Narrative Linear No Longer (You are overdue for your dose of Meta-Comp Spam...)

0 views
Skip to first unread message

Conrad

unread,
Mar 19, 2009, 12:33:02 PM3/19/09
to

Hello, all,

This is a quick note to encourage all to visit the quasi-upgraded Meta-
Comp site (many of you will be surprised to see all the places Meta-
Comp has been, and the vast cultural influence it has had), and to
urge you to donate!

http://metacomp.conradcook.net/

It's still a mystery who will have games in Meta-Comp, and what kinds
of games they will be, but Meta-Comp is (so far as I know), the *only*
IF competition in which:

* There are *no rules*: IF authors can submit any kind of game
whatsoever.[*]
* IF authors get to define the standards by which their own game is
judged.

Meta-Comp starts off with a $100 prize pool, and the donations are
coming in, so we hope to attract some good games.

A lot of people have already given a great deal to the IF community,
and that's great -- I encourage everyone who benefits from the many
nifty games out there to give back to the community in whatever way
suits them best.

A small $10 donation to Meta-Comp can be a big incentive and reward to
the game designers who have done so much for the rest of us.

(All donations that come to me go directly into the Meta-Comp prize
pool: I keep none of it, none of it goes to the web site; it all goes
to the IF authors.)


Conrad.


[*] FOOTNOTE: "...any kind of game whatsoever..." The moderator
equally has carte blanche to remove games. Only done if he considers
them potentially libelous, somehow illegal, or especially heinous.
Anarchy cuts both ways.

ikz...@gmail.com

unread,
Mar 29, 2009, 11:54:02 AM3/29/09
to
Let me get this straight, it's billed as having no rules, yet you can
have your entry eliminated at the sole discretion of a moderator for
breaking rules that generally exist in every other competition.

I can't say I'm inspired to enter into OR donate to something that's
got that kind of hypocrisy going on.

I'm not saying I abhor the rules common to most comps, but Meta-Comp
bills itself as having no rules when it's really no different from any
comp with rules. Like how freecreditreport,com (don't you love those
commercials?) isn't really free. So what you end up with is "Meta-
Comp: We don't specify a genre!"

Censorship is still censorship, even under anarchy. Call me when there
-are- really no rules, I guess? I can see you're probably just
covering your ass because there's money on the line, but if I wanna
put an innocent Smurf in my game like some guy who got disqualified
from a -normal- comp ( http://ifwiki.org/index.php/Adventure_XT ),
then this should be the place where it can happen with no red tape.

But I don't expect the rule to change, so this is just me explaining
my (and probably some others') point of view.

ou...@gmx.de

unread,
Mar 29, 2009, 3:52:33 PM3/29/09
to
On 29 Mrz., 17:54, ikz...@gmail.com wrote:
> I can't say I'm inspired to enter into OR donate to something that's
> got that kind of hypocrisy going on.

And I'm pretty sure it was also endorsed by the Stalinist ifWiki. Ha!

Conrad

unread,
Mar 31, 2009, 9:51:20 PM3/31/09
to

ikz...@gmail.com wrote:
> Let me get this straight, it's billed as having no rules, yet you can
> have your entry eliminated at the sole discretion of a moderator for
> breaking rules that generally exist in every other competition.
>
> I can't say I'm inspired to enter into OR donate to something that's
> got that kind of hypocrisy going on.

Good! Don't.


> I'm not saying I abhor the rules common to most comps, but Meta-Comp
> bills itself as having no rules when it's really no different from any
> comp with rules.

No rules cuts both ways, bucko. Deal with it.

> Like how freecreditreport,com (don't you love those
> commercials?) isn't really free. So what you end up with is "Meta-
> Comp: We don't specify a genre!"

I can see how someone like you would have terrible difficulty living
in a society that permits things like freecreditreport.com and Meta-
Comp, and I wish the best for you.

> Censorship is still censorship, even under anarchy. Call me when there
> -are- really no rules, I guess? I can see you're probably just
> covering your ass because there's money on the line, but if I wanna
> put an innocent Smurf in my game like some guy who got disqualified
> from a -normal- comp ( http://ifwiki.org/index.php/Adventure_XT ),
> then this should be the place where it can happen with no red tape.
>
> But I don't expect the rule to change, so this is just me explaining
> my (and probably some others') point of view.

Frankly, I don't think you have a clue. Put together your own comp,
and quit with the whining.


Conrad.

ikz...@gmail.com

unread,
Apr 1, 2009, 7:50:33 AM4/1/09
to

I'm sorry that you're not a more mature person. I expected some kind
of debate. But I got something I'd expect from a kid.

Andrew Plotkin

unread,
Apr 1, 2009, 10:58:49 AM4/1/09
to
In rec.games.int-fiction, ikz...@gmail.com wrote:
>
> I'm sorry that you're not a more mature person. I expected some kind
> of debate.

You didn't start out sounding like you wanted a debate.

--Z

--
"And Aholibamah bare Jeush, and Jaalam, and Korah: these were the borogoves..."
*

ikz...@gmail.com

unread,
Apr 1, 2009, 2:27:08 PM4/1/09
to

I started out wanting only to throw my two cents in, but also
expecting that any reply that I -might- have stirred up would be
debatelike.

As in, based in logic. I'm just the dissenting opinion's voice. I
didn't mean to be offensive, and I gave a few key reasons why I
thought what I said was accurate. The response I got, however, was
akin to someone's reaction when you tell them their baby's ugly.

I -am- curious to see the logic behind the assumption that the anarchy
-must- cut both ways (bucko notwithstanding), but after the first
response I don't expect a debate anymore. When people are in love with
their ideas, they usually lose the ability to talk about them
constructively. Which is totally unnecessary anyway (considering the
comp's in progress already, and the fact that in a free world ideas
need not be defended simply because they exist), but assaulting the
devil's advocate and avoiding the case in point is not where progress
springs from.

S. John Ross

unread,
Apr 1, 2009, 2:35:53 PM4/1/09
to

> then this should be the place where it can happen with no red tape.

For someone preaching about freedom, you're awfully quick to pronounce
what someone else's comp "should" be.


Adam Thornton

unread,
Apr 1, 2009, 5:11:30 PM4/1/09
to
In article <042ea3e8-7386-4dd1...@b7g2000pre.googlegroups.com>,

I propose the Freedom Comp!

There will, of course, be an entrance fee.

A Hefty Fuckin' Fee.

Adam

Jerome West

unread,
Apr 1, 2009, 5:15:54 PM4/1/09
to
Adam Thornton wrote:
> I propose the Freedom Comp!
>
> There will, of course, be an entrance fee.
>
> A Hefty Fuckin' Fee.

Eternal vigilance?

Adam Thornton

unread,
Apr 1, 2009, 5:33:07 PM4/1/09
to
In article <rPQAl.4051$Ci1....@newsfe26.ams2>,

That too.

Also, a buck or five. Or possibly a buck-oh-five.

Adam

Stuart Allen

unread,
Apr 1, 2009, 5:43:15 PM4/1/09
to
On Apr 2, 8:33 am, a...@fileserver.fsf.net (Adam Thornton) wrote:

> Also, a buck or five.  Or possibly a buck-oh-five.

Not to mention folks like you and me. What would you do if you were
asked to give up your dreams for an IF comp?

Stuart

Adam Thornton

unread,
Apr 1, 2009, 5:45:48 PM4/1/09
to
In article <58985610-bbbb-4f94...@z8g2000prd.googlegroups.com>,

I'd be so ronery.

Adam


ikz...@gmail.com

unread,
Apr 1, 2009, 9:27:09 PM4/1/09
to

No. I said I didn't expect the rules to change.

What I was questioning was, if the lack of rules was the selling
point, why can I not put an innocent Smurf in my game like that crappy
IFComp entry? That's copyrighted, and something a moderator can remove
a game for under normal rules -and- Meta-Comp rules, but it's not
really what I call dangerous to the point where the -one- comp billed
as having no rules should be worried about it.

Which brings me to the real issue: (*)If someone has a groundbreaking
game that no comp will accept because it contains critical components
that violate normal rules (A Smurf is not an example of this status,
obviously), I thought Meta-Comp was the gift that allowed them to win
a prize and be critically recognized for the game that's not allowed
anywhere else.

If that's true, a Smurf should be irrelevant. It's technically
illegal, but irrelevant to the spirit of the rules. No one's going to
sue an IF author over a Smurf.

Anyway, what it boils down to is that the envelope isn't ever gonna
get pushed if there are vague threats on what is and isn't allowable.
Is someone going to give up cash if their game -might- be
disqualified? Not unless they have cash to burn. They'll probably
sacrifice their vision first, or just release the game outside any
comp (see * again for why this is at odds with the mission statement).
So the "anything that's especially heinous" rule might drive someone
away from a game like Super Columbine Massacre RPG (whose merit is
unknown to me, as I've never played it), where other competitors cared
so much about its disqualification that -they- withdrew from
Slamdance.

In fact, I wholeheartedly suggest that someone put a Smurf in their
game and see where the boundaries really are.

<.<
>.>
Freedom is the only way!

Conrad

unread,
Apr 1, 2009, 10:16:23 PM4/1/09
to
On Apr 1, 2:27 pm, ikz...@gmail.com wrote:

> On Apr 1, 10:58 am, Andrew Plotkin <erkyr...@eblong.com> wrote:
>
> > In rec.games.int-fiction, ikz...@gmail.com wrote:
>
> > > I'm sorry that you're not a more mature person. I expected some kind
> > > of debate.
>
> > You didn't start out sounding like you wanted a debate.
>

> I started out wanting only to throw my two cents in, but also
> expecting that any reply that I -might- have stirred up would be
> debatelike.
>
> As in, based in logic. I'm just the dissenting opinion's voice. I
> didn't mean to be offensive, and I gave a few key reasons why I
> thought what I said was accurate.

There is no dissenting opinion. There is no majority opinion. I did
not put this up for a vote. The organization of Meta-Comp '09 is not
open for discussion.

I repeat: if you find Meta-Comp offends your delicate sensibilities,
do not contribute, and put together your own comp.


> The response I got, however, was
> akin to someone's reaction when you tell them their baby's ugly.

The way I see it, the top-voted game designers are going to walk away
with $100 of my money, plus the total contribution of those who choose
to support it as it is: and these same game designers walk away with
nothing from you. You won't contribute to the prize pool; you won't
contribute a game; and you won't contribute any work on the web site.
That makes me justified in telling you to sharply insert your
criticisms of Meta-Comp into your ear.

> I -am- curious to see the logic behind the assumption that the anarchy
> -must- cut both ways (bucko notwithstanding), but after the first
> response I don't expect a debate anymore. When people are in love with
> their ideas, they usually lose the ability to talk about them
> constructively. Which is totally unnecessary anyway (considering the
> comp's in progress already, and the fact that in a free world ideas
> need not be defended simply because they exist), but assaulting the
> devil's advocate and avoiding the case in point is not where progress
> springs from.

Ahh, so now it's *progress* you're worried about. Progress on other
peoples' dime.

I'll tell you something: I put a certain amount of thought into how
to run this comp. And when I announced that it would be run a certain
way, that was it. I was careful at that time not to say anything
misleading, or that I would have to go back on, and I intend to stand
by what I've written.

You don't like it? Fine -- organize Smurf Comp, and run it by
Robert's Rules of Order. But in Meta-Comp, you get no vote.


Conrad.

peter...@hotmail.com

unread,
Apr 2, 2009, 4:55:59 AM4/2/09
to
Wouldn't it be easier to enter the damn comp with a game with a smurf
in it (since that appears to be at the heart of this thing), see if it
even gets deleted, *then* bitch and moan about it?

S. John Ross

unread,
Apr 2, 2009, 2:02:57 PM4/2/09
to

> > For someone preaching about freedom, you're awfully quick to pronounce
> > what someone else's comp "should" be.
>
> No.

Yes. I quoted you doing so.

> [...] why can I not put an innocent Smurf in my game like that crappy
> IFComp entry? That's copyrighted [...]

Simply "putting a Smurf in a game" would be a violation of trademark,
not copyright.

> I thought Meta-Comp was the gift that allowed [...]

This was clearly your error, no one's fault but yours.

> In fact, I wholeheartedly suggest that someone put a Smurf in their
> game and see where the boundaries really are.

"Someone" that isn't you, again.

Here's a notion: put up, or shut up. Make the comp you want to see.
Make the game you want to see. Because just bitching and moaning and
stewing in your own sense of self-righteous entitlement isn't getting
you anywhere close to this Utopia of Free Hypocrites you seem to be
getting wood over.

Conrad

unread,
Apr 2, 2009, 5:07:57 PM4/2/09
to

I'll add, for the benefit of any who are honestly worried that their
game might be jettisoned, that I'm not looking for reasons to eject
games. It's not my idea of a good time.

During college, I worked in a photo lab, and I was thinking of the
policy about child porn. This was an issue *very* rarely, but I
thought I should have some kind of provision to deal with the
possibility of a game being outright illegal. The "no rules works
both ways" bit seemed a good way to address that: complete freedom,
complete responsibility.

We've made too much of this; let's move on.


Conrad.

ikz...@gmail.com

unread,
Apr 2, 2009, 8:21:58 PM4/2/09
to

Agreed, let's move on.

I mean, I could pick at small semantic flaws all day (S.), but if we
can trust the moderator's judgment the rule vagueness become a
nonissue.

Conrad

unread,
Apr 6, 2009, 7:58:20 PM4/6/09
to

Meta-Comp's status:

Early registration begins May 1 -- the start of next month. The
benefit of early registration is that it costs less, and you get an
account on the ultra-secret Meta-Comp contributors' site. (Last year,
many of the best IF Comp entries came out of Jim's workshop.)

We are open for donations *now* -- if you want to contribute to the IF
community, donating to the prize pool in a competition is a great way
to do it. I believe it's not the money IF writers are interested in,
so much as the glory -- so, that $10 sitting in your pocket, which you
worked so hard for, you can magically turn into $10 worth of pure IF
glory, by donating.

http://metacomp.conradcook.net


Conrad.

Reply all
Reply to author
Forward
0 new messages