On 2009-04-14, Valamir wrote:
"The momentary reaction to play where one player is given responsibility to judge the outcome is "oh, man, didn't get the outcome I wanted, need to try harder next time." The long-term reaction is to develop a sense for what the other participants will reward and what they won't and play to that."
Sure, and my point is that that short term reaction is a very different thing from "oh, man, I can't believe Ben actually thinks its possible to drive a tank through a house like that...he's totally wrong" and that long term reaction is a very different thing from me losing faith in the reliability of Ben's judgment when it comes to the capabilities of tanks.
I'm not sure why you're getting hung up on the "same thing" comment. Again, the sameness is how both of the alternatives avoid the above. To use your analogy, they both get you where you're going without you having to walk. But if that just sticks funny for you, ok...skip it. As long as we're on the same page about how they avoid the problems of having someone judge to a standard.
I have read Bliss Stage, but that was the Ignition Stage version, not sure what draft that corresponds to and that was when it first came out, so you'll have to let me know what the judgment criteria are. I suspect that they are not of a nature that would invalidate my key point—that its not the sort of judgment where someone could reasonably argue you are "wrong" by some definition of what you're supposed to do (the way it is possible to call your judgement of what was the "most dominant" "wrong" in draft 1).
As far as Apples to Apples...geez, that would have been like 3 years ago, yeah?...like BWHQ before Dreamation...2006,7? Yeah, I totally don't care for Apples to Apples, but I don't see how that relates to the issue at hand. Everybody is passing judgment, but its not judgment against a measurable standard. The players are trying to judge what Item the Referee will find most appealing, and the referee is trying to judge which item relates to the description in a way that tickles his fancy the best, right? I don't recall the referee being expected to judge based on some external criteria that could be judged "wrong".
So, essentially, the effectiveness of the Apples to Apples game...is right where I said it is...nobody says "your wrong" because there's no way for anyone to be wrong. In other words its more like your draft 8 rule than your draft 1 rule...which means, it should work without people "argueing" over definitions. This is distinctly different from the judgment being passed by Player 3 in the OP. Player 3 is expected to pass judgment based on the standard of "internal consistancy"...a judgment which most certainly can be debated as being "wrong".
So...not sure why you brought it up, since it sort of exactly proves the point I'm making about the difference between those two forms of passing judgment...unless I'm terribly missremembering Apples to Apples