Between Ponds — baki.io

Between Ponds

A fictional koi-pond game designed to surface conflicting expertise

Domain
research
Archetype
opus
Audience
thinker
Date
Tech
Research Design, Multi-Expert Panel, TinyTroupe

The next generation of social software will not look like social media. It will look like writing letters, tending gardens, and leaving offerings at shrines.

Metrics

domain experts
23 — Seats spanning brand strategy, game design, UX research, Japanese cultural consultancy, creative direction, community strategy, live ops, cozy-game specialism, Neko Atsume analysis, sociology, mobile F2P economics, audio design, level design, anthropology, customer retention, seasonal mechanics, haiku pedagogy, player psychology, software engineering, art history, narrative design, linguistic typology, and mindfulness-app design.
open questions
8 — Design tensions the panel could not resolve by consensus - the productive residue of the exercise. The seven published in the brief plus the eighth that emerged from the hemisphere-crossing biology finding.
debate triangles
3 — Three-way disagreements the synthesis phase could not collapse by choosing a side. Drift Away's auto-generated farewell haiku; the launch positioning strategy; the haiku form's authenticity problem.

Cards

Process

  1. Tend — Open app, feed fish, check for visiting koi. 30-90 seconds.
  2. Write — Compose a three-line message. 17 syllables, haiku form.
  3. Release — Attach haiku to a koi. Tap and hold. Watch it disappear into mist.
  4. Receive — A stranger's koi surfaces in your pond with their words.
  5. Respond — Keep the koi, or release it onward with a trace of your pond.

Experts

Debates

Frame

A Haiku Poet calls it artistic fraud. A Mindfulness App Designer calls it colonization at maximum emotional leverage. A Cozy Game Specialist calls it fabricated social signaling. Three experts, three different verdicts, looking at the same thirty-second moment in a game that does not exist: a koi leaving your pond forever, carrying a farewell haiku the player never wrote.

Between Ponds is the fabricated brief that produced that collision - and twenty-two others. Lanternwater Studio, the €1.8M seed round, the Kyoto Koto Foundation consultancy - all invented. The panel’s disagreements, the eight unresolvable questions, the documented risk of the kigo suggestion algorithm becoming a cultural-hegemony actuator in Brazil - real.

The fiction is the method. A real brief invites politeness and consensus. A fabricated one, authored with enough specificity to take seriously, strips out the political caution and leaves the expertise.

Takeaway: invent the game, so the disagreement can be real.

Mechanism

You tend a small koi pond. Every few days you write a three-line message on a rice-paper scroll and release it into the current. Your koi resurfaces in a stranger’s pond somewhere else in the world - they read your words, they keep the koi or send it back. No chat, no profile, no username. Only koi, water, and short poems drifting between ponds.

The five-step ritual (tend → write → release → receive → respond) fits inside the ninety seconds of a coffee queue. The mechanic is small on purpose. The argument is about what such smallness implies about social software.

Takeaway: the smaller the mechanic, the louder the philosophy it has to answer for.

The Panel

The brief assembled 23 seats spanning brand strategy, game design, UX research, Japanese cultural consultancy, creative direction, community strategy, live ops, cozy-game specialism, sociology, mobile F2P economics, audio design, level design, anthropology, customer retention, seasonal mechanics, haiku pedagogy, player psychology, software engineering, art history, narrative design, linguistic typology, and mindfulness-app design. Each seat was chosen to collide with at least two others. The trait markers:

No seat was told who else was on the panel. Each wrote findings in isolation against the same brief (README, game bible, studio fiction, visual references, open questions). Collisions emerged in the synthesis phase.

Takeaway: adversarial expertise produces signal; consensus panels produce averages.

The Debates

Three trilemmas surfaced where the synthesis phase could not collapse the disagreement by choosing a side.

The auto-generated farewell haiku - artistic fraud (Haiku Poet) vs. colonization at maximum emotional leverage (Mindfulness App Designer) vs. fabricated social signaling (Cozy Game Specialist). All three converge at 88% on the same repair (remove or visually mark the auto-generated haiku) while disagreeing fundamentally on why. The convergence is the finding; the philosophical residue is the lesson.

Launch positioning - lead with collectible-social (Creative Director) vs. launch as cozy and let mindfulness emerge from press (Mindfulness App Designer) vs. “all three audiences sequenced” is the default failure mode (Genre Benchmark Analyst). Positions A and C converge on the game’s soul; B is a pragmatic acquisition label. The disagreement is about whether to market honestly at launch or use cozy framing as a trojan horse.

Haiku form - Western mistranslation (Haiku Poet: 17 morae, not syllables) vs. structural inequality of the free-verse fallback (Linguistic Typologist: Turkish/Finnish/Arabic/Mandarin each have categorically different constraints) vs. technical sufficiency via constraint (Games Historian: the historical evidence on constraint-improves-expression is unambiguous). Technical implementation is not experiential equality; no clean fix, transparency about which form a player is using is the minimum viable move.

Takeaway: a trilemma isn’t a debate with a winner; it’s a map of where the real constraints live.

Trace

Origin: the question was “can AI personas stand in for real expert panels without flattening to consensus?” TinyTroupe can simulate populations but the interesting part - the productive disagreement - tends to dissolve in multi-agent settings where models agree on a midpoint.

Pivot: from asking AI to simulate experts, to asking real experts to respond to an invented brief. The fiction was supposed to be a warm-up. It turned out to be the whole methodology.

Scar: the kigo suggestion algorithm. It was specced assuming Northern-hemisphere Japanese seasonality and the panel could not fix it within the game’s existing constraints. The Seasonal Mechanics Specialist surfaced the problem first - there is no hemisphere-correct kigo - and the Linguistic Typologist confirmed the linguistic inequality runs deeper than one algorithm: free-verse fallback treats Turkish, Finnish, Arabic, and Mandarin as one problem when each has categorically different constraints. As shipped, the kigo algorithm is a cultural-hegemony actuator actively discouraging Brazilian players from writing their own seasonal experience. The brief could not resolve it; that irresolution is itself a finding.

Frontier: what does this method become at scale? Can the brief-as-instrument be reused across research questions, or is every brief a single-use artifact that burns its specificity on one question? [[scaling-research|Scaling Research]] is the companion investigation - the methodology lives there, this artifact is the prototype.

Takeaway: the unresolvable finding teaches more than the ones that found a fix.

Echoes

The method here is a cousin of [[tinytroupe|TinyTroupe]]‘s synthetic-persona work - same root question (“can simulated populations stand in for real ones?”), opposite answer (“no, but the fiction that frames the simulation is the real instrument”). Where TinyTroupe generates, Between Ponds fabricates. The difference is where the voice lives.

A companion investigation - [[scaling-research|Scaling Research]] - carries the methodology: how to convene adversarial expert panels without the facilitator’s own stance contaminating the prompt. Between Ponds is the prototype; that page is the method.

Takeaway: the artifact is not the game; the artifact is the debate the game made permissible.