Causality: A Game for Time Lords

Posted: June 22, 2014 in Braak
Tags: , ,

This is the game they play on Gallifrey, to teach young Time Lords how to start thinking along timelines, instead of within timelines.

The Short Game of Causality is played on 22boards.  The long game is played on 1,534.  The boards are arranged above and below a line called the Horizon.  Below the Horizon is the Point of Origin board.  This board has two generations; each of these boards has two generations, and (in the short game), each of these boards has two generations, for a total of fifteen.

Above the Horizon there are seven more boards.  The first four each have two progenitor boards, the next two likewise, and the final board (the Singularity) similarly.

sketch; board layout is not accurate

sketch; board layout is not accurate

Each board is six squares by six squares, and contains six pieces for each player (Black and White).  The six pieces are the Regent, the Regis, two Castles, and two Elephants.

Each board also has an Orientation:  a board is either Orthodox or Unorthodox.  At the start of the game, the Point of Origin is Orthodox, and the Singularity is Unorthodox.  On an Orthodox board, Elephants behave like bishops (long diagonal movements only), and Castles behave like pawns (advancing one square, attacking on the diagonal).  On an Unorthodox board, Elephants behave like pawns, and Castles behave like knights (advancing two squares up and one to the side).  The Regent and Regis always behave like the king and queen, but swap places when the board changes its orientation.

A player is able to make one move each on two separate boards per turn.

At the outset of the game, half of the boards are Orthodox, and half are Unorthodox.  Each pair of boards is in the Obverse Arrangement.  When Black puts White in check on any board below the Horizon, the orientations of that board’s generation are swapped to Reverse alignment — the Orthodox board is now unorthodox, and vice-versa.  When White puts Black in check, the orientations return to Obverse.

Above the Horizon, a board’s orientation is determined by its progenitor boards — if they are the same, the board remains in its Obverse alignment.  If they are different, the board changes to its Reverse alignment.

When a Regent is in checkmate, the board is Locked, and no further moves on that board can be played (however, moves on boards closer to the Point of Origin CAN be played; if the board’s orientation changes and checkmate is disrupted, the board is Unlocked and can be played again.

The game is won by creating checkmate on the Singularity board.

[POSSIBLY: there are only four pieces per player per board (Regent, Regis, Elephant, and Castle), arranged in opposite corners.

POSSIBLY: The game ends when checkmate on the Singularity is achieved, and no further moves on previous boards can be made; the player wins who has the most points -- the Singularity is worth five points, the individual boards are worth one point each.

am still working out the details]

EMPRESS_WITITLE_OPT3

Hello friends of the theater, and of me, and of threat quality!  I am here to tell you about Aphra Behn, British playwright and spy, historically the first woman to make her living as a writer, generally speaking a hero to the people.  You may remember Aphra from the play that I have talked about before — well, that play is real, and we are going to take it to the Capital Fringe Festival, and we need your help!

Right now, I am trying to raise money for travel expenses for the six actresses in the show, since we’ve got to bring them down from Philadelphia, and we’re going to have to put them up in DC.  Obviously, I know what you’re thinking —  you’re thinking “Yes, show me where to send the money!”  the answer is here:

EMPRESS OF THE MOON:  THE LIVES OF APHRA BEHN

Good!  But maybe you want to know more, so here is some more to say about that.

Read the rest of this entry »

In response to Ruth Graham’s article at Slate, “Against YA“, but REALLY in response to the sudden eruption of hand-wringing defenses of why it’s okay to read Young Adult books.

1.  I am in a bookstore and I see a book in the Young Adult section that I think about buying. Another customer looks at me askance, as though I am childish for looking at a Young Adult Book.  “Fuck that guy,” I think to myself, “this looks interesting.”  I buy the book anyway.

2.  I am reading a Young Adult Book on the train.  Someone sits down across from me  They have got a face like they think I should be embarrassed by my reading material.  For a second I am worried.  “Oh wait, I just remembered,” I think to myself, “Fuck that guy.”  I continue reading my book

Read the rest of this entry »

By now I’m sure you’ve heard about Elliot Rodger and his murder spree in Isla Vista, and how many, many signs point to the fact that this was motivated by a violent misogyny that had at its root a staggering entitlement complex.  You may have also heard of the many, many men who have been trying to dismiss his attitudes as “crazy”, or the idea that he was “a lone nut”, and not reflective at all of a toxic misogyny in American culture.  Maybe that’s true!  Maybe he WAS a lone nut, and it’s just a weird coincidence that his 140-page manifesto uses the same language and expresses the same ideas found in MRA and PUA writing around the internet, maybe it’s a just a coincidence that this lone nut fit right in on their message boards.  It’s definitely a coincidence that there’s a bunch of other lone nuts who think just like him and talk just like him and admire him.

No pattern, nothing to see here.  Just a bunch of completely isolated, unrelated individuals who, by catastrophic happenstance, think and speak exactly the same way, and maybe also hang out on the same message boards, and like each others’ youtube videos.  Lone nuts.

Look here, this is for the lone nuts out there, I am going to give you some red-pill information here.

Read the rest of this entry »

The funny thing is that I was thinking about how to explain privilege the other day, and I wrote this without any particular incident in mind, figuring to myself: “Give it time; eventually SOMEONE is going to act like a jackass in public and make this piece topical.”

And lo, the universe gave me Tal Fortgang.

So, let’s talk about the nature of “privilege” in a social context, and how it works. I’m not here to talk about privilege in the literal sense, which is a set of “private laws” that some people get to be subject to instead of the regular laws (that’s a real thing, but it’s not what I’m getting into here), and it’s not what we typically mean in the metaphorical sense, “privilege” as in “a child of privilege” – “I grew up wealthy and isolated from harm, like Gautama Siddhartha before he encountered the Four Signs” kind of privilege. That’s ALSO a real thing, but when people say “white privilege” or “male privilege” or something like that, that’s not what they mean.

I am going to try and elaborate how this works in order to avoid confusion. If you run into a Tal Fortgang in your life – i.e., “Oh, I have privilege, huh? Well did you know I was POOR?” – please send them here, I am providing it as a public service announcement.

Here is how to understand privilege. You nerds like Dungeons and Dragons, right?

Read the rest of this entry »

I caught this article from Gabriel Valdez’s Wednesday Collective in a sort of a roundabout way – it’s a defense of something like “The Expert Review”, in which a reviewer criticizes a work of fiction with some level of expertise – pointing out historical errors and the like. Some people think the Expert Review should die; this Historian who goes to the movies makes a pretty good case for it.

For the purpose of contributing to this consideration, I’d like to suggest that there’s a bright line we can draw between historical errors that matter and historical errors that don’t, and that actually we’ve got two ways of looking at a narrative’s relationship to the past. For the sake of argument, let’s call these two things History and Historicity.

History, we all know what history is, but just for the purpose of this article I’d like you to accept the following definition, even if it’s not how you’d usually define it: “History is a complex set of narratives, evaluated in the present, encompassing more or fewer artifacts from previous time periods, generally established for the purpose of creating, destroying, or reinforcing a cultural or political identity.” In this case, we might say that a history that encompasses very few artifacts from a previous time period is a bad history, but creating a narrative based on them is still the process of history, however we might like to wish it isn’t. And you’ve noticed, I’m sure, the interesting feature about history being evaluated always in the present, and what this means for all previous histories – don’t worry, we’ll get to it.

Historicity might be something that I made up (or, alternately, a real thing that I am describing incorrectly), but for the sake of this article let’s work with this definition: “Historicity is the quality of resembling one point in history or another.” I don’t think that his necessarily means that something with a high degree of historicity is historically accurate – I think that as we go forward, I’m going to show that “historical accuracy” can fall into one or the other category – but I do think that something with a high degree of historicity has a lot of details that are meant to make it resemble something that is historically accurate.

So, here is what I am proposing: historical details matter when we’re talking about history; historical details do NOT matter when we’re talking about historicity.

Here, let me do a few examples.

Read the rest of this entry »

Mars_atmosphere

A brief listing of some of the factions of persons on Mars.