Re: DIS: Issuing a card for the wrong reason generating infinite loop

[Owen Jacobson]

> On May 27, 2017, at 7:31 AM, CuddleBeam  wrote:
> 
> (I know this is related to that CFJ I didn't want to judge but this is more 
> of a generalization which I've thought based on my own would-be Judgement, to 
> better understand if my would-be Judgement would be right or wrong itself or 
> if this is just a funny quirk of the system.)
> 
> So imagine A-man gives B-man Card Alpha.
> 
> B-man shakes his finger and goes "No no. You should've given me a Card Beta, 
> not Alpha. Since you're given me the wrong card, that merits a card. I issue 
> you a Card."
> 
> A-man then shakes his finger and goes "No no. I was correct in giving you a 
> Card Alpha. I agree with your reasoning that issuing a card incorrectly 
> merits a card, and you've just issued me a card for allegedly giving you the 
> wrong card. But that card has been granted for incorrect reasons because my 
> issuing of Card Alpha was correct in the first place. So I issue you a Card."
> 
> B-Man then shakes his finger and goes "No no. You are incorrect in issuing me 
> a card for issuing you a card for issuing me a card Beta, because you 
> should've issued me a Card Alpha. And since carding me for the wrong reasons 
> merits a card, I issue you a card.”

Fortunately, card issuance is relatively restricted. The Referee can do it, the 
Arbitor can do it, and the Prime Minister can do it. Any of the three can bring 
such a loop to a stop through the simple action of doing nothing - potentially 
incurring one final card in the process for failing to fulfil a SHALL duty, at 
worst.

-o



signature.asc
Description: Message signed with OpenPGP

Re: Re: DIS: Issuing a card for the wrong reason generating infinite loop

[CuddleBeam]

Gotcha, thank you so much for the cool history and reply and all, I
appreciate it.

Re: DIS: Issuing a card for the wrong reason generating infinite loop

[Kerim Aydin]

On Sat, 27 May 2017, CuddleBeam wrote:
> So within our morally decentralized system, it's entirely reasonable to throw 
> cards ad infinitum.

Just a follow-up:  part of what helps it work is system-design.  Card-
throwing (or whatever punishment system) has to have enough delays
built in that, once the initial dispute has been laid out, the 
participants are required to slow down and await a resolution, hence:

   A player CANNOT point a finger more than twice per Agoran week,
   or more than once per Agoran week at the same player.

In the past, especially with punishment systems, they've started out
being too trigger-happy and led to bouts of this circular stuff, and 
we've had to improve limits and slowdowns.  I don't think finger-pointing
has ever been tested with a tit-for-tat controversy, it seems like 
the above limitation might be good enough, but we won't know until we're
in the middle of one.

Re: DIS: Issuing a card for the wrong reason generating infinite loop

[Kerim Aydin]

On Sat, 27 May 2017, CuddleBeam wrote:
> I made a comic thing based on this problem of "decentralized Justice" 
> especially when it comes to what is "right" and "wrong" in a more 
> moral/ethical
> kind of way (what is "abuse" and what isn't for example).
> http://i.imgur.com/YulQDpf.png
> 
> In fact, it could be applied to anything of the sort and since all Judges 
> seem to have the same weight (there is no "more superior" Judge to
> tiebreak), any problem of this kind can devolve into an infinite loop, and it 
> would be reasonable to do so, because you can just allude to your local
> Judge, which doesn't need to have the same code of morals/ethics for the same 
> issue (for example, what is "abuse" or "fair play" or not) as that
> other judge.
> 
> So within our morally decentralized system, it's entirely reasonable to throw 
> cards ad infinitum.
> 
> I find that to be a very uncomfortable problem, yet I feel stuck with it.

This has always been a feature of our system (and occasionally it's led to "card
storms" or some version of that, I'll dig up some examples at some point).  And
it's not just with cards.  If you have two factions who fundamentally disagree
on an underlying axiom, the factions can call repeat CFJs hoping the most recent
one gets assigned to a member of their faction.

This is what happened during the earliest crisis in Nomic World, the Lindrum 
World
Crisis (I won't write about that because there are documents out there, but I 
can
summarize separately if desired).  When two groups disagree on some fundamental 
underlying axiom, they can make two entirely internally self-consistent logic
systems arguing their point.  There is no solution in formal logic.

The solutions come from principles of human law, not logic.  Here are some:

1.  Recognizing the primacy of the First Judge to be assigned an issue 
(precedent).
If there's two equally compelling ideas, the first judge picks between them, and
the other faction accepts that it wasn't their turn to decide, but they'll get
plenty of turns themselves.

2.  The appeals system serving as a "super judge", if the first judge isn't able
to convince enough people.  Our current appeals system is the Moot, which 
allows for
a majority vote to decide the issue.

3.  Legislative clarity.  Accept that there's a contradiction in the current 
ruleset,
and pass a Rule saying "we resolve it this way, and amend the records as if this
way had been true before this proposal."   An example of this is when we brought
in Partnerships-as-persons through a CFJ.  You'll see 1691, 1684, 1622, and 1621
are all the same CFJ statement + appeals, as two factions fundamentally 
disagreed.  
Ultimately it was resolved by majority vote creating a new rule, so the "true 
truth 
value" of that statement prior to the new rule is not formally resolvable.

4.  Converge the gamestate.  Working together, each faction makes a series of 
procedural steps that work under their own set of assumptions, with the end 
product
of both series being the same.  You end up agreeing on where you are, though 
you might 
forever disagree on how you got there.  This is what happened in Lindrum World.

5.  Of course, being a nomic, all of 1-4, as formal procedures, could be part 
of the
breakage, in which case there's a meta agreement ("outside the game") to keep 
playing
in a certain way.  If this happens, arguably, you've done a true reboot and are
no longer "playing the same game of Agora", so hopefully it doesn't get that 
far.
(That's what happened in Bnomic, though no reboot has lasted).  I don't think 
that's 
happened here myself.  There's a few players over time who have said that we've 
really
done (5) while cloaking it in doing (4), so claim that we're "not really 
playing Agora
anymore" (Kelly used to say that a lot).

Notice:  these all, fundamentally depend on societal pressure, not formal 
logic. So 
if you approach the game solely from a formal logic perspective, it would 
indeed be 
permanently "uncomfortable".  There's no formal logic for the societal pressure 
to
let go of a decision that doesn't go your way, and move on, and if you can't 
live with
it - that's what deregistration is for. In boardgame terms, it's equivalent to 
"once 
a house rule is decided, don't grouse about it for the rest of the game, and if 
you 
really can't stand it, don't perpetuate card storms or repeat CFJs, instead you 
need
to leave the table").  During the Lindrum World crisis, many players just got 
disgusted and left.  Not a good outcome - it's just a game - so the societal 
pressure
to not be such a jerk that other players are driven away is, generally, the 
ultimate 
guidance.

Re: DIS: Issuing a card for the wrong reason generating infinite loop

[CuddleBeam]

I made a comic thing based on this problem of "decentralized Justice"
especially when it comes to what is "right" and "wrong" in a more
moral/ethical kind of way (what is "abuse" and what isn't for example).

http://i.imgur.com/YulQDpf.png

In fact, it could be applied to anything of the sort and since all Judges
seem to have the same weight (there is no "more superior" Judge to
tiebreak), any problem of this kind can devolve into an infinite loop, and
it would be reasonable to do so, because you can just allude to your local
Judge, which doesn't need to have the same code of morals/ethics for the
same issue (for example, what is "abuse" or "fair play" or not) as that
other judge.

So within our morally decentralized system, it's entirely reasonable to
throw cards ad infinitum.

I find that to be a very uncomfortable problem, yet I feel stuck with it.

It could be solved with a "Superior Moral Judge" person. Which would feel
odd, is that Superior Moral Judge some kind of Morally Illuminated person
or something?

Or, it could be solved by having consensus decide what is morally "right"
and "wrong" ("I'm morally right because the majority people that happen to
be here right now on Agora, agree with me.") but that's vulnerable to
having people who aren't interested in participating at all in the conflict
needing to become part of it.

DIS: Issuing a card for the wrong reason generating infinite loop

[CuddleBeam]

(I know this is related to that CFJ I didn't want to judge but this is more
of a generalization which I've thought based on my own would-be Judgement,
to better understand if my would-be Judgement would be right or wrong
itself or if this is just a funny quirk of the system.)

So imagine A-man gives B-man Card Alpha.

B-man shakes his finger and goes "No no. You should've given me a Card
Beta, not Alpha. Since you're given me the wrong card, that merits a card.
I issue you a Card."

A-man then shakes his finger and goes "No no. I was correct in giving you a
Card Alpha. I agree with your reasoning that issuing a card incorrectly
merits a card, and you've just issued me a card for allegedly giving you
the wrong card. But that card has been granted for incorrect reasons
because my issuing of Card Alpha was correct in the first place. So I issue
you a Card."

B-Man then shakes his finger and goes "No no. You are incorrect in issuing
me a card for issuing you a card for issuing me a card Beta, because you
should've issued me a Card Alpha. And since carding me for the wrong
reasons merits a card, I issue you a card."

.

A-man then shakes his finger and goes "No no. You are incorrect in issuing
me a card for issuing you a card for issuing me a card for issuing you a
card for issuing me a card for issuing you a card for issuing me a card for
issuing you a card for issuing me a card for issuing you a card for issuing
me a card for issuing you a card for issuing me a card for issuing you a
card for issuing me a card for issuing you a card for issuing me a card ...



So, had I made a Judgement that implies that "Issuing a card for the wrong
reason merits a card", that's a loop that can be fed by just having two
people (or more) disagree on whether the original card-issuing had a
correct or wrong reason (would they both agree with that "Issuing a card
for the wrong reason merits a card" too).

So the only proper result would be for them to issue each other cards
forever, stuck in that loop (until they hit Agora's loop/spam/repetition
blockades at least, and even then they can just wait and then continue on
more, entirely justified with good reason, but ignoring that it would look
silly. Silly things aren't necessarily wrong things either though.)