouse games can't translate to a computer format--and
> I'd argue many more SHOULDN'T (whatever happened to getting together
> with friends?).

I'm all for playing games in person, and love to do so when I get the  
chance. That said, it can sometimes be hard to find opponents,  
especially living in rural Vermont, and being able to go online and  
always find a game available can really increase the amount I can  
play a given game. Playing games online can also mean an increase in  
the number of in person opponents available, because people can learn  
the game online and later play in person.

> Given the above, I posit that a game will NEVER qualify for Choosing
> Games again, unless some kind of democratic upsurge of proponents  
> Admin
> Requests it enough (and an admin pays any attention to those tags). In
> effect, the Choosing Games is a "Past Masters" list and nothing more;
> it's fossilization flies in the face of wiki principles; and it's the
> FIRST scent of elitism I've EVER smelled around a Looney product. Yes,
> elitism.

Is it elitism to want to expose new players to the best that Icehouse  
gaming has to offer? I certainly do not want this to become a static  
list, but instead want it to offer the best possible experience for  
new players, or existing players who want to try out something new.  
Having judged for some of the previous Icehouse Game Design  
Competition, and just read through some other games, I can say that  
there are a lot of badly designed, badly written, or broken Icehouse  
games out there. Some people put games up without having even  
playtested them once themselves. Do you want someone to hear about  
how great Icehouse games are, go to a list of all games, pick one at  
random, and then be disappointed by a sub-par game?

> I've nothing against a "Suggested Games" page on the wiki--perhaps  
> even
> something with digg-like elements or kudoes or any one of the  
> bajillion
> web devices for ranking page content. But a title like "Choosing  
> Games"
> should be about CHOICE, not "gatekeeping" or "qualifying" or  
> "popular".

Sure, then we should have a discussion about the name of this page,  
and how we can structure the wiki to cater to the needs of different  
people. Given the tone of your email, I'm a little confused about  
your objections, though. Are you objecting to keeping a list of good  
games for new players to try, that includes the best and most popular  
games categorized nicely? Or are you objecting to having that list be  
called "Choosing Games"? I'm not attached to the name at all; I had  
just gotten so many requests from people who wanted to try out  
Icehouse games but didn't know where to start that I created that  
page to address the need.

> I have to be published to qualify? Fine; I'll start PODing all my  
> games;
> and only put cross-links on the wiki, to my Buy It Now site; and then
> they ALL will get on that page, right? So long as I am charging for  
> the
> game, it can "qualify" as a Choosing Games game? *blech*

This is not meant to be a hard and fast system, and "gaming" the  
system is explicitly against the spirit of the whole thing. As I  
mentioned on the wiki talk page, this is a *proposed* set of  
*guidelines*. Each of those criteria were to be considered as  
something that would make it fairly likely a game should go on there,  
but I included a whole paragraph about how other games could be  
added, just that appropriate judgement should be used.

> I started this who thing by suggesting we vamp up the Categories...  
> then
> that we go all-in with an actual custom database that tells a user  
> EVERY
> game he or she could play with a given collection. But I wish I'd kept
> my mouth shut, if the whole discussion is going to come full circle
> with "resolutions" like:
> * We can't make more meaningful Categories; just let users flail about
> with vague ones. (FYI, I have discovered that, yes, I can make new
> Categories trivially--I did so for Roleplaying Games--so it's only a
> matter of combing through obsolete Categories, to relocate games to  
> new
> Categories.)

Who said that we can't make categories useful? I think we've got a  
good start, but there's a lot more work to be done to make them as  
useful as possible. I've started categorizing the categories  
themselves (putting all of the 1-player, 2-player, etc categories  
into the category "Number of players"). I think that if we manage to  
categorize all of the games appropriately, and categorize the  
categories, we'll have a good start, though it's not quite the ideal  
interface for navigating to the games (too many levels of pages that  
you have to go to to find the games you're looking for; it would be  
nice if they could all be listed on one page).

> * Database integration into a wiki is "impossible" or "too hard" (even
> though a wiki IS a database).

I don't think this is impossible, but it may very well be "too hard"  
for a volunteer effort as small as ours. The problem with any custom  
modifications like this is that they need to be maintained and  
upgraded along with the wiki, and things like this tend to get a big  
burst of energy at the beginning, and then people get busy and aren't  
able to actually maintain it, which may cause the wiki to break  
completely when it's updated.

> * A game must somehow "qualify" for inclusion on the ONE page that
> half-assedly accomplishes database-like sorting.

I have explicitly said, repeatedly, that I would like for there to be  
two such pages; one that's a good introduction to Icehouse for a new  
player, and lists only high-quality games with relatively large  
player bases, and one that lists all Icehouse games ever. The one I  
care most about at the moment is the one for new players, but I have  
no problem with someone creating the other page, or trying to get the  
category system to accomplish it.

> I want the wiki to be a powerful, usable tool for new players; I  
> want it
> to put all these cool games in folks' faces, so that they go out and
> complete their collections; I think the democracy of a wiki makes  
> folks
> feel like Looney Labs is an open and liberal company in which they can
> directly participate (even though, yes, the wiki is technically
> unaffiliated).
>
> But I am only one voice. Who else feels as I do, and how many of us
> "qualify" as a majority vote? See, I think, when you're trying to push
> exclusion with regards to ANYTHING regarding Looney Labs... well, I
> think *one* NAY vote IS a majority veto.

This isn't something that's up to a majority vote, or anything of the  
sort. It's a wiki; the point is that anyone can edit any page. I'm  
offering my suggestions for making it as useful as possible. I  
created the page to begin with, so I wanted to explain why I created  
it, and what purpose I thought it should serve. Generally, we try to  
achieve consensus via discussion, so people won't feel like they  
don't have a say, but in the end, all that matters is what people  
actually do on the wiki. So feel free to discuss my proposal; offer a  
counter proposal, suggest a renaming for the existing page and set up  
an alternate page that includes everything you want.

I think the best thing to do at this point is for you to create the  
page that you want, and start a discussion about the naming of the  
two pages (as I said, I'm not attached to calling the introductory  
page to the best games "Choosing Games"), as well as which links  
should be included on the front page and sidebar. Also, I'm going to  
start doing some work on making the categorizations more useful, and  
would encourage you to do so as well.