Re: Changing Goals Mid-Contest

From: Alex Ferguson <abf_at_...>
Date: Mon, 27 Oct 2003 17:33:24 +0000


On Mon, Oct 27, 2003 at 10:44:15AM +0000, Graham Robinson wrote:
> 2. The other side objects to the new goal. In this case, the contest
> continues, but probably with new abilities. ("The guy turns and runs away."
> "I draw my bow and shoot him in the back.")

I have difficulty with the idea of it being axiomatic that this is necessarily still the same contest; see b), below.  

> 3. The new goal forces the other side to change their goal too. Harder to
> come up with simple examples here, but I accept this is possible. This case
> splits into two - the new goals aren't opposed ("The guy turns and runs
> away." "He'll alert the guard! Let's get out of here before they arrive!")
> and the new goals are opposed (er, example missing - I'm sure Alex will
> think of one...). In the first case, that's form 1 again.

If goals are opposed, then pretty much by definition there's no longer a contest. If the guy _is_ trying to alert the guard, then that _is_ an opposition of goals, and hence a contest -- and I don't see it's the same contest as the previous one (necessarily).

I don't promise this is a better example (Bank Holiday Monday Mugginess), but another case might be the infamous "debate degenerates into 'handbags'"; some parties may now be more intent on physical intimidation and/or actual violence than the original point at issue, others may be still focussed on the original goal (but presumably also with some concern as to their physical integrity). Potentially, both/ either 'type' of consequences are at issue (social on the one hand, physical on the other).

> The only interesting case is where one side changes goals, the other side
> thus being forced to choose a new goal, but these two goals are opposed. In
> that case, I'd generally tend to believe the contest continues. There are a
> number of reasons for this :
>
> a. The characters involved are the same, as is their opposition.

Except in the case of a group contest, possibly. If you continue it as the same contest, and some of each side's goals have change, and others haven't...

> b. One side will have gained an advantage in the previous contest. If you
> start a new contest, that advantage is either lost, or you have to
> introduce extra rules to represent that advantage. I don't like extra rules...

But an advantage towards achieving one goal isn't always, uniformly, an equal advantage, or even an advantage at all, in achieving an arbitrarily different goal. (Examples of this were even handily provided by those rushing to refute Paul King: losing an argument may make you _more_ inclined to physical violence, rather than less, and it seems contrived to assume it'll consistently make you less effective at it to boot.)

> c. The previous contest was an extended contest, presumably for dramatic
> reasons. What of the new one? If it's also extended, you can end up with a
> large number of big contests, which seems clumsy to me. ("Hey, I'm bored of
> this extended contest - let's start another one!") If it's simple, you lose
> the (supposed) drama of an extended contest - it could be a bit of a let
> down. Worse, we already have rules for allowing a simple contest to
> interrupt an extended contest. So if you're going to switch to a simple
> contest, either make it an unrelated action, or continue the current
> contest, but insist on a bid that will end the contest anyway.

Well, I'm deliberately not trying to be in any way prescriptive about the 'fix', so I'll let this one alone for now. My short answer is "whatever works in the situation", though.

> d. It breaks the basic theory of HQ that consequences are only worked out
> when a contest ends. If contests don't end, no consequences!

Well, I already mentioned the possibility of applying consequences appropriate to the first goal, at the time of the change-over, many a post ago.

> In general, I reckon its not a good idea to allow the loser of a contest to
> start a new one until "time passes". An example I think seems fine,
> however, would be : "You know that guy you let run away half an hour ago?"
> "Yeah?" "Well, he's back, and he brought his mates..."

This is precisely why it's important to be reasonably clear about the goals of a contest: to wit, the scope of what will be settled one way or another by the contest outcome. And why allowing it to change too much unthinking could cause a confusion of expectation on different sides.

Cheers,
Alex.

Powered by hypermail