Last summer a friend and I were doing research in Chile. There were a bunch of other interns and none of us knew each other very well. To facilitate socialization we invented a game called 'Soulstrip Poker'. It's a lot like regular poker, except instead of gambling with money you gamble with secrets. 'Truth or dare' for manly men.
The first game went pretty well, with people asking small superficial questions ('What's your favorite type of music?'). The second game was much nastier, with people drilling into each other's insecurities and character flaws. After the third game we unanimously agreed to never play it again and then called an ambulance. I don't know why I'm putting the rules online. But I am. This is the third and final draft. 'Enjoy.'
---
YOU NEED
1 Deck of Cards
Coins: chips, in values of 1, 3, 5
Paper
SETUP
Everybody takes a piece of paper and writes everyone's names. This is their mat. Agree on how many points everybody starts with. Distribute that many points evenly among all of the names. Make a final piece of paper and put it in the center.
RULES
Play like normal poker. Choose poker rules.
All chips are 'tagged' with the person who owns them. When put into the pot, take them from one section of the paper and put them on the appropriate names. If you win the pot, put each set of chips over the appropriate name.
Example: A, B, and C are playing. A raises with two points. He puts one B chip and one A chip onto the appropriate places. B folds and C calls with two C chips. C wins, moving the C chips onto the C section (eww), the B chip onto the B section, etc.
After rounds everybody has a chance to ask one question. They take the appropriate chips from another person's section and give it back to them. Then they ask the appropriate person a question. The question must be answered truthfully. What kind of question you can ask depends on how many you spend.
1 point: a question that can be answered in yes/no
2 points: a question that can be answered in one word
4 points: a question that can be answered in a sentence
8 points: no limit
If the player has a number of your point equal to the number you spent on him, he can "pass" by giving them to you. You lose your question but do not lose the coins. Nobody else may ask him that question, or any question designed to draw similar info for the rest of the game. You may bump a question to a higher category to make it harder to pass, but may not go beyond 8 points.
Players may trade points with each other at any point. Players may ask questions about other people, but the target may pass for free.
A player may "bow out". Everybody gets an opportunity to ask as many questions as they can with their coins. After that they are out of the game. A player may also force quit, but then they're a wuss.
Play ends when everybody mutually agrees, everybody bows out or quits, or a fight breaks out.
Showing posts with label Project. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Project. Show all posts
2012-02-27
2012-01-29
Wordjot - Metahumor
Wordjot - Metahumor
“What’s the difference between Plato and Playdough? One’s so pliable you can mold it into whatever the hell you want. The other’s blue.”
Humor relies on the subversion of expectations. That’s why the Plato joke is funny. You have a normal situation: Wise Plato and putty Playdough. Then it’s suddenly reversed. But it only works because it taps into another expectation: that Plato is frustratingly vague in a lot of ways and easy to use to support anything. The punchline wouldn’t work as “One’s so pliable you can mold it into whatever the hell you want, the other FISH FISH FISH FISH FISH.” Your subversions are subverted. It’s still stupid.
I’ve recently been fascinated with another form of subversion: the metajoke. These play on your expectations of what a joke is. Some examples:
“How many people of a given stereotype does it take to change a lightbulb? N+1, 1 to change it and N to act in a stereotypical manner.” This points out the general template of the joke. This form is pretty common.
“A man walks into a bar. He’s an alcoholic. It’s destroying his family.” Antihumor, which subverts the expectation that there’s actually a joke.
“A rabbi, a priest, and a lawyer walk into a bar. The bartender asks ‘Is this some kind of joke?’” These directly call attention to the fact you’re hearing a joke.
“What’s the difference between a telephone pole and a motorcycle? 24, because a camel has two humps.” Possibly the most common type I’ve encounter, which derives it’s humor from the fact it makes no sense. Often called ‘Monkey Cheese’. I hate this kind.
Recently I’ve been really interested in another form, the joke dependent on another joke. Here’s one example:
“There are 10 types of people in this world. Those who know binary, and those who don’t. And those who know ternary.”
Not a great example, but still. It takes your expectation that this will be the common, heard-this-a-million-times-before joke on binary, and then plays on that. I’ve found these types really funny. They’re not that funny to most people, but since I’m really into humor theory I absolutely love them. That probably doesn't speak well about my sense of comedy.
“What’s the difference between Plato and Playdough? One’s so pliable you can mold it into whatever the hell you want. The other’s blue.”
Humor relies on the subversion of expectations. That’s why the Plato joke is funny. You have a normal situation: Wise Plato and putty Playdough. Then it’s suddenly reversed. But it only works because it taps into another expectation: that Plato is frustratingly vague in a lot of ways and easy to use to support anything. The punchline wouldn’t work as “One’s so pliable you can mold it into whatever the hell you want, the other FISH FISH FISH FISH FISH.” Your subversions are subverted. It’s still stupid.
I’ve recently been fascinated with another form of subversion: the metajoke. These play on your expectations of what a joke is. Some examples:
“How many people of a given stereotype does it take to change a lightbulb? N+1, 1 to change it and N to act in a stereotypical manner.” This points out the general template of the joke. This form is pretty common.
“A man walks into a bar. He’s an alcoholic. It’s destroying his family.” Antihumor, which subverts the expectation that there’s actually a joke.
“A rabbi, a priest, and a lawyer walk into a bar. The bartender asks ‘Is this some kind of joke?’” These directly call attention to the fact you’re hearing a joke.
“What’s the difference between a telephone pole and a motorcycle? 24, because a camel has two humps.” Possibly the most common type I’ve encounter, which derives it’s humor from the fact it makes no sense. Often called ‘Monkey Cheese’. I hate this kind.
Recently I’ve been really interested in another form, the joke dependent on another joke. Here’s one example:
“There are 10 types of people in this world. Those who know binary, and those who don’t. And those who know ternary.”
Not a great example, but still. It takes your expectation that this will be the common, heard-this-a-million-times-before joke on binary, and then plays on that. I’ve found these types really funny. They’re not that funny to most people, but since I’m really into humor theory I absolutely love them. That probably doesn't speak well about my sense of comedy.
2012-01-24
Wordjot - Spy Eye
I’ve occasionally wondered what I’d do if I ever lost my eye. I’d probably replace it with a spy cam. I’d wire the trigger to my eyelid, so I could trigger it by blinking. Two blinks would be video. Don’t know how I’ll handle zoom or flash, but I’ll figure something out.
Cameras are supposed to capture the world, right? But you can’t, not entirely as it was.
The camera is an inside-out Schrodinger’s box. The act of aiming it changes the scene. At the very least people clean up their postures and start looking uncomfortable. At worst the nice men in gas masks take it away and hit you with sticks. It’s hard to take a picture of the world as-is instead of world as wants-be.
That’s why I want a Glass Eye glass eye. It’d give me the power to take pictures without people realizing I’m taking pictures.
Or maybe I should just buy a spy pen.
Cameras are supposed to capture the world, right? But you can’t, not entirely as it was.
The camera is an inside-out Schrodinger’s box. The act of aiming it changes the scene. At the very least people clean up their postures and start looking uncomfortable. At worst the nice men in gas masks take it away and hit you with sticks. It’s hard to take a picture of the world as-is instead of world as wants-be.
That’s why I want a Glass Eye glass eye. It’d give me the power to take pictures without people realizing I’m taking pictures.
Or maybe I should just buy a spy pen.
2012-01-23
Wordsomething - MC Escher
I'm trying to figure out a new thing to call this. Wordsmithing sounds trite, and Wordblasting stupid. Wordbombing? Word Vomit? Wordering? Advice needed.
---
MC Escher
MC Escher is probably my favorite artist. I guess a lot of math majors think that. He made a lot of neat tessellations and impossible constructions. But I’ve always preferred the mindbenders. “Another World”, “House of Stairs”. I’m irrationally fond of his “Tower of Babel”, one of his earlier and less acclaimed pieces before he found fame in optical illusions.
I think the reason I love these pieces is what they do to reality. Most of the art I’ve come across either tries to represent the real world, like realism or cubism, or represent ideas, like Suprematism or modernism. Escher on the other hand feels like he’s destroying reality, presenting something that Can Not Be. It goes beyond normal optical illusions and impossible constructs into a sort of Lovecraftian insanity. My mind can tell there’s something but cannot comprehend the totality of it. To really get “Waterfall”, I feel like I’d have to break spacetime.
Which got me thinking. Escher uses 2D to go beyond 3D. Could you take that one step further? Maybe you could use 3D to go beyond 4D, like build a sculpture that- from the right point- looks exactly like a tesseract. Why haven’t we done this? Maybe Escher was a rare genius. Maybe we’d have to see 4D to know how to smash it. Maybe people have already done this and I’m just ignorant. No matter what, I’m excited to see what people do with it. If people do something with it. Here’s hoping.
---
MC Escher
MC Escher is probably my favorite artist. I guess a lot of math majors think that. He made a lot of neat tessellations and impossible constructions. But I’ve always preferred the mindbenders. “Another World”, “House of Stairs”. I’m irrationally fond of his “Tower of Babel”, one of his earlier and less acclaimed pieces before he found fame in optical illusions.
I think the reason I love these pieces is what they do to reality. Most of the art I’ve come across either tries to represent the real world, like realism or cubism, or represent ideas, like Suprematism or modernism. Escher on the other hand feels like he’s destroying reality, presenting something that Can Not Be. It goes beyond normal optical illusions and impossible constructs into a sort of Lovecraftian insanity. My mind can tell there’s something but cannot comprehend the totality of it. To really get “Waterfall”, I feel like I’d have to break spacetime.
Which got me thinking. Escher uses 2D to go beyond 3D. Could you take that one step further? Maybe you could use 3D to go beyond 4D, like build a sculpture that- from the right point- looks exactly like a tesseract. Why haven’t we done this? Maybe Escher was a rare genius. Maybe we’d have to see 4D to know how to smash it. Maybe people have already done this and I’m just ignorant. No matter what, I’m excited to see what people do with it. If people do something with it. Here’s hoping.
Project: Wordblasting
Two days ago I complained about how it's really hard to reach out to people in Facebook. Yesterday I realized I had a bunch of small writing ideas that couldn't carry their own project, but might be fun to share. Today I realized that G was never going to update Momenergy ever again. This gave me an idea.
I'm going to start updating Momenergy again with these bits and scraps of rants. Each one I will also send to three random people on Facebook and see how they react. The rants probably won't be available on general Facebook, but they'll always be accessible here.
Have two completely written out, one on MC Escher and one on metahumor. Going to upload them both over the next two days.
I'm going to start updating Momenergy again with these bits and scraps of rants. Each one I will also send to three random people on Facebook and see how they react. The rants probably won't be available on general Facebook, but they'll always be accessible here.
Have two completely written out, one on MC Escher and one on metahumor. Going to upload them both over the next two days.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)