|
What's The Big Deal? (added 10th January, 2001): You might be asking "So what did Stuart do that was so wrong? Surely he's entitled to his opinion on the feasibility of the 6 Billion™ scenario?"
My answer is that, of course, everyone is entitled to their own opinion. But what Stuart wrote was partly ambiguous, and the reader could view some of Stuart's views as mine. For example, nowhere in his review does he acknowledge that I take the colonisation of the solar system seriously, and scientifically feasible. He should have simply stated that we disagree on the matter (nor was it necessary to be quite so mocking). Not only that, but he now admits that his statement of the premises for the game was inaccurate. Even when I pointed this out, over a year ago, he failed to acknowledge (publicly, or privately) that what he had done was wrong.
It is pretty clear by now that Stuart and I will never agree on the feasibility of the 6 Billion™ scenario. That's fine by me - each to their own. This isn't religion, and I am not a preacher. I would have happily accepted a small correction / apology based upon my initial response. After all, where is the sense in biting the hand that feeds you? Stuart has been generous in allowing me to publish my "Going It Alone" article in Counter issue 8. He has also published my review of Australian Menagerie (Counter issue 10), and my article on Game Theory (Counter issue 11) and Stuart also wrote a generally positive review for 6 Billion™. We got on OK at Spiel '99, too, when I shared my stall with Counter.
So what has soured this otherwise co-operative relationship? Larry Levy's comments in Counter issue 11. I state for the record that Larry Levy is fully entitled to his opinion (just as I am fully entitled to publish my opinion of his comments).
So what's the problem? The problem is that Stuart is happy to publish opinions which agree with his own assessment of the scientific validity /seriousness of the 6 Billion™ scenario, but has refused to publish anything from me stating my counter argument (good name for a magazine, "Counter"). Note, none of this has anything to do with 6 Billion™ as a game (although I would argue that the theme and the game often go hand-in-hand). In treating 6 Billion™ as a game, Stuart has been more than fair (so long as you agree with him that it's all some kind of fantasy).
So the Counter reader is left with a biased view. Given the designer has not defended himself (that's me), then surely Stuart must be correct in his view? Well, there is another point of view which Stuart refused to acknowledge in his review. Yes, the very next issue of Counter (issue 8) does contain an edited version of my design notes in "Going It Alone", but Stuart's review is available (independently from my own article) on the Internet, where everyone with access can read it in isolation.
I can fully understand, from an editorial perspective, that Counter would get pretty boring if everyone got to reply to everyone else's point of view. I also agree that Counter is not a science-debating forum, but to continue to publish just one side of the story is not acceptable. Either both sides, or neither. Or perhaps a comment that contributors to Counter can take it up with me directly (the 6 Billion™ web site encourages this on every page, because I am interested in other people's points of view). Stuart is the editor of Counter - the choices are his.
That's why I wrote to Stuart for advice, to seek some compromise solution. I am not entirely satisfied, but what you see published on this web page is the best I could get from him.
I don't expect my rebuttals of Larry Levy and Stuart Dagger to be popular. I'm quite sure that their statuses in the boardgaming world will see to that. So be it. But, regardless of what you think of 6 Billion™ as a game (or me as a person), just ask yourself what you would do if your game were treated in this manner. Then ask yourself what you expect from Counter as a reader.
