Category: Stuff

They rigged the game

Today, photographer Michael Forsmark allegedly videotaped one of the Danish princes (the younger one) driving recklessly (and way too fast) with his two sons in the car. Forsmark reported this incident to the police who have been quick to comment that even if the accusations are true the prince may rest assured that he cannot be prosecuted since the constitution exempts him.
Let’s look closer… the Danish constitution of 1953 says

Par. 3:
Legislative authority shall be vested in the King and the Folketing conjointly. Executive authority shall be vested in the King. Judicial authority shall be vested in the courts of justice.

Par. 13:
The King shall not be answerable for his actions; his person shall be sacrosanct…

I suppose it is this latter clause which, by the semi-magic of Danish constitutional law is supposed to exempt the prince in question from legal responsibility.

Considering the relationship between royalty and ordinary citizens in a game perspective we can probably agree that game balance is skewed which basically translates into a lack of equity. Citizens are equal in the eyes of the law, err… except for a special group of citizens. Wonderful. In a medieval sort of way.

(Story in Politiken)

Update: The photographer is now being accused of actually provoking the prince (if indeed it was the prince) into speeding. Historian Steffen Heiberg is quoted as warning that a public trial would be nothing less than a scandal. Oh, a scandal! Well, in that case all charges should be dropped immediately.

Update: The photographer, it seems, was once accused of sawing off the head of The Little Mermaid. Baroque.

Better safe than circle


Okay, here’s a little thought. Computer games differ from casually played analogue games in the sense that in the former case the computer processes the game rules while in the latter the processing is performed by human brains and negotiated through language etc. (as I believe Jesper has said somewhere).
This means that when you play a computer games online, say Age of Kings, no matter how you choose to perceive the game (as visual art, as Western mental imperialism etc.) you are still going to lose (or win) in a very concrete sense. In the eyes of the player community, and in the eyes of the game server, you’ve lost or won regardless of the way you perceive the game activity.

The interesting difference here is between players themselves processing the rules and some external system processing the rules (whether a CPU, a team of referees or whatever).
But, some esteemed colleagues object, by drawing this line you (“me” that is) are proposing that computer games are pristine, stable systems while in fact players take great effort to disrupt and “break” the game. I disagree with this objection. First of all, the vast majority of Age of Kings players conform completely to the rules of the game (and even the spirit of the game).
Those who try to break the game are statistical anomalies (and whether we care primarily about anomalies or majorities is a question of taste and disciplinary background).
But even for those players who really do subvert (if you will) the game the rigid nature of computer game rules is still interesting to keep in mind. I find it quite probable that this rigidness inspires deviance. This deviance may be motivated by A) a general dislike of rigid orders and/or B) a feeling that if some autocratic sovereign wants complete un-democratic control of the gamespace then surely anything not directly disallowed by the game code is allowed (or morally defensible). In the latter case the very rigidness of the computer game rules may go a long way towards undermining sportsmanship as opposed to the analogue (non-tournament) game situation where players cannot help but be aware that they are deeply responsible for upholding the game.
Computer game rules disenfranchise the player.