Gamepaign 2008: Rules

Gamepaign 2008
Complete Rules
10/17/2007



1. Like everything else in this game, the rules are up for debate. Nearly everything is decided by "The Market" - all of us, our debate plus our votes. If there is no debate, any suggestion made by any player is assumed unchallenged and automatically stands. Every non-pledging player's vote (see rule #10) counts equally, though if something is deemed "improper" from an economic standpoint, ANY vote(s) can be overruled. Don't worry - overruling will only happen if there is significant indecision and/or asymmetrical information, and therefore should only happen if proper debate can't be carried out.

2. Each candidate starts with 300 points. We are only going to include two types of candidates: Those with a substantial probability of winning, and those preferred by the players. Any candidate can be added at any time provided the candidate's score is subject to the penalty in the next rule (#3)

3. If a candidate joins the race or is added by us to the game after October 2007, he or she loses 25 points per month after October, with November counting as the first -25 points. This doesn't matter much, however, because we can reduce a candidate's score retroactively; i.e. for stuff they said in the recent past. A limitation, though: We can only go back 12 months, and if any future statement rules out the past (e.g. "I was wrong, I meant decrease spending for farm subsidies!" ...Like that'll happen...), then it doesn't count.

4. Points can only be taken away, not added. The only exceptions to this are:

A) If a previous loss of points is revised to reflect new information that benefits the candidates. Past losses, therefore, can be reversed by relevant information. Notice I said relevant information. This implies a clarification or an additional statement that changes the candidate's original meaning.

B) If candidates are going into negative territory too quickly, we can add points (to all candidates equally) to make their scores "prettier." So, 100 points, for example, added to all candidates at once is obviously fair.

5. Default Assumptions used in scoring:

This is a game centered on ranking candidates based on what we decide is good or bad economics. My definition of "good economics," though, is not just about monetary gains or prosperity measured in specific numbers. It's about obtaining maximum prosperity measured in whatever terms people see fit - it's about the choices we make and our ability to choose them.

As a very generalized example: If the people in our country come to a majority decision about what they want, then they should be allowed to pay some price (say, a tax) to get it. If this tax imposes too high a cost on a minority group, and if the public desires could be achieved through means other than higher taxes or more government control, then the default assumption is that it's bad economics. If public desires couldn't be satisfied individually, though - if only a government could provide a certain service the public demands - it changes the entire dynamic. The answer to any variation of this question depends on the weight you apply to its components.

As a more specific example, if trying to stop 3% of all violent crimes will cost the American people 10% more in taxes, would a policy that attempts this feat be considered good or bad in economic terms? While the 3% drop in crime has certain benefits, the 10% rise in taxes has certain bad effects - there's no clear answer to this question, and that's why "good economics" must be defined in terms of the default assumptions laid out at the end of this section.

To tackle a problem we need to first figure out whether a candidate's promises or policy plans are:

A) Only possible through increased government intervention. (e.g. taxes, spending, surveillance, etc.)
B) Harmful to a substantial minority. If so, how relatively harmful compared with the plan's benefits?
C) Going to work. Will they actually work as promised or planned? (This is the most important question, I think, as it's the most objectively based in economics.)
D) Beneficial enough to override the negative effects (in B).

Depending on the answers, we might need the following
default assumptions (ranked by importance):

• More individual freedom is better than (>) less individual freedom.
  
• Lower taxes / government expenditure is better than (>) higher.
• Public demands > individual demands (only assumed in the case of cost/benefit analysis - if the majority of the public wants higher taxes for "all billionaires" for example, their opinion trumps the minority [the billionaires] if - AND ONLY IF - the harmful effects are RELATIVELY weak compared to powerful benefits.)
  
• Global demands > local demands (i.e. state trumps city, world trumps country, etc.)
  
• Rules of "traditional" economics > other guidelines (i.e. the environment & abortion issues do not get automatic preference. We'll weight each accordingly, but with a lack of evidence for an objective argument, we'll default to "best economics" to decide.)
• In the absence of reliable or understandable information, Occam's Razor (simplicity) wins.
  

(We can add more if necessary...)

• But most importantly: We only need default assumptions when a candidate's statement is debatable. If "The Market" agrees on different or more valid assumptions other than or in addition to the defaults, we'll use our heads, not the rules.

6. Points and scoring will be determined through the comments page of their respective candidate's score [blog] post. If Barack Obama, for example, does something worthy of a point reduction, the description of the infraction, a link - URL, or just the candidate's statement quoted by itself will be sufficient. Post the comment along with the suggested amount of points lost and, if you want, an explanation of your choice. The comment is debatable for the duration of the game, but I will determine whether it gets posted to the candidate's official "score post" right away, or if it needs more debate. We can debate "official" scores and comments equally, so turning a "comment score" into an "official score" only shines more light on the matter. Nothing is set in stone. If a comment / score needs more debate, I'll wait to put in on the "official" candidate's score page (post.) This'll be clearer once we start the game...


7. Points must be chosen from the following selection:

(-0) points: No damage / undecided
(-4) points: Minor infraction
(-8) points: Infraction
(-16) points: Major Infraction
(-24) points: "Course-altering" action/statement
(-40) points: Candidate-destroying action/statement

...And continuing in this pattern, if necessary - but no 12, 28, 36.3 points or anything else outside the pattern. (I chose multiples of 4 since it's the coefficient in 4Econ, and it's therefore both useful AND it points out the Econ part of the blog title. The pattern is only slightly more clever...)

These ideas next to the points are very relative and subjective, of course, so we'll have to add meaning to them as we go...

8. Any information taken from a candidate's web site can lose the candidate a MAXIMUM of 8 points. This should prevent "background" (i.e. lazy) information from being too detrimental to a candidate. While the issues and policies laid out on a candidate's page are important, they automatically become more important if they're used in a debate / public speech / etc. While this rule is up for debate, let me suggest one thing: The candidates have a LOT of info on their pages, and evaluating every issue at once is a lot of work. I think it might be easier just to ignore most of it, or at least only score the big ones. Since this will probably be the case (just scoring the most important stuff), I decided to limit it to 8 points to make the game last longer for those candidates that leave out important stuff on their web pages... Besides, web pages don't give us a true picture of a candidate - they just show him or her in the most staged way possible.

9. I've pledged my vote: I will vote in the Arizona (or wherever I may be) primary election for whichever candidate is leading by midnight of two days (not 48 hours, but 24 hours and 1 second), before the primary day, provided the candidate hasn't dropped out. I'm registered independent, so every candidate is on the table. (Unless the rules have changed...?) Of course, in November '08 I'll be voting for president using the same guidelines. By then, this game should be pretty settled, I'd think...

If YOU want to pledge your vote to the winner of Gamepaign 2008 in the primaries or just in the final election, I would highly recommend it. As long as everything works out even remotely as planned, I think we'll all be a lot more knowledgeable, informed and objective by the end of this thing. If you pledge your vote, you'll be psychologically more inclined to participate and pay attention, and thus force yourself to be a "better" voter... Or so one would think...

10. In addition to the paragraph just above, if you pledge your vote you'll get automatic priority in determining scores, points, outcomes, etc... This is like "Preferred Stock," by the way, in which your vote will technically count as more than one vote, but only in times of "need." I think it will be pretty obvious when the times of "need" are once the game starts.

Also, anyone who pledges their vote gets a permanent "player" link under the game section of the 4ECon. Don't worry, you can pledge any time before your state's primary elections. This game promises to be fair, but pretty informative at the least, so pledging your vote my not be as dangerous as you may think...

How will we know if you actually vote for the person you've pledged to vote for? Just the honor system, of course. I'll trust that anyone willing to play this game and pledge their vote would not doubt the validity of the game's outcomes. We'll see how it turns out...

Finally:
11. We're all incredibly nice people - so nice that I hesitated suggesting this rule: Don't offend anyone purposely, and even more importantly, don't let anything (ANYTHING!) offend you. I can't actually imagine a scenario in which this rule might apply, so I'm mostly just writing it to fend off any criticisms or fears people might have of a "political debate game." The 4EConglomerate is way too debate-oriented to not know how to do it right, I think...
---




---
Some commentary:

This idea started out as an individual project, where I could have a running commentary about politics and politicians. While the game needs as much input as possible, I'm guessing that I will be the one posting the majority of scores and information. Don't forget that everything I do is up for debate, and even if it seems like I'm off and running on my own, don't let that stop you from stopping me. Everything you (Gamepaign players) do and say will be given maximum importance, so even if I don't personally acknowledge a piece of information, it's assumed that another player will. In time, I will post all relevant information from the comments. While I might not use the comments as much for information I find, that doesn't make my scores and suggestions any more valid.

This might seem like a major undertaking, but it shouldn't be: As long as each of us comments about this or that candidate's statements they heard or read or saw, we'll have a lot of information and fodder for economic and political debates. The bigger question is whether or not we feel like using the fodder and arguing a point... If not, the candidate loses points. If so, you can save a candidate.

So, basically, if nobody cares about any of the candidates, it'll be a fair game with very little work. If people care about some of the candidates, it means more information will come to light from the passionate people instead of the unconcerned. This should be a nice filter, I think; those that are informed and/or passionate will save some candidates and hurt others, those that are ill-informed or just lazy will have little effect. Fortunately, being really passionate is moderated by the fact that candidates can't gain points, only lose them. I'd say that's a pretty good system.

If anything needs clarifying, or if you want to contest a rule, comment away!

For now, the game starts Monday 10/22/07 so we can make sure everything is settled and give the 4ECon readin' laggards time to feel like they're part of the beginning of the game (if the laggards care about such things...)

---

And thanks to Zazzumplop for a little advertising - If anyone else knows any motivated folks who would make this game easier on us current information gatherers, let 'em know. The bigger the market, the better the data... Presumably...