Re: DIS: Non-email public fora

2019-02-26 Thread Owen Jacobson
Reuben Staley  wrote:

> The main manifestation of Agora's adaptation is reports. In BlogNomic, the 
> Ruleset page on the wiki and the GNDT do most of the tracking, whereas in 
> Agora, we publish the information every week because we can't keep a 
> constantly changing record. If we were to transition off a mailing list, 
> Reports would be one of the first mechanics to go.

That’s a surprisingly apt insight. Thank you. One of the motivations behind the 
stuff I’m working on is teaching groups of technical folks to think beyond JIRA 
fields in terms of how to communicate decisions (before, and during, and 
after). It hadn’t quite struck me that Agora’s reporting system fills in a 
necessary role that might not survive outside of mailing lists specifically, 
but that helps me reason about why teams that have mandated information 
reporting systems often struggle with them: those tools often _aren’t_ designed 
around the team’s actual needs.

Reuben Staley  also wrote:

> Along the same line, we have the distribution system of proposals. This goes 
> along with (1), but is still worth mentioning. In most other Nomics, 
> proposals are immediately put up for voting since one post can represent a 
> proposal. Of course, this is not something that would definitely have to go; 
> it's not hard to imagine a blog-based Nomic in which proposals are 
> distributed all at once.

Agora’s propose-then-distribute-then-vote model closely mirrors how proposals 
are resolved in systems like Robert’s Rules, which are designed to be effective 
up to the 200-person deliberative scale. That a cut-down version is effective 
in Agora is not surprising, but I think it is important. The immediacy of 
decisions in other nomics reflects the immediacy of, say, a pull request, and 
probably puts similar pressures on people to make snap decisions, whereas the 
more structured schedule Agora uses gives people a deliberate and 
widely-agreed-upon window of time to consider and respond before the 
opportunity to give input closes.

You’ve made a strong argument that no current web-based discussion system is a 
good match _as shipped,_ though. None of them include the idea of gathering up 
and regularly publishing digests of important subjects (proposals, in this 
case). It’s something the users can do, just as we do with email on Agora, 
instead, perhaps.

Reuben Staley  also wrote:

> Now, let's discuss potential new forums for Agora. I believe that a bulletin 
> board would be the best way to continue playing Agora should it be moved. 
> Agoran threads get very long very fast, and a bulletin board would show every 
> comment response. Gamestate tracking could be relegated to a specific 
> category of posts; as could proposals and maybe even minigames. This may just 
> be my personal opinion about bulletin boards being the best out of the 
> current ways to play Nomic; however, I do honestly believe it would be the 
> best way to go.
> 
> I hope this helps you with your research, o.


Thank you, it very much does.

Remember, my intention is not to move Agora. I like Agora where it is, and 
would personally vote against proposals (or try to oust officers) that attempt 
to move it to a web forum, absent an extremely compelling reason to change or a 
patent and obvious shift in the culture of the game. I’m looking at ways to 
extract useful tools from Agora to apply to other groups - particularly, groups 
where I see that consensus mechanisms either don’t exist or have broken down 
entirely.

Kerim Aydin  wrote:

> I always thought the MUD (Nomic World) was the best place to play nomic in.
> Because you could have all three of (1) real-time conversation, (2) message
> boards for long threads and (3) automated systems, smoothly linked in a
> single environment with user authentication, and you could adjust the
> balance of types of interactions on the fly.

Do you happen to know which MUD platform Nomic World was based on? Some - 
LambdaMOO comes to mind - are far more amenable to this sort of use case than, 
say, Diku or River would have been.

It regularly saddens me that modern internet social spaces are so viscerally 
non-programmable in the way things like IRC and MUDs once were. Not everyone is 
at ease expressing themselves in code, but excluding people from doing so 
entirely both limits expressiveness and sharply limits communities’ ability to 
reshape their spaces to suit their needs. I’ve been chewing on the idea of a 
web-based MOO-alike for a while, and it seems obvious that that’d be a fit for 
a Nomic for the reasons you lay out.

Kerim Aydin  also wrote:

> ITT one essential ingredient of Agora-style nomic play is that we use
> natural language to Do Things.  It might be tempting to start automating a
> bunch of stuff, and some automation is good, but half of what we do is find
> clever ways to say we do things under the constraints of language and
> written communication.  So a key feature to preserve is "keep 

Re: DIS: Re: [Herald] vote for the best Ruleset find

2019-02-26 Thread Kerim Aydin
Oh - sorry!  I thought about it when the earlier results were in, and
I meant to ask if anyone would object to just calling it a tie.  The
reason I didn't mention that in the last email was that the new series
of votes broke the tie.

On Tue, Feb 26, 2019 at 11:08 AM Madeline  wrote:
>
> To be honest, in a tie situation I would have expected you'd have given
> it to both of them. :P
>
> On 2019-02-27 02:02, Kerim Aydin wrote:
> > On 2/26/2019 2:59 AM, Madeline wrote:
> > > This actually untied the 3rd/4th race because twg had one primary
> > vote to
> > > CB's zero, but CB's just tied that again so oh well!
> >
> > Well, I kinda assumed 3rd was determined by re-evaluating the list order
> > after 1st and 2nd place winners were removed - that's not really well-
> > defined in the procedure (and what matters is how many people put CB
> > ahead
> > of twg).  But also Gaelan's vote pulled Telnaior's out of conditional
> > status, so (assuming I'm not worrying about the length of the voting
> > period)
> > we got:
> >
> > D. Margaux: {Gaelan, Telnaior, twg, CuddleBeam}
> > ais523: {Telnaior, Gaelan, CuddleBeam, twg}
> > twg:{Gaelan, Telnaior, CuddleBeam, twg}
> > Falsifian:  {Gaelan, Telnaior, twg, CuddleBeam}
> > G.: {Telnaior, Gaelan, CuddleBeam, twg}
> > Telnaior:   {Telnaior, Gaelan, CuddleBeam, twg}
> > Aris:   {twg, CuddleBeam, Telnaior, Gaelan}
> > Gaelan: {Gaelan, CuddleBeam, Telainor, twg}
> > CuddleBeam: {CuddleBeam, Gaelan, Telainor, twg}
> >
> > But this is by-the-by, as this was an advisory vote only.  Even before
> > this
> > last round of late votes came in, I was thinking (in the event of a tie)
> > that I'd pick the person I didn't pick in my vote, thus tying my vote but
> > untying everyone's.
> >
> > Final order whether I count late votes or not (no more votes please!):
> >   Gaelan, Telnaior, CuddleBeam, twg.
> >


Re: DIS: Re: [Herald] vote for the best Ruleset find

2019-02-26 Thread Madeline
To be honest, in a tie situation I would have expected you'd have given 
it to both of them. :P


On 2019-02-27 02:02, Kerim Aydin wrote:

On 2/26/2019 2:59 AM, Madeline wrote:
> This actually untied the 3rd/4th race because twg had one primary 
vote to

> CB's zero, but CB's just tied that again so oh well!

Well, I kinda assumed 3rd was determined by re-evaluating the list order
after 1st and 2nd place winners were removed - that's not really well-
defined in the procedure (and what matters is how many people put CB 
ahead

of twg).  But also Gaelan's vote pulled Telnaior's out of conditional
status, so (assuming I'm not worrying about the length of the voting 
period)

we got:

D. Margaux: {Gaelan, Telnaior, twg, CuddleBeam}
ais523: {Telnaior, Gaelan, CuddleBeam, twg}
twg:    {Gaelan, Telnaior, CuddleBeam, twg}
Falsifian:  {Gaelan, Telnaior, twg, CuddleBeam}
G.: {Telnaior, Gaelan, CuddleBeam, twg}
Telnaior:   {Telnaior, Gaelan, CuddleBeam, twg}
Aris:   {twg, CuddleBeam, Telnaior, Gaelan}
Gaelan: {Gaelan, CuddleBeam, Telainor, twg}
CuddleBeam: {CuddleBeam, Gaelan, Telainor, twg}

But this is by-the-by, as this was an advisory vote only.  Even before 
this

last round of late votes came in, I was thinking (in the event of a tie)
that I'd pick the person I didn't pick in my vote, thus tying my vote but
untying everyone's.

Final order whether I count late votes or not (no more votes please!):
  Gaelan, Telnaior, CuddleBeam, twg.



DIS: Re: AI learning to play "nomic" (with NEAT)

2019-02-26 Thread Cuddle Beam
Alright, so, they've learnt sooner than I expected lol. Although the game
is really simple sooo, I guess that excepted lmao. Apparently 5 of the 7
players have reached the stalemate, the other two haven't figured it out
yet, but I guess they will eventually, poor bots.

To put it into perspective, here are the initial average rewards over the
first 1,000 trials:

NomicLearningBOT_0: Mean Reward: 3.452.
NomicLearningBOT_1: Mean Reward: 4.984.
NomicLearningBOT_2: Mean Reward: 2.486.
NomicLearningBOT_3: Mean Reward: 5.671.
NomicLearningBOT_4: Mean Reward: 5.311.
NomicLearningBOT_5: Mean Reward: 2.464.
NomicLearningBOT_6: Mean Reward: 3.460.

After 50,000:

NomicLearningBOT_0: Mean Reward: 4.975.
NomicLearningBOT_1: Mean Reward: 4.675.
NomicLearningBOT_2: Mean Reward: 1.061.
NomicLearningBOT_3: Mean Reward: 4.850.
NomicLearningBOT_4: Mean Reward: 4.792.
NomicLearningBOT_5: Mean Reward: 2.580.
NomicLearningBOT_6: Mean Reward: 4.920.

Yeah they're stuck around 4,8 or so and the max turns per game have started
to kick in.

Anyways, all of these results are really messy. I'll make something more
tidy and essay-worthy later, this is just a sort of proof of concept to
myself lol, and the results are interesting and cool.


On Tue, Feb 26, 2019 at 7:33 PM Cuddle Beam  wrote:

> If anyone is interested, I’ve simplified the pseudonomic game to just
> turns of proposing an assignment of N points, where N is the amount of
> players, and with 20 points you win. It emulates how in a dynastic (or
> here, even) nomic its super common for win conditions to be having enough
> of a token. And there is no social “rule inertia”, where you have to
> respect previous rules/connotations, the power of a proposal is to change
> anything (within whats “dynastic” ie. the basic “nomic” doesnt change like
> the proposing mechanism) so if you want to keep a previous split of points
> its only if you so choose.
>
> It’s running on my computer right now, let’s see what happens.
>
> I suspect they’ll eventually (learn to) eternally stalemate, because the
> winning move needs the majority to agree to it, which they won’t (once
> rational enough), because it will make them lose. So nobody ever wins.
>
> On Wed, 20 Feb 2019 at 10:50, Cuddle Beam  wrote:
>
>> 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?
>>
>>


DIS: Re: AI learning to play "nomic" (with NEAT)

2019-02-26 Thread Cuddle Beam
If anyone is interested, I’ve simplified the pseudonomic game to just turns
of proposing an assignment of N points, where N is the amount of players,
and with 20 points you win. It emulates how in a dynastic (or here, even)
nomic its super common for win conditions to be having enough of a token.
And there is no social “rule inertia”, where you have to respect previous
rules/connotations, the power of a proposal is to change anything (within
whats “dynastic” ie. the basic “nomic” doesnt change like the proposing
mechanism) so if you want to keep a previous split of points its only if
you so choose.

It’s running on my computer right now, let’s see what happens.

I suspect they’ll eventually (learn to) eternally stalemate, because the
winning move needs the majority to agree to it, which they won’t (once
rational enough), because it will make them lose. So nobody ever wins.

On Wed, 20 Feb 2019 at 10:50, Cuddle Beam  wrote:

> 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?
>
>


Re: DIS: Re: [Herald] vote for the best Ruleset find

2019-02-26 Thread Kerim Aydin



On 2/26/2019 2:59 AM, Madeline wrote:
> This actually untied the 3rd/4th race because twg had one primary vote to
> CB's zero, but CB's just tied that again so oh well!

Well, I kinda assumed 3rd was determined by re-evaluating the list order
after 1st and 2nd place winners were removed - that's not really well-
defined in the procedure (and what matters is how many people put CB ahead
of twg).  But also Gaelan's vote pulled Telnaior's out of conditional
status, so (assuming I'm not worrying about the length of the voting period)
we got:

D. Margaux: {Gaelan, Telnaior, twg, CuddleBeam}
ais523: {Telnaior, Gaelan, CuddleBeam, twg}
twg:{Gaelan, Telnaior, CuddleBeam, twg}
Falsifian:  {Gaelan, Telnaior, twg, CuddleBeam}
G.: {Telnaior, Gaelan, CuddleBeam, twg}
Telnaior:   {Telnaior, Gaelan, CuddleBeam, twg}
Aris:   {twg, CuddleBeam, Telnaior, Gaelan}
Gaelan: {Gaelan, CuddleBeam, Telainor, twg}
CuddleBeam: {CuddleBeam, Gaelan, Telainor, twg}

But this is by-the-by, as this was an advisory vote only.  Even before this
last round of late votes came in, I was thinking (in the event of a tie)
that I'd pick the person I didn't pick in my vote, thus tying my vote but
untying everyone's.

Final order whether I count late votes or not (no more votes please!):
  Gaelan, Telnaior, CuddleBeam, twg.



Re: DIS: Re: [Herald] vote for the best Ruleset find

2019-02-26 Thread Madeline
This actually untied the 3rd/4th race because twg had one primary vote 
to CB's zero, but CB's just tied that again so oh well!


On 2019-02-26 17:02, Kerim Aydin wrote:


Well done agora - if I count this, not only is 1st & 2nd place now a tie,
but the 3rd/4th race would also be a tie.  Way to make decisions, 
people :PP


On 2/25/2019 3:05 PM, Aris Merchant wrote:

Uh, I forgot to vote.

[twg, CuddleBeam, Telnaior, Gaelan]

-Aris

On Mon, Feb 25, 2019 at 10:04 AM Kerim Aydin  wrote:


These are the votes I have, did I miss anyone?  Looks like Gaelan
edges out Telnaior.
I'll make an "official" announcement later unless there's further 
discussion...?


D. Margaux:{Gaelan, Telnaior, twg, CuddleBeam}
ais523:    {Telnaior, Gaelan, CuddleBeam, twg}
twg:   {Gaelan, Telnaior, CuddleBeam, twg}
Falsifian: {Gaelan, Telnaior, twg, CuddleBeam}
G.:    {Telnaior, Gaelan, CuddleBeam, twg}

L (zombie, counting the zombies doesn't change the above results)
Halian (zombie, ditto)
Telnaior (conditional, didn't want eir vote to count if Gaelan didn't
vote).