When I revise this, I will add in a discussion of game actions and I will try to address how things done by Agora fall into the action model.
---- Publius Scribonius Scholasticus On Sat, May 27, 2017 at 7:21 PM, Kerim Aydin <[email protected]> wrote: > > > On Sat, 27 May 2017, Publius Scribonius Scholasticus wrote: > > Interestingly, Suber’s ruleset leaves very basic actions such as joining > > or leaving the game unregulated allowing them to occur in any manner. > > A good example of this is 'voting'. I've played a handful of face-to-face > Suber nomic games, and all of them have begun with a meta decision on > voting. Simultaneous or not? Secret or not? Invariably (in the games > I've played), whatever meta decision is made on voting has more impact on > the progess on the game then the rules themselves. > > > actions that automatically occur. > > But is this truly an action, or a passive change in the gamestate? > R101 specifies that persons perform actions, which does not allow for > automatic "actions". One old judgement I made, that had wide discussion > at the time (was protoed as a thesis), posits that only persons CAN > initiate causality and actions (CFJ 1895). > > > In Agora the various categories which may take actions are entities, > > players, persons, non-player persons, organizations, subsets of players, > > and Agora. > > Again, are these actually "actions" when a non-person performs them? > R2125 reads: > > Regulated Actions CAN only be performed as described by the > > Rules. > The describe a few different ways of performing actions, by announcement, > or as a dependent action (support/object/consent). Both of these > require a person to announce them. Now, the Rules say that an > Organization, > or Agora, CAN "pay out" automatically, but it doesn't say that this > is an "action". > > Now I see your argument: (1) an "action" is any verb, (2) "pay out" is a > verb, and so (3) when the rules say "an organization CAN pay out", it's > saying that an organization CAN perform an action. This is reasonably > sensible. > > But an alternate line of thinking is (1) R101 maps game actions to persons, > (2) actions elsewhere is short for "game actions" (3) R2125 says that > regulated [game] actions only happen as described for persons, and (4) > the only methods specified are "by announcement" or "by dependent > action". Anything else that happens (what you're calling "automatic > actions") is actually a consequence without an actor - a cause set in > motion by other player actions (again, borrowing from the thinking of > CFJ 1895). > > To be clear, I'm not saying that the things that Agora CAN do don't > happen, just that they aren't actions, but rather consequences of > person actions. (Nor am I arguing strongly for my line of reasoning, > I'm just bringing it up as a subject worth exploring further for your > thesis!) > > >
