Both negative and positive outcomes are relevant to playing this game. I believe both are necessary because it is more reasonable to be susceptible to any kind of consequences. Otherwise, there are no incentives besides instant gratification or conversely constant rejection. Without the balance of both outcomes, players don't have any room to progress in the game. It only seems practical that members gauge their own standards by learning from examples of errors and triumphs.
In fact, The Manifesto claims that "Human nature varies over time and among and within political communities, and is largely a result of whatever the laws at a particular point in time dictate." If we were to limit such human nature to merely positive or merely negative outcomes, there would be no change and consequently no movement toward progress.
We as different individuals are to bring to the table our own perspectives, values, opinions and thoughts because AgoraXchange is a public forum in which we have access to the discussion and deliberation of ideas. Granted the game is to recruit members to become active participants/voters, it seems more realistic that we are also subject to every kind of feedback.
I think the game should have both positive and negative outcomes. This way, it would reflect the kind of balance that already exists in the real world. This website is not trying to build a utopia, and based on the attempts that have been tried in the past in reality, they have never ended well, so to only have positive outcomes would not be the most beneficial either. Negative outcomes can allow people to learn from mistakes and get better at continuing to grow as a community.
i think it is integral to the realistic aspects of the game to ensure that it contains both positive and negative outcomes. in life, knowing that everything is going to be either totally positive or totally negative would be boring; this is even more true when applied to games. what is the point in participating in a game when you know from the outset that it's going to end positively or negatively? having everything result in positive outcomes is truly fantastical and has no basis in reality. the point of the game is to create an alternate world that has roots in real aspects of politics; in order to create a world that mirrors plausible outcomes, we can't limit those outcomes to being wholly positive or negative. that would be counterintuitive.
I believe a world without consequences or negative responses is much too fantastical. If this game is to be realistic, it should definitely include both positive and negative outcomes. How is one to learn from mistakes in the game, just as in life, if every move is given positive reinforcement? There would also be a definite loss of challenge if nothing a player did resulted in some sort of loss or punishment. If someone is disturbing the "Utopian" peace, they should be reprimanded. Likewise, if they are doing things for the greater good of the game world then they should be rewarded. In order to picture and experiment with this new world through the game we need to have realistic circumstances, which of course would include negative outcomes to some events.
I think that having both positive and negative outcomes will be an essential factor in creating a realistic Agora Xchange world. While we are working to create a transformed society based on progressive thought and new ways of ruling and living, negative outcomes will play a part in building that. In many situations, negative outcomes have helped communities learn to deal with a crisis, learn from failure, and learn to come together. Of course, in this new world, what is considered positive and negative will be different from what we think today, but will be crucial in building a new and strong foundation. With any society comes the good and the bad, and I believe the Agora Xchange world should be built on realistic expectations.
I agree there should be both positive and negative outcomes in order for there to be reinforcements and consequences. The game needs both to be realistic but it is also something to think about in terms of the structure of the game that there should only be positive outcomes according to the decrees and rules it seems that would be the only logical outcome. The game seems structured to elicit positive outcomes naturally so there shouldn't be any negative ones but in the case that someone acts against the structure of the game and does something that doesn't parallel the games goals and ideas than there should be a potential negative consequence built in so as to make sure there is some order to how people act. If there aren't any negative consequences than people will do what they want which leads to chaos and potential danger to others in society.
Having both positive and negative outcomes is essential for realistic game play. The possible outcomes in a virtual world should mirror outcomes that exist in the real world. All actions in the real world have both positive and negative consequences, outcomes, and results. Therefore, to ensure a sense of realism, this game should have both positive and negative outcomes.
I voted for both positive and negative accounts. After reading some of the other replies to this question I would have to agree with several points that were made. First, this world that we are creating has to be somewhat realistic. There has to be positive and negative outcomes. Even in a world we are trying to start from scratch, it would be wrong to think that all our actions would result in positive outcomes. This type of thinking is too unrealistic. In addition to this, by only offering one type of outcome, the game would be fixed, and the game could become predictable, boring and discourage people from playing it. I also agree with the point that was made by Sahand that "all our actions have consequences--good and bad" Indeed, and allowing for both positive and negative outcomes allows us to reflect reality.
It's always nice when you can not only be informed, but also entertained! I'm sure you had fun writing this article. Excellent entry! I'm been looking for topics as interesting as this. Looking forward to your next post.
Thanks a lot for a bunch of good tips. I look forward to reading more on the topic in the future. Keep up the good work! This blog is going to be great resource. Love reading it
Thanks for sharing this information i really like it.Keep sending such types of information because it keeps aware you of changes going on and around...Thank Once again
That is Really Incredible because these days people prefer games with positive outcomes mostly . though a game with well justified negative outcome also may attract the gamers
I concur and think there should be positive and negative outcomes of the game. Doing so provides a holistic account of our strengths and our weakness and will motivate us to work better when there are flaws that need to be addressed. The game society needs to be created in a way so as to replicate the closest resemblance of a realistic game theory in relation to the cost-benefit analysis of the comparing countries. I think our country will strive to have a better agenda and work harder when we know our flaws as opposed to our strengths.
As in any other game, negative and positive outcomes should be instated. First, because it is more engaging. It's fun for participants, because it provides incentive to perform. Lastly, it is more consistent with the realities of the world: all our actions have consequences--good and bad.
I think by having negative outcomes it will not only make the game realistic but it will allow for an understanding of what can be done to make things more positive within the game society. The negative outcomes will be considered learning lessons. Additionally, things should be allowed to flow without limitations of positive or negative, in this way the game would have a realistic twist.
I voted for both positive and negative outcomes not for the reproduction of real life, but for the purpose of gamesmanship. In real life there is no such thing as a universally good or bad experience, we apply our own perspectives, reasoning, experiences, and ambitions to a given action or occurrence and evaluate it accordingly.
Many say that a mudslide that kills 20,000 people is a horrible disaster. Thousands of people lose their lives, and thousands more would lose their homes, belongings, and sources of income. The economy of the given location may be crushed and devastated for decades to come. On the other hand, Construction companies and medical organizations around the world would call it a god send, as they would surely experience astronomical growth in demand for their services. Thousands would benefit as result, and thus the situation could be constructed as "positive" overall.
The fact is, even when actions are taken by players to hurt or disadvantage another group, which will surely be seen as negative, it will also benefit another group, and be seen as positive. The same works vice versa. Simply banning a "negative" or "positive" outcome is not possible as these terms are not objective, they only gain their value once we assign it to them.
I found your perspective really interesting in terms of not positioning the game with both positive and negative outcomes just to replicate real life (which is not the point of real life), but because there can always be something negative that comes out of something positive and something positive that comes out of a negative event. I thought your example of the mudslide offered a twist to traditional thinking. And I agree that what is deemed positive or negative is subjective for a community and even more so for an individual.
i think it is quite clear that we need to allow for both positive and negative outcomes. what use would a game like this provide us if we fixed what sort of outcomes would come out of it? it is meant to be experimental and aid us in picturing what a world would be like as guided by the decrees. if we only allowed for either positive or negative outcomes it would be either an unrealistic, sickeningly utopian picture or a negative hellish picture that would make us reject the decrees, as it would seem that the decrees lead to this inevitably negative world. obviously we must allow for both positive and negative outcomes!!
if there were only positive or only negative the game would not be realistic. there would be no reason for the game to reflect today's world if you do not account for all of the possibilities that could occur.
i agree with the comment posted by lawsomjr99 in that there must be both positive and negative outcomes in the game because it promotes a more realistic society. in all real societies there are both positive and negative things that result from actions from both the government and the people of the society. having a purely positive based society will lead to a boring a unrealistic game. people playing this game will want risk in a number of the decisions that they must make in order to succeed and/or survive in this society. on the other hand, only having negative outcomes will discourage people from playing because they know that it is inevitable that they will ultimately fail in the society. having both types of outcomes not only reflects reality but it also adds an element of risk to the game and forces the gamers to be responsible for their actions.
I think that the game should be realistic. In our society positive and negative outcomes are possible so I think the game should have both,too. The game should test negative outcomes to see how the players and those in office handle the difficulties. Maybe from this we can see and discover new ideas for dealing with crises. Positive outcomes should also be included so we can see how those in the game deal with success in addition to failure.
Both negative and positive outcomes are relevant to playing this game. I believe both are necessary because it is more reasonable to be susceptible to any kind of consequences. Otherwise, there are no incentives besides instant gratification or conversely constant rejection. Without the balance of both outcomes, players don't have any room to progress in the game. It only seems practical that members gauge their own standards by learning from examples of errors and triumphs.
In fact, The Manifesto claims that "Human nature varies over time and among and within political communities, and is largely a result of whatever the laws at a particular point in time dictate." If we were to limit such human nature to merely positive or merely negative outcomes, there would be no change and consequently no movement toward progress.
We as different individuals are to bring to the table our own perspectives, values, opinions and thoughts because AgoraXchange is a public forum in which we have access to the discussion and deliberation of ideas. Granted the game is to recruit members to become active participants/voters, it seems more realistic that we are also subject to every kind of feedback.
I think the game should have both positive and negative outcomes. This way, it would reflect the kind of balance that already exists in the real world. This website is not trying to build a utopia, and based on the attempts that have been tried in the past in reality, they have never ended well, so to only have positive outcomes would not be the most beneficial either. Negative outcomes can allow people to learn from mistakes and get better at continuing to grow as a community.
i think it is integral to the realistic aspects of the game to ensure that it contains both positive and negative outcomes. in life, knowing that everything is going to be either totally positive or totally negative would be boring; this is even more true when applied to games. what is the point in participating in a game when you know from the outset that it's going to end positively or negatively? having everything result in positive outcomes is truly fantastical and has no basis in reality. the point of the game is to create an alternate world that has roots in real aspects of politics; in order to create a world that mirrors plausible outcomes, we can't limit those outcomes to being wholly positive or negative. that would be counterintuitive.
I believe a world without consequences or negative responses is much too fantastical. If this game is to be realistic, it should definitely include both positive and negative outcomes. How is one to learn from mistakes in the game, just as in life, if every move is given positive reinforcement? There would also be a definite loss of challenge if nothing a player did resulted in some sort of loss or punishment. If someone is disturbing the "Utopian" peace, they should be reprimanded. Likewise, if they are doing things for the greater good of the game world then they should be rewarded. In order to picture and experiment with this new world through the game we need to have realistic circumstances, which of course would include negative outcomes to some events.
I think that having both positive and negative outcomes will be an essential factor in creating a realistic Agora Xchange world. While we are working to create a transformed society based on progressive thought and new ways of ruling and living, negative outcomes will play a part in building that. In many situations, negative outcomes have helped communities learn to deal with a crisis, learn from failure, and learn to come together. Of course, in this new world, what is considered positive and negative will be different from what we think today, but will be crucial in building a new and strong foundation. With any society comes the good and the bad, and I believe the Agora Xchange world should be built on realistic expectations.
I agree there should be both positive and negative outcomes in order for there to be reinforcements and consequences. The game needs both to be realistic but it is also something to think about in terms of the structure of the game that there should only be positive outcomes according to the decrees and rules it seems that would be the only logical outcome. The game seems structured to elicit positive outcomes naturally so there shouldn't be any negative ones but in the case that someone acts against the structure of the game and does something that doesn't parallel the games goals and ideas than there should be a potential negative consequence built in so as to make sure there is some order to how people act. If there aren't any negative consequences than people will do what they want which leads to chaos and potential danger to others in society.
Having both positive and negative outcomes is essential for realistic game play. The possible outcomes in a virtual world should mirror outcomes that exist in the real world. All actions in the real world have both positive and negative consequences, outcomes, and results. Therefore, to ensure a sense of realism, this game should have both positive and negative outcomes.
I voted for both positive and negative accounts. After reading some of the other replies to this question I would have to agree with several points that were made. First, this world that we are creating has to be somewhat realistic. There has to be positive and negative outcomes. Even in a world we are trying to start from scratch, it would be wrong to think that all our actions would result in positive outcomes. This type of thinking is too unrealistic. In addition to this, by only offering one type of outcome, the game would be fixed, and the game could become predictable, boring and discourage people from playing it. I also agree with the point that was made by Sahand that "all our actions have consequences--good and bad" Indeed, and allowing for both positive and negative outcomes allows us to reflect reality.
It's always nice when you can not only be informed, but also entertained! I'm sure you had fun writing this article. Excellent entry! I'm been looking for topics as interesting as this. Looking forward to your next post.
Thanks a lot for a bunch of good tips. I look forward to reading more on the topic in the future. Keep up the good work! This blog is going to be great resource. Love reading it
I agree.
Thanks for sharing this information i really like it.Keep sending such types of information because it keeps aware you of changes going on and around...Thank Once again
Incredible stuff guys!
That is Really Incredible because these days people prefer games with positive outcomes mostly . though a game with well justified negative outcome also may attract the gamers
I concur and think there should be positive and negative outcomes of the game. Doing so provides a holistic account of our strengths and our weakness and will motivate us to work better when there are flaws that need to be addressed. The game society needs to be created in a way so as to replicate the closest resemblance of a realistic game theory in relation to the cost-benefit analysis of the comparing countries. I think our country will strive to have a better agenda and work harder when we know our flaws as opposed to our strengths.
As in any other game, negative and positive outcomes should be instated. First, because it is more engaging. It's fun for participants, because it provides incentive to perform. Lastly, it is more consistent with the realities of the world: all our actions have consequences--good and bad.
I think by having negative outcomes it will not only make the game realistic but it will allow for an understanding of what can be done to make things more positive within the game society. The negative outcomes will be considered learning lessons. Additionally, things should be allowed to flow without limitations of positive or negative, in this way the game would have a realistic twist.
I voted for both positive and negative outcomes not for the reproduction of real life, but for the purpose of gamesmanship. In real life there is no such thing as a universally good or bad experience, we apply our own perspectives, reasoning, experiences, and ambitions to a given action or occurrence and evaluate it accordingly.
Many say that a mudslide that kills 20,000 people is a horrible disaster. Thousands of people lose their lives, and thousands more would lose their homes, belongings, and sources of income. The economy of the given location may be crushed and devastated for decades to come. On the other hand, Construction companies and medical organizations around the world would call it a god send, as they would surely experience astronomical growth in demand for their services. Thousands would benefit as result, and thus the situation could be constructed as "positive" overall.
The fact is, even when actions are taken by players to hurt or disadvantage another group, which will surely be seen as negative, it will also benefit another group, and be seen as positive. The same works vice versa. Simply banning a "negative" or "positive" outcome is not possible as these terms are not objective, they only gain their value once we assign it to them.
I found your perspective really interesting in terms of not positioning the game with both positive and negative outcomes just to replicate real life (which is not the point of real life), but because there can always be something negative that comes out of something positive and something positive that comes out of a negative event. I thought your example of the mudslide offered a twist to traditional thinking. And I agree that what is deemed positive or negative is subjective for a community and even more so for an individual.
i think it is quite clear that we need to allow for both positive and negative outcomes. what use would a game like this provide us if we fixed what sort of outcomes would come out of it? it is meant to be experimental and aid us in picturing what a world would be like as guided by the decrees. if we only allowed for either positive or negative outcomes it would be either an unrealistic, sickeningly utopian picture or a negative hellish picture that would make us reject the decrees, as it would seem that the decrees lead to this inevitably negative world. obviously we must allow for both positive and negative outcomes!!
if there were only positive or only negative the game would not be realistic. there would be no reason for the game to reflect today's world if you do not account for all of the possibilities that could occur.
i agree with the comment posted by lawsomjr99 in that there must be both positive and negative outcomes in the game because it promotes a more realistic society. in all real societies there are both positive and negative things that result from actions from both the government and the people of the society. having a purely positive based society will lead to a boring a unrealistic game. people playing this game will want risk in a number of the decisions that they must make in order to succeed and/or survive in this society. on the other hand, only having negative outcomes will discourage people from playing because they know that it is inevitable that they will ultimately fail in the society. having both types of outcomes not only reflects reality but it also adds an element of risk to the game and forces the gamers to be responsible for their actions.
I think that the game should be realistic. In our society positive and negative outcomes are possible so I think the game should have both,too. The game should test negative outcomes to see how the players and those in office handle the difficulties. Maybe from this we can see and discover new ideas for dealing with crises. Positive outcomes should also be included so we can see how those in the game deal with success in addition to failure.