Which is why you press the button every 144 hours that are reliable to you:
or setup scheduled emails. I feel like also this is similar to apathy but
now you have to track it: anyone can block as long as they press the button
fre. 2. jun. 2023, 12:29 p.m. skrev ais523 via agora-discussion <
agora-discussion@agoranomic.org>:
> On Fri, 2023-06-02 at 14:18 -0300, Juan F. Meleiro via agora-business
> wrote:
> > I create the following proposal, entitled “Game Theory”:
> >
> > {
> > Create a Power 1.0 rule called “The Button” with text:
>
> This isn't really game theory, but "who has the most reliable Internet
> connection / is best at being online at the right time of day". The
> optimal play is to press the button 144 hours after a previous press,
> unless someone else does so first. In practice, the "unless someone
> else does so first" is going to be impossible to check for due to email
> communication delay, so we're going to have to come up with some rule
> to decide who pressed the send button first (which is likely to be
> practically impossible to determine, given the 1 second granularity of
> most email servers' timestamping – if two people seriously try for this
> then their emails will have the same timestamps on them).
>
> It would be possible to attempt to ruin other people's attempts to win
> by sending an email just before the 144-hour limit, but doing so would
> give up on your own chance to win, so it doesn't really make much sense
> (and you won't know whose attempts you are trying to ruin, because
> nothing's forcing players to try to win 144 hours after the *first*
> press – waiting for the later ones is just as good as winning at aiming
> for an earlier one).
>
> "Be awake at a specific time of day, chosen by the Assessor" is also
> the sort of gameplay that can unfairly disadvantage some players
> compared to others (depending on where they live compared to the
> Assessor's timezone, and/or at what times of day they are busy and thus
> unable to send email).
>
> Incidentally, the original Button that this was referencing had, IIRC,
> a 1.5-second grace period, which would remove the simultaneous-timing
> issues but lead to the win condition probably being too easy
> (especially if the grace period were scaled up to "1.5/60th of a week"
> rather than being left at its original length).
>
> --
> ais523
>
