Talk:Ambition (card game)/Archive 3

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

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.

Contents 1 Mediation attempt by AFK 1.1 To Mr. Church 1.2 To others 1.3 Final thoughts 2 Comment by Isomorphic 2.1 Reply

Mediation attempt by AFK

I'm doing this using a second account, if no one minds. I'd prefer such an arrangement so that, if this becomes ugly, it not spill over and affect my life on the rest of the Wikipedia. I recognize that I am dealing with a controversial situation.

I don't wish to take one side or the other, but to mediate this dispute and resolve it. It doesn't reflect well on Wikipedia, or upon Mr. Church's game.

Here are my observations and theories:

• At some point in the winter of 2003-4 (17 December, the page history tells me) Mike Church posted a game on Wikipedia. At the time, he was making a slightly rash move: The game was neither famous nor finally developed at that point. However, by now this is a moot point: The game is well-known and developed enough to merit an article, even though it might be better if Church hadn't originally written it.

• The page survived, in part because the people who participated in the deletion debate were sympathetic to new card games. Months later, it provoked later controversy from other Wikipedia users, as Mike Church continued to expand his structure of links across Wikipedia. To them, it appeared as if he was trying to create his own little Empire within Wikipedia's bandwidth.

• Church has a tendency to come out looking bad in these controversies, only because he takes every criticism of his Wikipedia practices as a comment on his game itself, or as a personal attack. In fact, not one of the posters here or elsewhere has even claimed to have played Ambition (excluding User:PilotPrecise, who seems, from his last post, to be more interested in stirring Mr. Church up than anything else). Mr. Church would benefit from recognizing that criticisms of his Wikipedia practices do not reflect in any way upon his game. If it matters, I have not played Ambition (I have no time, but will consider trying it out at some point). I have briefly heard it discussed among a pair of game designers I work with, and in a positive light, but that is about all I actually know about the game.

• Mr. Church possesses an explosive ego that is to the detriment of discussion on this page. To his credit, the comments of my co-workers seem to indicate that he's a very talented designer. However, Wikipedia doesn't need a talented game designer to promote his great games, it needs people who can work well with others. Mr. Church needs serious work in that department. Generally, he does fine, but when his personal stake is involved, he can be quite belligerent.

Now, specific comments...

To Mr. Church

You appear to be an intelligent, creative young man. You're aware of your talents, and quite proud of yourself. Luckily, you don't overstep your own abilities (e.g. you don't think you're more talented than you actually are) but you've certainly inventoried every ounce you have. Be careful: Flaunting yourself can get you in trouble.

When and where I grew up, one never discussed one's own talents or abilities. If someone told you, "I think you're quite smart", the only proper reply was: "no, I'm not that smart". This was a way of building community, and to deviate was considered disrespectful.

Obviously, you believe the rules are different:

In my opinion, the negative connotations of "self-promotion" ought to go out the door. Perhaps they were appropriate for a more polite era where showing any semblance of an ego was offensive. Well, we're now in the 2000s, and if you don't have an ego, you don't eat. (from Mike Church's User page)

You do live in a different world than what I knew, agreed. When I read all the news articles about SAT stress, or about college graduates not being able to find jobs, I don't envy your generation. In your social theories (I've read some of your articles) you seem to believe that American society is this hypercompetitive jungle, and if you grew up in the 1990s, I wouldn't expect you to have known anything different.

In the 1950s, Americans viewed technological marvels (commercial air travel, skyscrapers) as the strength of "cooperative man", "public" had better connotations than "private", and young people had other aspirations than becoming wealthy. Of course, that is nothing like the world you know, and it's sad that you haven't had that experience.

You were born in the '80s, and you know you have to play by different rules; self-promotion is essential for your generation. Even still, try to be more respectful of other peoples' standpoints. No offense, but you could be a genius and I still wouldn't take crap from you-- you're only 20.

One other thing: Be very conservative regarding what you link to Ambition (card game). When I saw that you had created List of controversial games, I was almost sure that you would include Ambition in some way and was glad to see that you didn't. You have somewhat of a reputation on Wikipedia now, and linking prime real estate to your card game isn't going to make people want to play Ambition; it's going to make people annoyed by you, and if anything make them give your mostly positive contributions a bad shake.

Furthermore, I don't know how much personal involvement you have in this "Ambition trolling" but stop. Judging from your reactions to other users, I sense that empathy is not always your strong suit, so let me explain: If someone ends up at your game because of a troll, they're not going to be "warm" to your game, they'll be annoyed by it. Also, to be frank: If a troll links to your game, that's not a commendation, it's a comparison of your work to "tub girl".

You want your game to penetrate quickly, and I think you'll just have to wait two or three years. Games are private things, normally confined to a family or close friends, so it's hard to get people to learn a new one. It's almost like asking a family to use a new language at the dinner table. Getting games to "catch on" is hard: We once priced a game at $30 instead of $17 because, while we sold fewer boxes and made less initial revenue, we knew that people were much more likely to actually play it with the higher initial investment-- there was $30 of pain involved in buying the game and never playing it. So, most people who bought the game dutifully played it, and the game developed a community (I can't, unfortunately, tell you which game this was). You don't have that option, of course, since your game's effectively free.

You fear obscurity, which is understandable. Just tread a little more conservatively, a little more respectfully, and by all means, don't encourage trolls to promote your game. Do you want a forum's most despised users representing something you've put so much effort into developing? You shouldn't. Image, of yourself and of your game, is very important. You've not tarnished it yet, but a few more comments like "No, I use a female relative of yours to do my dirty work. (bang!)" will take you down that path, and you will never be able to go back.

I respect your efforts-- it shows that you've worked your ass off in developing that game, and it's commendable. The success of your "Ambition" project would be enough to get you a job at my place, assuming you refrain from comments like the one above. That would get you fired.

Good luck, Mike.

To others

Obviously, this "problem user" has gotten under your skin for the past few months. His first Wikipedia contribution was to promote his then-unfamous game. A borderline case regarding deletion, it stayed on and only justified his decision to add "Church's Criterion". All this he did, almost invariantly, anonymously, giving him a credibility problem that plagues him to this day.

Then for months, he continually pushes the envelope in terms of what he can link to this article, and what he can place here. He slowly becomes more tasteful, as he learns what Wikipedia's all about, but the patience of the community wears thin.

I don't think Mike Church is a "problem user", but I recognize that he can use some restraint every once in a while.

He claims, often, that he is being put under personal attack. I think that, in some cases, this is true. There are some users who want to help Mike become a better member of the community. At the same time, there are others who attack him and his game without basis, just because they've realized they can get a rise out of him that way. I don't know him well enough to confidently estimate his motives, but I suspect that User:PilotPrecise had that intention in the last edit; I can see no constructive purpose to it.

Speaking from my own work environment, I might as well tell you that I've seen Mike's interaction patterns before, and that there are ways of dealing with them. Some suggestions:

• Don't tell Mike that he or his game is "unimportant". He obviously considers himself important, and you're not going to change him in that regard. (And why should you? Maybe he's right.) If you tell him he's unimportant, he'll never respect you or your opinion, and, if you need to discuss anything with him, he'll always think he's right. So, by making such a comment, you'll only burn a valuable bridge. You can have meaningful and rewarding interactions with people like this kid, but if you put them on defensive territory it becomes a lot more difficult.

• He often complains about "link-attack", this supposed campaign to whittle away his game into insignificance by delinking it everywhere possible. I personally believe that this notion is mostly rubbish, but he seems to believe it fullheartedly. In that light, don't alter something he cherishes (like a link to his game, or content on this page) except without a good explanation. He listens to reason, but a simple revert with language like "rm insignificant card game" won't penetrate, and experience shows he reverts it right back.

• Speak in terms of making Wikipedia better. One recurring theme I read in Mike's comments is that he genuinely does want to improve Wikipedia. That's some common ground you all have with him, and refer back to that when you want him to see things your way. If he posts an Ambition link on, say, George W. Bush (which thankfully he hasn't) don't say something like, "removing unimportant card game", just remind him that it makes the page better not to have random references scattered everywhere.

• Mike's obviously somewhat of a powder-keg, with a large ego. That comes from his being young, insecure, passionate, talented and not afraid to let the world know about it. Even though lack of fame/establishment is the default state, especially at age 20 (hell, for me then, no one took game design as a serious profession and my plans were to be a lawyer), for him it's a source of extreme insecurity. He probably will be famous some day, but he's not now, and the fact makes him shaky. If you tell him his game is "unimportant" or refer to him, as I recall from one past controversy, as an "infantile game designer", you should know what you're getting into, which is a massive explosion.

Final thoughts

I've said most of what I want to say, by now.

Mr. Church, you seem to think your game has a lot of potential. I wish you the best in developing it. I agree with you that your so-called "self-promotion" has been, mostly, not out of line. I don't have a problem with this page, nor most of your work on Wikipedia. I do want you to take a long, hard look at what I've written, because I think it will be quite valuable to you.

I hope you will also attempt to be more civil in your behavior. You, your game, and this page all deserve it. Likewise, I issue the same hope to the rest of the users here. I think a lot of people (not just Mr. Church) could use a little more understanding and empathy.

With that, I end this comment. AFK 11:19, 8 May 2004 (UTC)

Ambition belongs on list of trick-taking games, which Mike also created, because that's what it is; and lists generally are to inform, and to collect up related pages. That's about the size of it: a weed is a plant in the wrong part of the garden. Charles Matthews 11:41, 8 May 2004 (UTC)

---

Comment by Isomorphic

Funny how AFK is somewhat sympathetic to Mike, even though I can't think of any regular users who are.

I'm less and less convinced that this game should have an article at all. Despite quite a bit of searching, I've been unable to find any references to it on the internet besides the games list, Wikipedia copies, and the urban dictionary (which is meaningless since it it open submission.) The only people on Wikipedia who've ever heard of it in RL seem to be sock puppets and very new users.

Mike (and, unsurprisingly, our sockpuppet friend above) has claimed that this game would certainly already have an article if he hadn't created it, but that's not even close to true. A quick look at Internet Top 100 Games List shows that we have articles on only three of the top six games on the list, and these games are far better-known than Ambition. That Ambition has garnered only four votes on this games list [1] suggests that it is not at all well-known. The only other evidence we have of importance is publication in the magazine Nikoli. Interestingly, I did manage to find a mention of ambition on Nikoli's website. [2] It's short notice in Japanese, but a babelfish machine translation gives the following text

It was announced in 2003, the game of tramp will be introduced. In Japan it is the game where still almost no one plays. In microphone Church of writer appreciation appreciation.

So yes, they've published it, but they basically state that it's not known in Japan, and there's no reason to assume it's caught on since.
Basically, what I'm saying is that while this game certainly exists, it falls well below our usual inclusion thresholds. If we accepted Ambition based on its current popularity, we'd be saying that thousands of other games most people haven't heard of also should have articles.
On top of this, Mike's antics are sucking up the time of a lot of contributors. Nonsense like the Ambition trolling phenomenon is just a waste of everyone's time. Does anyone else think this is getting tiresome? Isomorphic 23:53, 8 May 2004 (UTC)

Yes, Isomorphic, and well said. I think it is fine to have the Ambition article itself, since we have articles on so many obscure things. It should, however, be NPOV and contain only verifiable information, and User:Mike Church shouldn't be editing it due to conflict of interest. And there shouldn't be all these mentions of it alongside other widely played games in other articles. The addition of Ambition to Trick-taking game along with a whole new category of games (in which Ambition is the only one that is mentioned) is a good example of this.

There's been a good deal of pointless speculation on people's motives and some lay psychiatry on this page, neither of which is really germane. Regardless of editors' motivations or possible need for personal growth (etc) the widespread mention of Ambition should not stand. This case has many parallels to the Daniel C. Boyer page, which was finally deleted. UninvitedCompany 10:59, 9 May 2004 (UTC)

Reply

Funny how AFK is somewhat sympathetic to Mike, even though I can't think of any regular users who are.

There's been a spectrum of reception. Some users have been outright hostile, others more moderate. Also, AFK never claimed to be a regular user, though there was an implied claim that he had some presence on Wikipedia. He openly admitted (as, indeed, the record shows) that this was an account created for this purpose, not wanting this controversy to affect his life here.

In fact, there were at least two commentators during my adminship controversy that remained anonymous (both voted against me). So, he's not acting without precedent.

The only people on Wikipedia who've ever heard of it in RL seem to be sock puppets and very new users.

You've heard of it, well, at least by now...

I've met a number of people who've heard of the game, though I already know you won't believe me on this claim. Of course, most people still haven't, but that's because the game is so new.

To accuse me of sock-puppeteering is not only to make a claim that is patent nonsense and clearly false, but also, intentionally to break down conversation. When inflammatory and almost certainly untrue accusations like that fly, there is no point in discourse any longer, since it will not be fruitful. You might be a sock puppet for User:PilotPrecise, who might be a sock puppet for Wizards of the Coast, which might be part of a secret international government... might be, that is, but quite unlikely.

User:AFK is clearly not a sock puppet. He was "sympathetic" to me as he was trying to mediate a dispute. He also harshly criticized me at times. Furthermore, he obviously has many years of experience in professional game design and (seemingly) management. I could not have written that post, since I lack the knowledge and insight.

A quick look at Internet Top 100 Games List shows that we have articles on only three of the top six games on the list, and these games are far better-known than Ambition.

Well, go write articles for the other three. I won't oppose you. If I had played one of those games, I would probably write an article for it. We also have an article on Monopoly (game), which is not even in the top 500. Should we remove it because, for many higher-ranked games, we don't have articles? Of course not.

That Ambition has garnered only four votes on this games list [3] suggests that it is not at all well-known.

Of course, it also has a very high average ranking: 9.00. Which means that among those who do know it, it is quite highly-regarded. This average may decrease (indeed, it probably will) as it gets more ratings, of course. This indicates that it is well-received among those who do know about it.

Interestingly, I did manage to find a mention of ambition on Nikoli's website. [4] It's short notice in Japanese, but a babelfish machine translation gives the following text

My friend translated for me, and gave a better translation:

We are glad to introduce Ambition, which was invented in 2003. In Japan, no one plays this game yet. We are very thankful to Mike Church for allowing us to use his game.

So yes, they've published it, but they basically state that it's not known in Japan, and there's no reason to assume it's caught on since.

Nikoli is a well-respected magazine in Japan, which has stronger game and puzzle traditions than the United States. So, following publication in Nikoli, it's quite likely that Ambition is beginning to catch on.

If we accepted Ambition based on its current popularity, we'd be saying that thousands of other games most people haven't heard of also should have articles.

Why not? If the game is just some half-baked idea without any testing or establishment at all, I'm not sure it deserves publication, but wouldn't you agree that there are probably at least a couple thousand games in existence that deserve inclusion here, though they may not be household names? I've never heard of half of the games listed here (at the card game list, for example). Let's say in unison: Wikipedia is not paper.

Nonsense like the Ambition trolling phenomenon is just a waste of everyone's time.

I wrote that article in lieu of putting that information on Internet troll because, if it drew controversy, I'd rather have an article called Ambition trolling phenomenon modified or deleted than an edit war break out on (of all places) Internet troll. It seemed the proper thing to do. Mike Church 06:00, 9 May 2004 (UTC)

Methinks the (inventor) doth protest too much. Charles Matthews 08:30, 9 May 2004 (UTC)