Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Not so fast!
> I'd prefer to just repeat the cleanings. Mass changes to the ruleset > are one of the riskiest things you can do in Agora (which is why there > are so many protections preventing them being done by accident). My proposal says "The gamestate is changed...". I assumed that includes the rules, making re-cleaning unnecessary. Is there precedent for what "gamestate" means?
Re: DIS: Re: CFJ 3719
You had me with the video. (Illustrating common legal uses of "declare" in context is far more satisfactory/convincing IMO than the "capitalization = word loses its basic meaning" approach). On Wed, Feb 20, 2019 at 9:26 AM D. Margaux wrote: > > On Wed, Feb 20, 2019 at 7:33 AM D Margaux wrote: > > > > > > > > > > Begin forwarded message: > > > > From: D Margaux > > Date: February 20, 2019 at 7:28:31 AM EST > > To: Agora Business > > Subject: Re: BUS: Victory by Apathy > > > > > > > > On Feb 19, 2019, at 10:56 PM, James Cook wrote: > > > > I initiate a Call for Judgement, specifying the statement: "Falsifian > > and G won the game." > > > > > > CFJ 3719. I assign it to myself. > > > > It reminds me of another, similar attempted declaration: > > https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=EuZeff2y32M :-) > > Here are my initial proto-judgement, but I am definitely open to being > persuaded otherwise: > > * * * > > Caller's arguement depends on the idea that to "Declare Apathy" means > the same thing as to "announce" or "publish apathy." I don't > necessarily agree with that, and so I would judge FALSE. > > The word declaration has several meanings. In the context of Rule > 2465, I think "to Declare Apathy" is a kind of a speech-act: it is a > statement that causes a particular social fact to come into existence > (in this case, it creates a victory by Apathy). It has a similar form > as when a wedding officiant says "I declare you man and wife," or when > a monarch says "I declare war on [country]," or when the chair of a > legislative body says "I declare that the legislative session is > adjourned." > > In each of these examples, the declaration works only if certain > preconditions are met. The wedding officiant must be vested with some > legal, religious, or other kind of authority to perform the marriage, > and the bride and groom need to express consent and have a valid > marriage license--otherwise the declaration is void. The monarch must > be vested with the power to declare war, and may lack authority to do > so in a constitutional monarchy. The chair must actually be > recognized as legitimately presiding over the legislative body, and > certain rules typically must be followed before an adjournment can be > declared. > > If authority is lacking, the declaration is void. So if I were to say > (or announce or publish), "I declare Donald Trump and Hillary Rodham > Clinton to be married," or "I declare war on BlogNomic on behalf of > Agora," or "I declare the U.S. Congress to be adjourned," we would all > immediately understand why the declarations are void. > > So too here. Under certain circumstances, Rule 2465 vests a player > with authority to declare a particular social fact to come into > existence--a victory by Apathy. The key question is under what > circumstances does that Rule create authority to Declare Apathy? The > Rule says that "[a] player CAN Declare Apathy without objection, > specifying a set of players." In my view, "without objection" must be > read as a precondition that must be satisfied before a player is > vested with authority to Declare Apathy. > > So what does "without objection" mean? Well, Rule 1728 says that "a > rule that purports to allow a person to perform an action [without > objection] thereby allows em to perform the action by announcement" > provided certain conditions are met. Here, those conditions are > plainly not met (and not merely because dependent intents are > currently temporarily broken). So, I think the declaration sadly must > fail (which is regrettable because a TRUE judgement would also give me > a win by Apathy from December 2018).
DIS: Re: CFJ 3719
On Wed, Feb 20, 2019 at 7:33 AM D Margaux wrote: > > > > > Begin forwarded message: > > From: D Margaux > Date: February 20, 2019 at 7:28:31 AM EST > To: Agora Business > Subject: Re: BUS: Victory by Apathy > > > > On Feb 19, 2019, at 10:56 PM, James Cook wrote: > > I initiate a Call for Judgement, specifying the statement: "Falsifian > and G won the game." > > > CFJ 3719. I assign it to myself. > > It reminds me of another, similar attempted declaration: > https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=EuZeff2y32M :-) Here are my initial proto-judgement, but I am definitely open to being persuaded otherwise: * * * Caller's arguement depends on the idea that to "Declare Apathy" means the same thing as to "announce" or "publish apathy." I don't necessarily agree with that, and so I would judge FALSE. The word declaration has several meanings. In the context of Rule 2465, I think "to Declare Apathy" is a kind of a speech-act: it is a statement that causes a particular social fact to come into existence (in this case, it creates a victory by Apathy). It has a similar form as when a wedding officiant says "I declare you man and wife," or when a monarch says "I declare war on [country]," or when the chair of a legislative body says "I declare that the legislative session is adjourned." In each of these examples, the declaration works only if certain preconditions are met. The wedding officiant must be vested with some legal, religious, or other kind of authority to perform the marriage, and the bride and groom need to express consent and have a valid marriage license--otherwise the declaration is void. The monarch must be vested with the power to declare war, and may lack authority to do so in a constitutional monarchy. The chair must actually be recognized as legitimately presiding over the legislative body, and certain rules typically must be followed before an adjournment can be declared. If authority is lacking, the declaration is void. So if I were to say (or announce or publish), "I declare Donald Trump and Hillary Rodham Clinton to be married," or "I declare war on BlogNomic on behalf of Agora," or "I declare the U.S. Congress to be adjourned," we would all immediately understand why the declarations are void. So too here. Under certain circumstances, Rule 2465 vests a player with authority to declare a particular social fact to come into existence--a victory by Apathy. The key question is under what circumstances does that Rule create authority to Declare Apathy? The Rule says that "[a] player CAN Declare Apathy without objection, specifying a set of players." In my view, "without objection" must be read as a precondition that must be satisfied before a player is vested with authority to Declare Apathy. So what does "without objection" mean? Well, Rule 1728 says that "a rule that purports to allow a person to perform an action [without objection] thereby allows em to perform the action by announcement" provided certain conditions are met. Here, those conditions are plainly not met (and not merely because dependent intents are currently temporarily broken). So, I think the declaration sadly must fail (which is regrettable because a TRUE judgement would also give me a win by Apathy from December 2018).
DIS: Re: BUS: Victory by Apathy
On Feb 20, 2019, at 2:10 AM, Kerim Aydin wrote: >> If a scam along these lines worked, the required declaration would have >> to express apathy the concept, not "apathy" the word. Something like "I >> am apathetic." might potentially work, but it's a bit of a stretch. This reminds me of an email that someone sent a few months ago... :-) > On Dec 6, 2018, at 10:13 AM, D. Margaux wrote: > > Things have been pretty quiet this week. Some might say apathetic. > > I intend without objection to declare apathy specifying all players who, > between now and the time of declaration, have sent a public message that > includes the phrase, “I’m apathetic.” > > I’m apathetic.
DIS: AI learning to play "nomic" (with NEAT)
For a good while now I've wanted to figure out a way to have little machine-learning bots play nomic and learn and improve at the game to see what kind of emergent strategies they develop. Problem is, real nomic is real fucking complicated lmao. So, I figured I could try to simplify it somehow. Also, there's a lot of premade neural network code out there which look real cool and it makes all of this less tedious lol. I had in mind to use NEAT (NeuroEvolution of Augmenting Topologies). Anyways, instead of trying to make the little robot players try to compete at a game of nomic that resembles code or something like Nomyx was, I'd simplify it to a sort of grid-based Pachinko (via Unity for its physics), let's call it Pachinkonomic. Also, in order to get generations and such, I'd make the Pachinkonomic "dynastic" and make the game end once a player has "won". Balls would fall from the top (randomly maybe?) and the players would each have a cup at the bottom. Once they have enough balls to win, the game restarts, new population, yadda yadda (I'd probably need to have a lot of "tables" of play too where the players can sit at for a game of Pachinkonomic to have big enough populations... Although my computer is a bit of a wuss and having so many physics going on at the same time might give it a stroke so I might simply the Pachinko to something else lmao, we'll see). Each turn, a player would propose a change to the pins in the grid, either removing or adding any amount of pins, in pantomime of how we can change pretty much anything in a nomic as well. The players "see" this proposal (input neurons on each point of the grid) and vote if to pass it or not. And right after, pachinko balls fall and all players get a payout. To avoid possible bias based on where on the bottom of the pachinko board the player's cup is, the pachinko board would be cylindrical. Like that, all players are in pretty much the same initial conditions, except for what kind of player they got next to them, but they're blind to that anyways. The balls emulate the super common notion that there's "wealth" in a game nomic, and with enough wealth, you win. So yeah. A bunch of robotic players trying to control a common Pachinko board (that emulates a real fucking simple "nomic") to get the highest payoff. Also, Pachinko is easily very visual which is real nice too. https://i.imgur.com/xvNVbS8.png What do you think?
