This is probably my most thoughtful post in this thread. Please read if you are interested in my elaboration of my blog posts.
Octavious wrote:Yes, the sources of luck in diplomacy are often linked to the human experience because Diplomacy is all about the human experience.
Socratic questions:
1. The Definition of Luck
1A. Would you agree that the board game “Snakes and Ladders” (please look up this game if you are unfamiliar; it is extremely simple) is a game of
pure luck? If so, why do you agree?
1B: If “Snakes and Ladders” were modified to that the players had any choices to make at all, would you agree that the role of luck in that game would be reduced? (Relative to the traditional rules)
1C: If Diplomacy were modified to require players to fully randomize their moves (that is to say, the players now make no choices at all and simply do what the randomizer tells them without exception, like "Snakes and Ladders"), would you agree that the role of luck in Diplomacy would be increased? (Relative to standard rules)
1D: I anticipate that you will agree with my 1C proposition that changing Diplomacy’s rules to resemble "Snakes and Ladders" would
increase the role of luck. (Indeed, I have been unable to fathom any other honest, reasonable, good-faith answer.) I will proceed assuming that this is so, and sorry for wasting time if I have assumed incorrectly.
Imagine a version of Diplomacy similar to the "Snakes and Ladders" variant I describe, except that one player, and
only one player, gets to modify the randomizer applied to their own moves by 10 percentage points each turn. That is to say, if there are 5 possible moves for a player, that players' randomizer would choose between each of them 20% of the time. But one player, and one alone, can alter one of the choices to 30% (at the expense of another move or combination of moves that are reduced by 10% total).
All other powers' moves are decided at random with no agency or choice from them whatsoever. The players are still able to communicate with each other as usual (I am aware that the role of the 6 players who can't decide their moves would almost certainly be making appeals to the 1 player who can; this agency is minimal, but bald appeals and "advice" play a part in press Diplomacy).
Would you agree that
this variant has
more luck than standard Diplomacy, but
less luck than the hypothetical 1C "Snakes and Ladders" variant?
1E. If you agree with my proposition in 1D, would you further agree that the proposition holds true for
all players (that is, the game itself), and not just for the one player with a decision-making power?
If you say that the role of luck for the 6 non-deciding players is
identical in both the 1C (pure random) and 1D (one decider with limited influence) versions of Diplomacy (that is to say,
100% luck in both versions), please explain why. Please be aware that if you say that both versions are 100% luck, I will pounce on this position (e.g., I will point out that the logical implication of your position is that a contest with judges or voters choosing the best art/performance/etc. is
100% luck, which is a nonsensical conclusion).
1F. I'm pretty confident that, in addition to agreeing with me on 1C, you will agree with me on 1D and 1E. (Again, if I'm wrong, sorry for wasting time.)
I understand that you argued to me that Diplomacy’s resemblance to (or entanglement with) the general human experience is the
source of the game’s luck.
If I believe your statement that luck comes from the human element of Diplomacy:
How can it be that completely
removing the agency of the players (thus making the game an
inhuman, mechanical exercise in simply following instructions)
increase the role luck? (1C)
How can it be that increasing the agency of a player
reduces the role of luck? (1D)
----------------------------------
I anticipate that you will try to resolve this contradiction by saying that you (or you and I) are using luck in two senses of the word.
Based on my understanding of your previous posts, I think you want to say something like “within the rules of a game, luck is that which a human cannot
control."
I want to say something like “within the rules of a game, luck is that which a human cannot
influence."
(You are going to have to give me some leeway here, because I did not find your provision of a formal definition of luck anywhere; I'm very sorry if I overlooked it.)
Please bear this in mind: I did not
define luck anywhere in my questioning; I have asked you to supply your own answers using whatever definition of luck you prefer to use.
Something I want to illustrate with my line of questioning is that you,
Octavious, cannot intelligibly communicate about the role of luck without employing
my definition of luck at least some of the time. I am hoping that my questions (which are not rhetorical questions, but rather Socratic questions) will demonstrate to you that your personal understanding of "luck" is unhelpful, misleading, and/or confusing if you use it to answer my questions in good faith.
If your definition of luck is "within the rules of a game, that which a human cannot
control" (or something like that), you will find yourself unable to consistently use that definition (or at least, not without substantial interference with your ability to communicate).
The
ultimate point of my questions is to illustrate (to you) your (necessary) habit of switching between the two definitions of the word without clarifying which you are using, and probably without even consciously appreciating what you are doing. In my view, this equivocation between the two senses of the word (your understanding of luck, and the one I employ) allows you, and many other players, to situationally and arbitrarily
choose between the two definitions in order to rationalize your pre-ordained conclusion.
I believe that the word itself,
"luck," is a loaded word, that is to say, equal parts emotional and semantic content. That is why everyone comes into this conversation with a strong urge to declare what is or isn't "luck" (myself included, of course).
Thus, in my view, what you choose to describe as "luck" comes from factors subjective to you as an individual (as opposed to, say, from your application of a formal definition). That is why, in my second essay, I say that we are not so much talking about what "is" Diplomacy but how we
feel about Diplomacy.
Hence this syllogism: Within the rules of a game, luck is that which you cannot influence. Can you influence
everything in Diplomacy? No, you can't influence which power you are assigned. But you can influence everything (or damn near everything) else. Therefore, Diplomacy has no luck.
In other words, I believe that because you can
theoretically influence everything and anything in Diplomacy, the game has no luck and should be reacted to (emotionally!) in such terms. I don't care if individuals, in practice,
fail to influence things that they might have influenced.
There are probably additional definitions of luck floating around here, maybe a total of three or four. I think that the multiplicity of these definitions allows a sloppy thinker to decide that things "are" or "are not" luck
first, and then come up with a definition of luck that supports their desired conclusion -- even when this leads to inconsistent statements or even
inconsistent beliefs.
Let me reveal that, sitting here today, I don't value (or am even repulsed by?) the idea that because it is
hypothetically possible for something to occur outside your influence (e.g., a hypothetical player who insists on using a randomizer and is simply
assumed [big red flag for me] to be beyond any possibility of persuasion), we have to reach a general conclusion that the game "involves" luck or that "luck plays some role."
I cannot prove what I believe is going on with this, but I'll lay it out for you anyways:
This has the smell of rationalization all over it. Right now, I think that the people taking this position have not dealt with or observed this "phenomenon" even once. I think this hypothetical situation was manufactured in their imaginations in order to "prove" the pre-existing belief that Diplomacy involves luck.
Thank you for reading, if you made it this far.
-------------------------------------
Questions 2 through 4 are not Socratic questions, but genuine questions:
2. The Avalon Hill quote: "Luck Plays No Part in Diplomacy"
2A. Do you believe the Avalon Hill statement communicates anything, and if so what does the statement communicate? Regardless of what is literally stated, what do you think Avalon Hill intended to communicate? Why do you think they would put such a statement on the box?
2B. Is the Avalon Hill statement a
true statement? Yes, no, unanswerable, etc. — and why?
2C. Are you willing to list, or concede that you cannot list, examples of games that you would personally describe as games where luck plays no part?
3. Do you believe that you have any unconscious motives? Do you think that another person, under any circumstances, could understand something about you better than you understand it yourself?
4. Do you agree with me that there is such a thing as “loaded words” i.e. words charged with emotional or other implications that go beyond their literal definition? (Example: prejudiced slurs that correspond to a group of people with perfect
clarity, but imply hatred, bigotry, or antagonism on the part of the user)