Abstract
Motivation
This game is set up for the sole purpose of providing some sort of numerical quantification to the potency of an internet troll.
Problem Statement
It is rather hard to gauge the potency of any one certain internet troll due to the fact that their actions and the reaction caused by that action vary in many subjective ways.
Approach
In order to go about quantifying the potency of a troll, we have used the like/dislike functions(or the site equivalents), the very functions that has been originally used to encourage constructive behaviour(ie. opposite of trolling).
This turned to provide us with very simple but effective and fair way of quantifying an internet troll
Results
Our experience shows that one is able to quantify a troll with certain common variables. Our results also show that the experience is of an entertaining nature and the entertainment value increases with more and more participants of the game. (The entertainment value of the unwitting participants of the game is of no importance)
Conclusion
Not only positive actions merit rewarding. Rewarding of negative actions can be turned in to a game with quantifiable scores and that such game can be as entertaining as a positive action game.
------------------------------
Additional reading
On the surface, Downer: The Gathering might seem like a joke of a game. A simple tally system for trolling. A light meaningless activity that was created meaninglessly and carelessly.
In fact, this game was created as a complete antithesis to some of the ideas or “rules” that were taught in regards to radical games creation.
A radical game DOES NOT have to address nor fix a problem
Why does it need to fix a problem? The world is full of problems. Do all those problems need a game? Vice versa, do all games or radical games solve a problem? Does a game hold no merit if it does not solve an existing problem?
A radical game DOES NOT have to be beneficial to society
The players are the ones playing the game. The society as a whole is not playing the game. When playing a game, a magic circle is created. Outside of that magic circle, nothing exists in the context of the game. Then why is it that the society affects the validity of the game?
A radical game DOES NOT have to be ethical
Like the concept of beauty, ethics are purely in the eyes of the beholder, in this case, the player. If a game is not ethical according to the views of a potential player, the player does not want to play it. If the player is forced to play it, the person is no longer playing and the game is no longer a game. So therefore, why does a game need to follow the approximate boundaries of the ethics set by the norm of society? This is especially the case when the norm does not even play the game.
A radical game DOES NOT have to be constructive nor contribute to knowledge
Must every action, whether in a game or in real life, be positive? And if so, why? Excluding the sake of being good, is there any reason? If not, another question would be, does something need a reason to exist?
In essence, a radical game is allowed to be “evil” for the sake of “evil”
Now. The stuff in the abstract? The problem and the conclusion? Those stuff doesn’t even make sense. Those are just bunch of fluff. The REAL problem we had was we had to create a game that followed ethics and rules and all of these boundaries and requirements to society. Our “approach” was, as mentioned, was to ignore those and act at will.
------------------------------
Even MORE reading
Reading the above, you might simply consider this as anarchy but with numbers. This is no longer a game nor is it really anything.
What it really is, although entire unintentional, is an indication of activities that might mirror the real society.
As mentioned, how are ethics created? They are set by the approximate values set by the norm of the society. Norm of the society will agree that murdering of a child is a bad thing. Thus, it is not ethical to kill a child. When enough of the society agrees on one thing, it becomes a law or a rule of society. These laws usually amounts to illegalising something that oversteps the tolerance level of the society as a whole. This exist so that society can exist in relative peace. Infanticide is a crime and you will go to jail for that. Incarceration serves two purposes, it gives the criminal a chance to “rehabilitate” but more importantly, it removes the individual from society and in some country, that removal can be permanent.
However, this does not mean all unethical behaviour will lead to removal of the one committing the act from society. For example, killing a civilian in a shooting game is frowned upon, as shown by the controversy of Modern Warfare 2 No Russian level. Shooting of innocent unarmed civilian is clearly unethical but it is not illegal. It is perfectly acceptable to mow down a crowd of innocent people if they are virtual. The person committing this act is allowed to exist because the society accepts it as being within their tolerance. It may not please everyone but it is within a certain tolerance level.
This comic precisely explains what I mean.
http://www.giantitp.com/
Just like society, trolling as a game makes the player to explore and feel the tolerance limits of the internet norm. You can be as obnoxious as you want, just like in real life. But there is a distinction between “obnoxious” and “incarcerated”/”executed”, just like how there is a distinction between “troll” and “banned”
Now, the internet norm also consists of the same or similar people as the norm of the real world society. This way, one is able to estimate the ethical norm of the real life society by playing through this game.
Motivation
This game is set up for the sole purpose of providing some sort of numerical quantification to the potency of an internet troll.
Problem Statement
It is rather hard to gauge the potency of any one certain internet troll due to the fact that their actions and the reaction caused by that action vary in many subjective ways.
Approach
In order to go about quantifying the potency of a troll, we have used the like/dislike functions(or the site equivalents), the very functions that has been originally used to encourage constructive behaviour(ie. opposite of trolling).
This turned to provide us with very simple but effective and fair way of quantifying an internet troll
Results
Our experience shows that one is able to quantify a troll with certain common variables. Our results also show that the experience is of an entertaining nature and the entertainment value increases with more and more participants of the game. (The entertainment value of the unwitting participants of the game is of no importance)
Conclusion
Not only positive actions merit rewarding. Rewarding of negative actions can be turned in to a game with quantifiable scores and that such game can be as entertaining as a positive action game.
------------------------------
Additional reading
On the surface, Downer: The Gathering might seem like a joke of a game. A simple tally system for trolling. A light meaningless activity that was created meaninglessly and carelessly.
In fact, this game was created as a complete antithesis to some of the ideas or “rules” that were taught in regards to radical games creation.
A radical game DOES NOT have to address nor fix a problem
Why does it need to fix a problem? The world is full of problems. Do all those problems need a game? Vice versa, do all games or radical games solve a problem? Does a game hold no merit if it does not solve an existing problem?
A radical game DOES NOT have to be beneficial to society
The players are the ones playing the game. The society as a whole is not playing the game. When playing a game, a magic circle is created. Outside of that magic circle, nothing exists in the context of the game. Then why is it that the society affects the validity of the game?
A radical game DOES NOT have to be ethical
Like the concept of beauty, ethics are purely in the eyes of the beholder, in this case, the player. If a game is not ethical according to the views of a potential player, the player does not want to play it. If the player is forced to play it, the person is no longer playing and the game is no longer a game. So therefore, why does a game need to follow the approximate boundaries of the ethics set by the norm of society? This is especially the case when the norm does not even play the game.
A radical game DOES NOT have to be constructive nor contribute to knowledge
Must every action, whether in a game or in real life, be positive? And if so, why? Excluding the sake of being good, is there any reason? If not, another question would be, does something need a reason to exist?
In essence, a radical game is allowed to be “evil” for the sake of “evil”
Now. The stuff in the abstract? The problem and the conclusion? Those stuff doesn’t even make sense. Those are just bunch of fluff. The REAL problem we had was we had to create a game that followed ethics and rules and all of these boundaries and requirements to society. Our “approach” was, as mentioned, was to ignore those and act at will.
------------------------------
Even MORE reading
Reading the above, you might simply consider this as anarchy but with numbers. This is no longer a game nor is it really anything.
What it really is, although entire unintentional, is an indication of activities that might mirror the real society.
As mentioned, how are ethics created? They are set by the approximate values set by the norm of the society. Norm of the society will agree that murdering of a child is a bad thing. Thus, it is not ethical to kill a child. When enough of the society agrees on one thing, it becomes a law or a rule of society. These laws usually amounts to illegalising something that oversteps the tolerance level of the society as a whole. This exist so that society can exist in relative peace. Infanticide is a crime and you will go to jail for that. Incarceration serves two purposes, it gives the criminal a chance to “rehabilitate” but more importantly, it removes the individual from society and in some country, that removal can be permanent.
However, this does not mean all unethical behaviour will lead to removal of the one committing the act from society. For example, killing a civilian in a shooting game is frowned upon, as shown by the controversy of Modern Warfare 2 No Russian level. Shooting of innocent unarmed civilian is clearly unethical but it is not illegal. It is perfectly acceptable to mow down a crowd of innocent people if they are virtual. The person committing this act is allowed to exist because the society accepts it as being within their tolerance. It may not please everyone but it is within a certain tolerance level.
This comic precisely explains what I mean.
http://www.giantitp.com/
Just like society, trolling as a game makes the player to explore and feel the tolerance limits of the internet norm. You can be as obnoxious as you want, just like in real life. But there is a distinction between “obnoxious” and “incarcerated”/”executed”, just like how there is a distinction between “troll” and “banned”
Now, the internet norm also consists of the same or similar people as the norm of the real world society. This way, one is able to estimate the ethical norm of the real life society by playing through this game.
