Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Let's toss us a coin, shall we?
On 3/2/2020 2:25 PM, Tanner Swett wrote: > On Mon, Mar 2, 2020, 11:34 Kerim Aydin wrote: > >> Well, we purposefully error-trapped switches, which suggests that we allow >> that sort of thing if the rules are explicit about it happening: >> > > But an indeterminate value is merely one that "cannot be reasonably > determined" (paraphrasing slightly). That's not an acknowledgement that a > value can be fundamentally and intrinsically ambiguous; it's just an > acknowledgement of the fact that we Agorans may be actually unable to > figure out what the value is. The CFJ 1460 standard includes "fundamentally unknowable" stuff as fitting into the "cannot be reasonably determined" category. Judge Maud wrote: (https://faculty.washington.edu/kerim/nomic/cases/?1460) > a purported communication such as > > I announce my intent to remove the first n listed proposals from the > proposal pool, where n is the minimum of 5 and the number of > counterexamples to the Riemann hypothesis, > > accompanied by a list of 5 or more proposals, would require unreasonably > excessive effort.
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Let's toss us a coin, shall we?
On Mon, Mar 2, 2020, 11:34 Kerim Aydin via agora-discussion < agora-discussion@agoranomic.org> wrote: > Well, we purposefully error-trapped switches, which suggests that we allow > that sort of thing if the rules are explicit about it happening: > But an indeterminate value is merely one that "cannot be reasonably determined" (paraphrasing slightly). That's not an acknowledgement that a value can be fundamentally and intrinsically ambiguous; it's just an acknowledgement of the fact that we Agorans may be actually unable to figure out what the value is. —Warrigal >
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Let's toss us a coin, shall we?
On Monday, March 2, 2020, Timon Walshe-Grey via agora-discussion < agora-discussion@agoranomic.org> wrote: > G. wrote: > > Well, we purposefully error-trapped switches, which suggests that we > allow > > that sort of thing if the rules are explicit about it happening: > > > > > If a type of switch is not explicitly designated as > > > possibly-indeterminate by the rule that defines it, and if an > action > > > or set of actions would cause the value of an instance of that type > > > of switch to become indeterminate, that instance instead takes on > > > its last determinate and possible value, if any, otherwise it takes > > > on its default value. > > > > I'm pretty sure that error-trapping was added after a switch ended up in > > an ambiguous condition. > > What would y'all say to making ownership an asset switch? It would > necessitate a bit of rewriting to the current asset rules, but it gives > us all the anti-ambiguity safeguards that already exist for switches. > > A "pure" safeguard for the asset rules might look something like this: > > If an asset would otherwise lack an owner, or if its owner would > otherwise be indeterminate or logically undecidable, it is owned > by the Lost and Found Department. > > ...but that seems inelegant compared to reusing the switch rules. > It would take a bit of writing to turn addition and subtraction into “set the switch of n units of currency from person A to person B” and would come out pretty messy IMO? It’s how we do zombie master switches now, and it’s been causing enough difficulties even without worrying about math that we.were talking last week about going the opposite direction and making that currency based...
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Let's toss us a coin, shall we?
G. wrote: > Well, we purposefully error-trapped switches, which suggests that we allow > that sort of thing if the rules are explicit about it happening: > > > If a type of switch is not explicitly designated as > > possibly-indeterminate by the rule that defines it, and if an action > > or set of actions would cause the value of an instance of that type > > of switch to become indeterminate, that instance instead takes on > > its last determinate and possible value, if any, otherwise it takes > > on its default value. > > I'm pretty sure that error-trapping was added after a switch ended up in > an ambiguous condition. What would y'all say to making ownership an asset switch? It would necessitate a bit of rewriting to the current asset rules, but it gives us all the anti-ambiguity safeguards that already exist for switches. A "pure" safeguard for the asset rules might look something like this: If an asset would otherwise lack an owner, or if its owner would otherwise be indeterminate or logically undecidable, it is owned by the Lost and Found Department. ...but that seems inelegant compared to reusing the switch rules. -twg
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Let's toss us a coin, shall we?
CuddleBeam wrote: > If I tell you "you can take a cupcake", that doesn't mean you can take > ALL the cookies. It means you can take one. > > And if I say "a cupcake is a pastry", that doesn't mean that only ONE > cupcake is a pastry. It means that all cupcakes are pastries. Sure, I'm with you that both meanings are valid definitions for the word "a". It's just that I think the second one makes more sense in this context. Certainly it wins on "best interests of the game" if it prevents everyone's (except Warrigal's) coin balances from being indeterminate. -twg
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Let's toss us a coin, shall we?
On 3/2/2020 8:11 AM, Cuddle Beam via agora-discussion wrote: > On Monday, March 2, 2020, Tanner Swett via agora-discussion wrote: >> On Mon, Mar 2, 2020, 08:23 Cuddle Beam wrote: >> >>> But yeah, even if it is tradition, I'm not against just going contrary to >>> it since all we need to do that is enough people agreeing to do so, and >> I'd >>> agree to it (although, probably not right now while my Agora being is >> still >>> being rented out lmao). >>> >> >> You'd agree to declaring Coin holdings to be fundamentally ambiguous as a >> result of an ambiguous rule? I certainly wouldn't, and I'd be surprised if >> many people would. Well, we purposefully error-trapped switches, which suggests that we allow that sort of thing if the rules are explicit about it happening: > If a type of switch is not explicitly designated as > possibly-indeterminate by the rule that defines it, and if an action > or set of actions would cause the value of an instance of that type > of switch to become indeterminate, that instance instead takes on > its last determinate and possible value, if any, otherwise it takes > on its default value. I'm pretty sure that error-trapping was added after a switch ended up in an ambiguous condition. And there are midway measures anyway. E.g. It will be certain everyone has at least as many coins as they did before the rule took effect. That uncertainty can be tracked and error propagation may be limited - only having effect whenever a transaction would put eir known balance at exactly -1. -G.
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Let's toss us a coin, shall we?
I mean, I’m inclined to agree with G.’s interpretation there. It would do something, but it’s IMPOSSIBLE to determine the result, making the whole thing ambiguous. But anyways, the sword of “the majority” doesn’t really matter to me. My opinion is my own. On Monday, March 2, 2020, Tanner Swett via agora-discussion < agora-discussion@agoranomic.org> wrote: > On Mon, Mar 2, 2020, 08:23 Cuddle Beam via agora-discussion < > agora-discussion@agoranomic.org> wrote: > > > But yeah, even if it is tradition, I'm not against just going contrary to > > it since all we need to do that is enough people agreeing to do so, and > I'd > > agree to it (although, probably not right now while my Agora being is > still > > being rented out lmao). > > > > You'd agree to declaring Coin holdings to be fundamentally ambiguous as a > result of an ambiguous rule? I certainly wouldn't, and I'd be surprised if > many people would. > > —Warrigal > > > >
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Let's toss us a coin, shall we?
On Mon, Mar 2, 2020, 08:23 Cuddle Beam via agora-discussion < agora-discussion@agoranomic.org> wrote: > But yeah, even if it is tradition, I'm not against just going contrary to > it since all we need to do that is enough people agreeing to do so, and I'd > agree to it (although, probably not right now while my Agora being is still > being rented out lmao). > You'd agree to declaring Coin holdings to be fundamentally ambiguous as a result of an ambiguous rule? I certainly wouldn't, and I'd be surprised if many people would. —Warrigal >
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Let's toss us a coin, shall we?
On 3/2/2020 3:45 AM, Cuddle Beam wrote: > On Mon, Mar 2, 2020 at 12:39 PM Tanner Swett wrote: >> On Mon, Mar 2, 2020, 04:41 Cuddle Beam wrote: >> >>> I think this would cause: >>> - A big and spreading fog of war of CfJ DISMISS, because its >> "undecidable" >>> and "insufficient information exists" to know what's going on with coins >>> >> >> My proposal would just create an ambiguity in the rules, and we never judge >> DISMISS due to an ambiguity in the rules; we pick an interpretation >> instead. >> > Why is this? (Is it just culture? A CfJ-rule? A rule?) We used to have a category called UNDETERMINED for this kind of thing, and at the time it had an explicit clause in the end that said "can't just throw up your hands if the rules are unclear": > > * UNDETERMINED, appropriate if the statement is nonsensical or >too vague, or if the information available to the judge is >insufficient to determine which of the FALSE, TRUE, and >UNDECIDABLE judgements is appropriate; however, uncertainty as >to how to interpret or apply the rules cannot constitute >insufficiency of information for this purpose > When we turned this (back) into DISMISS we deleted the clause, but just kept up the habit I guess? However, note that this says "don't judge UNDETERMINED based on uncertainty in *interpretation* of the rule". I think it's a different situation to say "This rule's interpretation is completely clear - it sets a quantity to something that's literally IMPOSSIBLE to determine but it's really clear that it's doing that" and maybe DISMISS is ok for that. -G.
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Let's toss us a coin, shall we?
Ah, alright. I wasn't familiar with that. I've been here for so long and I still don't know that stuff lmao. But yeah, even if it is tradition, I'm not against just going contrary to it since all we need to do that is enough people agreeing to do so, and I'd agree to it (although, probably not right now while my Agora being is still being rented out lmao). On Mon, Mar 2, 2020 at 1:37 PM Tanner Swett via agora-discussion < agora-discussion@agoranomic.org> wrote: > On Mon, Mar 2, 2020, 06:45 Cuddle Beam via agora-discussion < > agora-discussion@agoranomic.org> wrote: > > > > My proposal would just create an ambiguity in the rules, and we never > > judge DISMISS due to an ambiguity in the rules; we pick an interpretation > > instead. > > > > Why is this? (Is it just culture? A CfJ-rule? A rule?) > > > > Well, Rule 217 "Interpreting the Rules" says that "Where the text [of the > rules] is silent, inconsistent, or unclear, it is to be augmented by game > custom, common sense, past judgements, and consideration of the best > interests of the game." > > I think that game custom, common sense, past judgements and consideration > of the best interests *all* demand that, if the rules are ambiguous, we > pick one interpretation and go with that one. Judging a case DISMISS > because the rules are ambiguous, and considering the gamestate to be > fundamentally ambiguous as a result, would be unprecedented (I think) and > extremely unconventional. > > —Warrigal > > > >
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Let's toss us a coin, shall we?
On Mon, Mar 2, 2020, 06:45 Cuddle Beam via agora-discussion < agora-discussion@agoranomic.org> wrote: > > My proposal would just create an ambiguity in the rules, and we never > judge DISMISS due to an ambiguity in the rules; we pick an interpretation > instead. > > Why is this? (Is it just culture? A CfJ-rule? A rule?) > Well, Rule 217 "Interpreting the Rules" says that "Where the text [of the rules] is silent, inconsistent, or unclear, it is to be augmented by game custom, common sense, past judgements, and consideration of the best interests of the game." I think that game custom, common sense, past judgements and consideration of the best interests *all* demand that, if the rules are ambiguous, we pick one interpretation and go with that one. Judging a case DISMISS because the rules are ambiguous, and considering the gamestate to be fundamentally ambiguous as a result, would be unprecedented (I think) and extremely unconventional. —Warrigal >
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Let's toss us a coin, shall we?
> My proposal would just create an ambiguity in the rules, and we never judge DISMISS due to an ambiguity in the rules; we pick an interpretation instead. Why is this? (Is it just culture? A CfJ-rule? A rule?) On Mon, Mar 2, 2020 at 12:39 PM Tanner Swett via agora-discussion < agora-discussion@agoranomic.org> wrote: > On Mon, Mar 2, 2020, 04:41 Cuddle Beam via agora-discussion < > agora-discussion@agoranomic.org> wrote: > > > I think this would cause: > > - A big and spreading fog of war of CfJ DISMISS, because its > "undecidable" > > and "insufficient information exists" to know what's going on with coins > > > > My proposal would just create an ambiguity in the rules, and we never judge > DISMISS due to an ambiguity in the rules; we pick an interpretation > instead. > > —Warrigal > > > >
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Let's toss us a coin, shall we?
On Mon, Mar 2, 2020, 04:41 Cuddle Beam via agora-discussion < agora-discussion@agoranomic.org> wrote: > I think this would cause: > - A big and spreading fog of war of CfJ DISMISS, because its "undecidable" > and "insufficient information exists" to know what's going on with coins > My proposal would just create an ambiguity in the rules, and we never judge DISMISS due to an ambiguity in the rules; we pick an interpretation instead. —Warrigal >
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Let's toss us a coin, shall we?
Yes but I believe there is a difference, it's the same word "a", but with different meaning. And what matters is the meaning of the word, not just the word used. You see, that's what matters, in this matter. Also, unrelated, liquids are a state of matter. If I tell you "you can take a cupcake", that doesn't mean you can take ALL the cookies. It means you can take one. And if I say "a cupcake is a pastry", that doesn't mean that only ONE cupcake is a pastry. It means that all cupcakes are pastries. On Mon, Mar 2, 2020 at 12:00 PM Timon Walshe-Grey via agora-discussion < agora-discussion@agoranomic.org> wrote: > CuddleBeam wrote: > > But "a player" is just one player, no? At least that's my understanding > of it. > > Compare, for example: > > > A player whose master is not emself is a zombie (syn. inactive); > > all other players are active. > > I don't think any reasonable interpretation of the rules would conclude > that exactly one player (we just don't know which one!) is be a zombie > at any given time. "A player" must surely be interpretable as "each > player". > > ...At least I hope so. Quite a lot of rules use this formulation. The > scariest one I can find is "A registered person is a Player." > > -twg >
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Let's toss us a coin, shall we?
CuddleBeam wrote: > But "a player" is just one player, no? At least that's my understanding of it. Compare, for example: > A player whose master is not emself is a zombie (syn. inactive); > all other players are active. I don't think any reasonable interpretation of the rules would conclude that exactly one player (we just don't know which one!) is be a zombie at any given time. "A player" must surely be interpretable as "each player". ...At least I hope so. Quite a lot of rules use this formulation. The scariest one I can find is "A registered person is a Player." -twg
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Let's toss us a coin, shall we?
But "a player" is just one player, no? At least that's my understanding of
it.
On Mon, Mar 2, 2020 at 10:50 AM Timon Walshe-Grey via agora-discussion <
agora-discussion@agoranomic.org> wrote:
> On Sunday, March 1, 2020 10:46 PM, Alexis Hunt via agora-discussion <
> agora-discussion@agoranomic.org> wrote:
>
> > On Sun., Mar. 1, 2020, 17:05 Tanner Swett via agora-business, <
> > agora-busin...@agoranomic.org> wrote:
> >
> > > I submit a proposal with AI = 1, titled "Somebody gets a coin":
> > > {
> > > Enact a power-1 rule titled "A Coin Award":
> > > {
> > > When this rule is enacted, a player other than the
> > > author of the proposal which enacted this rule earns 1
> > > coin. Then, if a player earned a coin this way, this
> > > rule repeals itself.
> > > }
> > > }
> > >
> > > According to Rule 217, "When interpreting and applying the rules, the
> > > text of the rules takes precedence", which presumably means that this
> > > rule does, in fact, award a player a coin.
> > >
> > > It would be awfully interesting to see whether or not this rule really
> > > does award a coin, and if so, who the coin is awarded to.
> > >
> > > —Warrigal
> > >
> >
> > I think I know what outcome I'll argue for, at least initially, but I
> want
> > to see if pass first.
> >
> > >
>
> I'm in the "one coin for each player except Warrigal" camp, personally...
>
> -twg
>
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Let's toss us a coin, shall we?
On Sunday, March 1, 2020 10:46 PM, Alexis Hunt via agora-discussion
wrote:
> On Sun., Mar. 1, 2020, 17:05 Tanner Swett via agora-business, <
> agora-busin...@agoranomic.org> wrote:
>
> > I submit a proposal with AI = 1, titled "Somebody gets a coin":
> > {
> > Enact a power-1 rule titled "A Coin Award":
> > {
> > When this rule is enacted, a player other than the
> > author of the proposal which enacted this rule earns 1
> > coin. Then, if a player earned a coin this way, this
> > rule repeals itself.
> > }
> > }
> >
> > According to Rule 217, "When interpreting and applying the rules, the
> > text of the rules takes precedence", which presumably means that this
> > rule does, in fact, award a player a coin.
> >
> > It would be awfully interesting to see whether or not this rule really
> > does award a coin, and if so, who the coin is awarded to.
> >
> > —Warrigal
> >
>
> I think I know what outcome I'll argue for, at least initially, but I want
> to see if pass first.
>
> >
I'm in the "one coin for each player except Warrigal" camp, personally...
-twg
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Let's toss us a coin, shall we?
...or
- Some CfJ-rule already exists to let us ignore its effects.
On Mon, Mar 2, 2020 at 10:41 AM Cuddle Beam wrote:
> I think this would cause:
> - A big and spreading fog of war of CfJ DISMISS, because its "undecidable"
> and "insufficient information exists" to know what's going on with coins
> - Or the Judge would make a new CfJ-rule that would allow us to ignore its
> effects altogether because it can't be "reasonably" computed.
>
> On Sun, Mar 1, 2020 at 11:47 PM Alexis Hunt via agora-discussion <
> agora-discussion@agoranomic.org> wrote:
>
>> On Sun., Mar. 1, 2020, 17:05 Tanner Swett via agora-business, <
>> agora-busin...@agoranomic.org> wrote:
>>
>> > I submit a proposal with AI = 1, titled "Somebody gets a coin":
>> > {
>> > Enact a power-1 rule titled "A Coin Award":
>> > {
>> > When this rule is enacted, a player other than the
>> > author of the proposal which enacted this rule earns 1
>> > coin. Then, if a player earned a coin this way, this
>> > rule repeals itself.
>> > }
>> > }
>> >
>> > According to Rule 217, "When interpreting and applying the rules, the
>> > text of the rules takes precedence", which presumably means that this
>> > rule does, in fact, award a player a coin.
>> >
>> > It would be awfully interesting to see whether or not this rule really
>> > does award a coin, and if so, who the coin is awarded to.
>> >
>> > —Warrigal
>> >
>>
>> I think I know what outcome I'll argue for, at least initially, but I want
>> to see if pass first.
>>
>> >
>>
>
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Let's toss us a coin, shall we?
I think this would cause:
- A big and spreading fog of war of CfJ DISMISS, because its "undecidable"
and "insufficient information exists" to know what's going on with coins
- Or the Judge would make a new CfJ-rule that would allow us to ignore its
effects altogether because it can't be "reasonably" computed.
On Sun, Mar 1, 2020 at 11:47 PM Alexis Hunt via agora-discussion <
agora-discussion@agoranomic.org> wrote:
> On Sun., Mar. 1, 2020, 17:05 Tanner Swett via agora-business, <
> agora-busin...@agoranomic.org> wrote:
>
> > I submit a proposal with AI = 1, titled "Somebody gets a coin":
> > {
> > Enact a power-1 rule titled "A Coin Award":
> > {
> > When this rule is enacted, a player other than the
> > author of the proposal which enacted this rule earns 1
> > coin. Then, if a player earned a coin this way, this
> > rule repeals itself.
> > }
> > }
> >
> > According to Rule 217, "When interpreting and applying the rules, the
> > text of the rules takes precedence", which presumably means that this
> > rule does, in fact, award a player a coin.
> >
> > It would be awfully interesting to see whether or not this rule really
> > does award a coin, and if so, who the coin is awarded to.
> >
> > —Warrigal
> >
>
> I think I know what outcome I'll argue for, at least initially, but I want
> to see if pass first.
>
> >
>
