Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Intent to Begin Nomaoic
Cuddlebeam wrote: (once you have a totally reliable majority cabal, the game is under your total control anyways, you just monopolize what proposals pass and what not) Provided that it remains totally reliable, because backstabbing never ever happens. Maybe it would lead to less degenerate gameplay if only part of each new proposal/rule was obfuscated? 1) Each player submits some salt text (privately, non-functional, some reasonable limit on its length) and its hash (publically). 2) Relevant sections of text are then presented like "[REDACTED, 14 characters, hash of this text plus 's salt is _]".
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Intent to Begin Nomaoic
(once you have a totally reliable majority cabal, the game is under your total control anyways, you just monopolize what proposals pass and what not) On Wed, Sep 2, 2020 at 6:18 PM Cuddle Beam wrote: > It's not guaranteed if another group does the random roll instead and the > bonds of a majority cabal aren't strong enough. Although once you have a > totally reliable cabal that is majority-sized, then yes, it's better to go > for your option. > > On Wed, Sep 2, 2020 at 6:14 PM nix via agora-discussion < > agora-discussion@agoranomic.org> wrote: > >> On 9/2/20 11:10 AM, Cuddle Beam wrote: >> > Having a sole winner doesn't solve the problem imo, you could just >> > make that one of the team players selected at random achieve a win >> > (which is quicker than the 2-proposal one and if done, it's too fast >> > for anything slower to work). >> >> Quicker in legal mechanics but sounds a lot more difficult to convince >> people of. I don't think I'd join a 1 in 4 chance if I was also offered >> a slightly slower but guaranteed win. >> >> -- >> nix >> Prime Minister, Webmastor >> >> >>
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Intent to Begin Nomaoic
It's not guaranteed if another group does the random roll instead and the bonds of a majority cabal aren't strong enough. Although once you have a totally reliable cabal that is majority-sized, then yes, it's better to go for your option. On Wed, Sep 2, 2020 at 6:14 PM nix via agora-discussion < agora-discussion@agoranomic.org> wrote: > On 9/2/20 11:10 AM, Cuddle Beam wrote: > > Having a sole winner doesn't solve the problem imo, you could just > > make that one of the team players selected at random achieve a win > > (which is quicker than the 2-proposal one and if done, it's too fast > > for anything slower to work). > > Quicker in legal mechanics but sounds a lot more difficult to convince > people of. I don't think I'd join a 1 in 4 chance if I was also offered > a slightly slower but guaranteed win. > > -- > nix > Prime Minister, Webmastor > > >
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Intent to Begin Nomaoic
On 9/2/20 11:10 AM, Cuddle Beam wrote: > Having a sole winner doesn't solve the problem imo, you could just > make that one of the team players selected at random achieve a win > (which is quicker than the 2-proposal one and if done, it's too fast > for anything slower to work). Quicker in legal mechanics but sounds a lot more difficult to convince people of. I don't think I'd join a 1 in 4 chance if I was also offered a slightly slower but guaranteed win. -- nix Prime Minister, Webmastor
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Intent to Begin Nomaoic
Having a sole winner doesn't solve the problem imo, you could just make that one of the team players selected at random achieve a win (which is quicker than the 2-proposal one and if done, it's too fast for anything slower to work). On Wed, Sep 2, 2020 at 5:07 PM nix via agora-discussion < agora-discussion@agoranomic.org> wrote: > On 9/2/20 9:51 AM, Gaelan Steele via agora-discussion wrote: > > > > OK, so here's what's going on: I received a proposal along the lines of > "these players get 100 points. They all win." I won't reveal the names or > number of these players for obvious reasons, but, at the point when it > happened, it was exactly enough players to pass a proposal… as long as > Cuddlebeam's NttPF registration didn't count. To be honest, I'm pretty > disappointed—it's a very early and unsatisfying end, *and* it relies on > someone accidentally sending a message NttPF, which IMO is rather > unsportsmanlike. I have several options in front of me, and I'd like some > advice on where to go. > > > > 1) I could end the game, declaring these players as winners and giving > up on the tournament. This is the most "technically correct" option, but > also the most disappointing for me and other people that actually wanted to > try playing this. But perhaps the fact that this was the first proposal is > a pretty good indication that the idea wasn't that workable in the first > place. > > 2) I could do that, then start another free tournament. If I did so, I'd > probably add a rule that exactly one player could win—I think the ability > to declare multiple winners makes a bit of a mess of the incentives in a > nomic like this. This has the advantage of giving the players their > (somewhat) deserved win, but gives us another opportunity at actually > playing this. The disadvantage is that it might cheapen both the tournament > victory and (through the proliferation of free tournaments) Agoran wins as > a whole. > > 3) As above, but with an entirely unofficial tournament, played on DIS > or on another forum entirely. > > 4) Find some way to wiggle out of the win, probably by ruling that > CuddleBeam's registration succeeded. I have fairly large latitude over the > adjudication of the rules, but even so, this might be a bit of a stretch; I > think the two options would be to rule that "public" means something other > than what it means in an Agoran context, or to use my ability to > arbitrarily reconcile errors made in adjudication (I already recorded > Cuddlebeam as a player upon eir first registration) to "ratify" the fact > that Cuddlebeam registered. In some way, this feels like the "fairest" > option (again, I strongly look down upon abuses of NttPF messages), but it > is also a fairly significant judicial intervention. > > > > Thoughts? > > > > Gaelan > > > > FWIW we would've just included 1 or 2 more players if we needed to. This > was pitched as a cut-throat conspiratorial game, so it feels more > unsportsmanlike to bend the rules to prevent a win than to take > advantage of an issue in the ruleset to win immediately... I think > giving the conspirators the win and restarting with a patched ruleset > makes more sense. > > We debated several ways to do this last night, and I think the following > changes would make a much more robust game: > > * A 24/48h delay before turns can begin, which means enough players can > join to make this less likely. > > * Only one person can win, as an immutable rule. This would mean the > cabal would have to pass 2 separate proposals sequentially to win > together (a transmutation and then a change like ours), which ups the > difficulty of coordination quite a lot. > > * Possibly delaying voting until the rule is numbered. This doesn't do > much besides signal to other players that *something* is happening, > which may encourage them to try to figure it out and counteract faster. > > -- > nix > Prime Minister, Webmastor > >
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Intent to Begin Nomaoic
On 9/2/20 9:51 AM, Gaelan Steele via agora-discussion wrote: > > OK, so here's what's going on: I received a proposal along the lines of > "these players get 100 points. They all win." I won't reveal the names or > number of these players for obvious reasons, but, at the point when it > happened, it was exactly enough players to pass a proposal… as long as > Cuddlebeam's NttPF registration didn't count. To be honest, I'm pretty > disappointed—it's a very early and unsatisfying end, *and* it relies on > someone accidentally sending a message NttPF, which IMO is rather > unsportsmanlike. I have several options in front of me, and I'd like some > advice on where to go. > > 1) I could end the game, declaring these players as winners and giving up on > the tournament. This is the most "technically correct" option, but also the > most disappointing for me and other people that actually wanted to try > playing this. But perhaps the fact that this was the first proposal is a > pretty good indication that the idea wasn't that workable in the first place. > 2) I could do that, then start another free tournament. If I did so, I'd > probably add a rule that exactly one player could win—I think the ability to > declare multiple winners makes a bit of a mess of the incentives in a nomic > like this. This has the advantage of giving the players their (somewhat) > deserved win, but gives us another opportunity at actually playing this. The > disadvantage is that it might cheapen both the tournament victory and > (through the proliferation of free tournaments) Agoran wins as a whole. > 3) As above, but with an entirely unofficial tournament, played on DIS or on > another forum entirely. > 4) Find some way to wiggle out of the win, probably by ruling that > CuddleBeam's registration succeeded. I have fairly large latitude over the > adjudication of the rules, but even so, this might be a bit of a stretch; I > think the two options would be to rule that "public" means something other > than what it means in an Agoran context, or to use my ability to arbitrarily > reconcile errors made in adjudication (I already recorded Cuddlebeam as a > player upon eir first registration) to "ratify" the fact that Cuddlebeam > registered. In some way, this feels like the "fairest" option (again, I > strongly look down upon abuses of NttPF messages), but it is also a fairly > significant judicial intervention. > > Thoughts? > > Gaelan > FWIW we would've just included 1 or 2 more players if we needed to. This was pitched as a cut-throat conspiratorial game, so it feels more unsportsmanlike to bend the rules to prevent a win than to take advantage of an issue in the ruleset to win immediately... I think giving the conspirators the win and restarting with a patched ruleset makes more sense. We debated several ways to do this last night, and I think the following changes would make a much more robust game: * A 24/48h delay before turns can begin, which means enough players can join to make this less likely. * Only one person can win, as an immutable rule. This would mean the cabal would have to pass 2 separate proposals sequentially to win together (a transmutation and then a change like ours), which ups the difficulty of coordination quite a lot. * Possibly delaying voting until the rule is numbered. This doesn't do much besides signal to other players that *something* is happening, which may encourage them to try to figure it out and counteract faster. -- nix Prime Minister, Webmastor
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Intent to Begin Nomaoic
> On Sep 2, 2020, at 3:51 PM, Gaelan Steele via agora-discussion > wrote: > > OK, so here's what's going on: I received a proposal along the lines of > "these players get 100 points. They all win." I won't reveal the names or > number of these players for obvious reasons, but, at the point when it > happened, it was exactly enough players to pass a proposal… as long as > Cuddlebeam's NttPF registration didn't count. To be honest, I'm pretty > disappointed—it's a very early and unsatisfying end, *and* it relies on > someone accidentally sending a message NttPF, which IMO is rather > unsportsmanlike. I have several options in front of me, and I'd like some > advice on where to go. > > 1) I could end the game, declaring these players as winners and giving up on > the tournament. This is the most "technically correct" option, but also the > most disappointing for me and other people that actually wanted to try > playing this. But perhaps the fact that this was the first proposal is a > pretty good indication that the idea wasn't that workable in the first place. > 2) I could do that, then start another free tournament. If I did so, I'd > probably add a rule that exactly one player could win—I think the ability to > declare multiple winners makes a bit of a mess of the incentives in a nomic > like this. This has the advantage of giving the players their (somewhat) > deserved win, but gives us another opportunity at actually playing this. The > disadvantage is that it might cheapen both the tournament victory and > (through the proliferation of free tournaments) Agoran wins as a whole. > 3) As above, but with an entirely unofficial tournament, played on DIS or on > another forum entirely. > 4) Find some way to wiggle out of the win, probably by ruling that > CuddleBeam's registration succeeded. I have fairly large latitude over the > adjudication of the rules, but even so, this might be a bit of a stretch; I > think the two options would be to rule that "public" means something other > than what it means in an Agoran context, or to use my ability to arbitrarily > reconcile errors made in adjudication (I already recorded Cuddlebeam as a > player upon eir first registration) to "ratify" the fact that Cuddlebeam > registered. In some way, this feels like the "fairest" option (again, I > strongly look down upon abuses of NttPF messages), but it is also a fairly > significant judicial intervention. > > Thoughts? > > Gaelan I should add that this is normally more information about the gamestate than I'd reveal, but given that the game might be over anyway, it's kind of moot. Gaelan
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Intent to Begin Nomaoic
On 9/1/20 2:51 PM, Cuddle Beam via agora-discussion wrote: > I become a player in Nomaoic. Noting that I'm very open to cabals, feel > free to email me. This was NttPF btw. -- Jason Cobb
