Talk:Ambition (card game)/Archive 2

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

< Talk:Ambition (card game)

This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

< >

1 Posts since March 31, 2004 (early group)
2 Summary of prior controversy
3 Posts since March 31, 2004 (later group)
4 An Alternate Summary of Continuing Controversy, & Critique of it
5 re: theories
6 edits

Posts since March 31, 2004 (early group)

Official Rules 1.0 were finished on March 18, and are available. 1.1, (with no rules changes, but some grammar fixes) is what I'll actually be making the efforts to distribute, and I should have that within a couple days. Mike Church 17:11, 2 Apr 2004 (UTC)

Where are the rules available? BTW, I posted a message on your user talk page, but you mustn't have seen it, so I'll repeat it here: Why don't you set up an Ambition page at http://www.student.carleton.edu/~churchm/ ? If I'm not mistaken, webspace is free for all students. Gus 21:09, 2004 Apr 3 (UTC)

Send me your email address, and I'll send you Official Rules. They don't yet have an internet presence; that is forthcoming. Mike Church 23:20, 3 Apr 2004 (UTC)

Summary of prior controversy

Since the time of this article's creation, the card game Ambition has seen considerable success in achieving recognition. While its entry into the gaming mainstream has been slowed by its creator's lack of corporate backing and the financial means that would allow the heavy promotion afforded other games, Ambition is (as of April 27, 2004):

Published in a respected Japanese puzzle magazine.
Listed on Aaron D. Fuegi's ranked list of games, and within the top 500. Admittedly, I was a contributor, and cast one of its votes.
A game which has accomplished worldwide respect, if not fame.

However, there has been previous and present debate over whether or not Ambition deserves any presence at all within Wikipedia. I still maintain that it does.

In the light of Ambition's accomplishments-- which I dare call impressive given its lack of corporate backing, in either a financial or promotional sense-- some have ventured to call this innovative new game "unimportant". An anonymous troll post even referred to me as an "infantile game inventor". I do not take these sorts of extraneous personal attacks lightly.

I confess, however, that in some cases I have transgressed, by crossing the line from appropriate use of Wikipedia into outright self-promotion. A recent example of this was my inclusion of a link here on Assassin (game) justified with the tenuous connection of both games being popular at Carleton. In that case, I had gotten way ahead of myself, and the link had no right to be there. I apologize for this episode of wrongdoing, as well as other similar episodes. Please accept that I did so out of good intentions, and had merely "gone too far", so to speak. Offending people is not the reason I wrote the card game Ambition, nor my reason for exposing it to public view. I expose my game to public view because, having developed a game of high quality, I feel an obligation to share it with others. I have no commercial or political motivations. Mike Church 06:36, 27 Apr 2004 (UTC)

Posts since March 31, 2004 (later group)

Mike, please don't remove the debate, such as it was, and then replace it with your own POV "summary". This page, in full context, is immediately relevent to those that visit the page and wonder what on Wikipedia it's doing here. You've already proven to be a little "creative" in your synoptic capacity. PilotPrecise 05:34, 30 April 2004 (UTC)

I haven't removed the debate. It's in a readily accessible archive page: /archive1

I don't feel I have the right to remove that debate, even if it may not present Ambition in the best light, since it is completely relevant to this page.

However, most Talk pages have some cosmetic work done to them (including placement of previous posts into archives) as they get out of hand. This is done not to suppress or delete information, but to organize it. You've seen how unruly and unmaintained some of these Talk pages are.

Certainly, I have the right to make such cosmetic improvements to the Talk page. I'm also allowed to write my own summarization of prior controversy (others are free to disagree with me). Suppressing or eliminating information is not my goal. I simply want this Talk page to be a readable, aesthetically pleasing website for its Users, rather than a disorganized mess.

Also, articles are subject to the NPOV rule, but Talk pages, as far as I know, are not. Mike Church 05:49, 30 Apr 2004 (UTC)

An Alternate Summary of Continuing Controversy, & Critique of it

[An unmangled copy of PilotPrecise's summary has added here by Jerzy (t) 09:15, 2004 Dec 20 (UTC).]

Mike Church created a game that no one plays.
He decided to use Wikipedia as his platform for promoting the game and himself and has stated that as his intent several times.
He has been unable to find a publisher for the game, because it's not very good and they recognize this - the printing of rules in Nikoli doesn't count as “publishing” in any professional sense which he acknowledges in his reference to "lack of corporate backing" just as one might refer to being homeless as a "lack of physical dwelling." Further, this publishing has not been substantiated (translators are standing by - provide us with the issue # and I'll gladly comment here)
It has no internet presence other than that which Mr. Church himself has been trying to create here on Wikipedia or Pagat or the internet top 100 list (in which he was the only person to vote for his own game - but now has probably learned to use aliases to falsely improve the score - NPOV not here, right?)
The main proponents/contributors to the effort are closely associated with Mr. Church (they tend to edit the same pages, have affinity for the same lexemes, use the same semantics, etc. read: he uses aliases to do his dirty work) and, in some cases, admitted confidants in the attempt to use wikipedia to evangelize the game.
He refuses to edit in good faith and continually pushes the semiotic bounds of the text on the matter so as to advertise
His own summary should clearly indicate that the intent is not to share information, but to create a false sense of establishment that neither he nor his game have earned
He continually creates WP pages with the sole intent of providing additional traffic here
Outside of his direct efforts, there is no proof anyone is playing this game

Please, anyone even remotely skilled in semiotics can take a look at his user page, it's all there:

"I was a brat, and I still am, in some sense of the word."
"Oh yeah, and I was (was?) also a huge attention-whore."
"Very few people are "discovered" nowadays for their talents."
"Not to brag, but I'm pretty damn solid at a lot of things."
"So, self-promotion should not be frowned upon when it is essential in this society. A creative individual who does not self-promote is likely never to "break in" to his or her target industry. So, yeah, damn right I self-promote, and if I can find clever and intricate ways of doing it, all the better. "

Or just read below and, yeah, I've got a little bit of time on my hands again. - PilotPrecise 19:33, 5 May 2004 (UTC)

Mike Church created a game that no one plays.

Wrong. You don't play it, no one you know (except your mom... wait, you didn't know about that) plays it. That doesn't mean no one plays it. That's the most gigantic leap of faith I've ever seen. Honestly, no one knows how large Ambition's play community is anymore. What I do know is that it's played in some colleges and high schools around the country, and that I receive semi-frequent emails asking me for information on the game. Furthermore, no one is hyperbolic at any rate, since I can name people I have played the game with. Mike Church 01:17, 6 May 2004 (UTC)

He decided to use Wikipedia as his platform for promoting the game and himself and has stated that as his intent several times.

I've admitted that, as a knowledgable person on this game, I have the responsibility to maintain the information on it. That doesn't mean that I'm using Wikipedia in any uncouth way. Every editor here has their own biases and their own agenda, even if that agenda is altruistic. I make no claims of being an exception, and it's unfair to expect me to be one. Mike Church 01:17, 6 May 2004 (UTC)

He has been unable to find a publisher for the game, because it's not very good

not very good? Either, you have played or tested it (and I wanna see test documents) or you are completely unqualified to make that claim. If you have played or tested it, your claim that no one plays this game is incorrect. Mike Church 01:17, 6 May 2004 (UTC)

and they recognize this - the printing of rules in Nikoli doesn't count as “publishing” in any professional sense which he acknowledges in his reference to "lack of corporate backing" just as one might refer to being homeless as a "lack of physical dwelling." Further, this publishing has not been substantiated (translators are standing by - provide us with the issue # and I'll gladly comment here)

Let's make a bet, then. If I can substantiate publication with an issue number, you cease forever to comment about Ambition here, or edit Ambition (card game), or otherwise make public comment about the game. If I can't, then I will be humiliated, and you will win. What do ya say? Mike Church 01:17, 6 May 2004 (UTC)

It has no internet presence other than that which Mr. Church himself has been trying to create here on Wikipedia or Pagat or the internet top 100 list (in which he was the only person to vote for his own game - but now has probably learned to use aliases to falsely improve the score - NPOV not here, right?)

Here's a homework assignment, troll:

Contact Aaron D. Fuegi and ask who the individuals who voted for Ambition are. If he does not supply for confidentiality reasons, I will ask them for permission to send their names directly to you. I will unveil who they are, and verify their identities.

Again, I offer the same bet. If I can prove this for you, I want your written agreement to refrain from posting here ever again. Mike Church 01:17, 6 May 2004 (UTC)

The main proponents/contributors to the effort are closely associated with Mr. Church (they tend to edit the same pages, have affinity for the same lexemes, use the same semantics, etc. read: he uses aliases to do his dirty work) and, in some cases, admitted confidants in the attempt to use wikipedia to evangelize the game.

No, I use a female relative of yours to do my dirty work. (bang!) Sorry. You just opened yourself up on that one.

I admitted (adminship debate, May 4) to using one alias, which I have not used for the purposes you have described. Mike Church 01:17, 6 May 2004 (UTC)

He refuses to edit in good faith and continually pushes the semiotic bounds of the text on the matter so as to advertise

That's an opinion, and most intelligent people would say it doesn't hold up. On occasion, I go too far or do something silly and stupid (linking from Assassin (game) and when this happens, rapid correction of the error ensues). On occasion. On top of that, it's no big deal. This is an encyclopedia that's developed the amazing ability to correct vandalism within 10 minutes, probably more than 96% of the time. That said, an occasional well-meaning mistake (certainly orders of magnitude less severe than vandalism) is not a capital offense. Mike Church 01:17, 6 May 2004 (UTC)

His own summary should clearly indicate that the intent is not to share information, but to create a false sense of establishment that neither he nor his game have earned

I say this with no ill intent, here's what: You're not happy with your own position in game design, and it shows. Instead of making your own situation better, you've decided to rip someone else down. Hot up-and-coming 20-year-old, invented a neat card game... Target! I'm Banquo and you're Macbeth on one of his worst days. Mike Church 01:17, 6 May 2004 (UTC)

He continually creates WP pages with the sole intent of providing additional traffic here

Sole intent? I'm amused that you consider yourself intelligent enough to know my motivations. Bravo. Maybe I enjoy writing, ever think of that one? Mike Church 01:17, 6 May 2004 (UTC)

Outside of his direct efforts, there is no proof anyone is playing this game

We've already addressed this. I've already offered you two wagers that, if taken, will allow me to prove that there are people playing Ambition. Mike Church 01:17, 6 May 2004 (UTC)

Please, anyone even remotely skilled in semiotics can take a look at his user page, it's all there:

"I was a brat, and I still am, in some sense of the word."
"Oh yeah, and I was (was?) also a huge attention-whore."
"Very few people are "discovered" nowadays for their talents."
"Not to brag, but I'm pretty damn solid at a lot of things."
"So, self-promotion should not be frowned upon when it is essential in this society. A creative individual who does not self-promote is likely never to "break in" to his or her target industry. So, yeah, damn right I self-promote, and if I can find clever and intricate ways of doing it, all the better. "

What?? So I can be incriminated for being honest about myself and having a potentially controversial depiction of American society? Come on! This is ludicrous.

What I said in that bit, on my User Page, is that American corporate society is one where creative talents, and creative people, are squeezed out. Therefore, a creative person (or entity, idea) has to fight (incl. self-promote, sometimes "fight dirty") in order to avoid being marginalized entirely. That's not just a personal matter, either. It's a picture of society I find to be remarkably accurate. Mike Church 01:17, 6 May 2004 (UTC)

Or just read below and, yeah, I've got a little bit of time on my hands again. - PilotPrecise 19:33, 5 May 2004 (UTC)

Find a new hobby. Maybe you'll be better at it than this one. Best yet, write your own card game. I look forward to seeing it, and I'm even willing to help test and critique it for you. I don't want to have an enemy. Mike Church 01:17, 6 May 2004 (UTC)

re: theories

Who put forth these theories? They sound like you thought them up one night in an pub, no offense. They are mere conjecture. They are contrived. Kingturtle 06:09, 7 May 2004 (UTC)

User:Chef Lord put forward those theories, at least here. That's what the edit history tells me (though I edited them slightly, splitting the two items into three). Go ask him. Mike Church 07:46, 7 May 2004 (UTC)

Er....go ask him? My question was to the wikipedia public. So, I've already asked him and anyone else who wants to respond. The bottomline is that Wikipedia is not a platform for conjecture. The article succeeds without listing contrived guesswork. Kingturtle 22:46, 7 May 2004 (UTC)

edits

I removed the supposed banning in a cafeteria in a school because it doesn't sound like it had anything to do with this card game in particular. UninvitedCompany 18:36, 7 May 2004 (UTC)

All I know about that case is that: