Re: DIS: Re: OFF: Q*Bert movement for June week 1
What if you want to use a d10? That's not a platonic solid. On 5/31/2018 10:05 PM, Kerim Aydin wrote: On Fri, 1 Jun 2018, Ørjan Johansen wrote: Because it would be easy to change the result probabilities in this way, I don't think this satisfies "SHOULD use a method for which the final probability distribution can be readily confirmed". I personally consider this a very weak SHOULD. We functioned for a long time under trust, literally allowing physical dice-rolling and reporting the results and I liked that spirit. From R1079/3: For the purposes of this Rule, tossing a platonic solid or coin that is not specially weighted has a probability distribution among the possible outcomes that is reasonably close to uniform.
Re: DIS: Re: OFF: Q*Bert movement for June week 1
On June 1, 2018 1:06 AM, Ørjan Johansen wrote: > - The message would be forwarded by you, but then there would need to be > > a way to verify not just that server message but also that you > > hadn't made any other similar requests. Thinking idly: A way to get around this would be for multiple people to generate a random number independently, and add them together (modulus 4). It yields a number with the correct probability distribution, and can't be influenced by just one person. But it seems excessively complicated, and I agree with G. that working on trust is probably sufficient. -twg
Re: DIS: Re: OFF: Q*Bert movement for June week 1
On Fri, 1 Jun 2018, Ørjan Johansen wrote: > Because it would be easy to change the result probabilities in this way, I > don't think this satisfies "SHOULD use a method for which the final > probability distribution can be readily confirmed". I personally consider this a very weak SHOULD. We functioned for a long time under trust, literally allowing physical dice-rolling and reporting the results and I liked that spirit. From R1079/3: For the purposes of this Rule, tossing a platonic solid or coin that is not specially weighted has a probability distribution among the possible outcomes that is reasonably close to uniform.
Re: DIS: Re: OFF: Q*Bert movement for June week 1
On Fri, 2018-06-01 at 03:06 +0200, Ørjan Johansen wrote: > I'm not sure there's a way to do it perfectly with fewer than three > messages to the lists (although I think a-d might suffice for two of > them) without significant added features in the dice server: > > * To avoid an initial message, the message from the dice server needs > to include how the dice will be interpreted. > * To avoid a final message, either: >* A message sent via the dice server would have to count as the > actual action, or >* The message would be forwarded by you, but then there would need > to be a way to verify not just that server message but also that > you _hadn't_ made any other similar requests. I used to get the dice server to send to a public forum and take my actions in the same message, doing it all in one message. Posting to the lists via an intermediary is still posting ot the lists, and so my message is equally valid whether it comes from my usual email address, some throwaway email address I just created, or the dice server's email address. (In the past, it's consistently been ruled that people taking actions on the lists from unknown email addresses are still taking actions and are the same player as before; it can just be nontrivial to determine who that is.) -- ais523
Re: DIS: Re: OFF: Q*Bert movement for June week 1
On Thu, 31 May 2018, Reuben Staley wrote: 1. I forget to put the prefix one time and someone complains about it. Nice. Well sorry, you're not the first one. Straws, camels, and another quibble to bundle it with. 2. The best idea I have is sending the message directly to a-o. If you have any better ideas, let me know. If it's convenient for me, I'll do it. Well I didn't say it could be convenient, just that it breaks a SHOULD. I'm not sure there's a way to do it perfectly with fewer than three messages to the lists (although I think a-d might suffice for two of them) without significant added features in the dice server: * To avoid an initial message, the message from the dice server needs to include how the dice will be interpreted. * To avoid a final message, either: * A message sent via the dice server would have to count as the actual action, or * The message would be forwarded by you, but then there would need to be a way to verify not just that server message but also that you _hadn't_ made any other similar requests. Greetings, Ørjan. On Thu, May 31, 2018, 18:37 Ørjan Johansen wrote: (1) This seems like as good a time as any to mention a pet peeve of mine: I'd prefer it if actions made with officer authority always included the [Officer] in the subject. I'd possibly prefer it to be re-added to the beginning even if it's already in a "Re: ..." part of the subject, because otherwise mere discussion cannot be distinguished from COE responses. (2) I assume that you wouldn't cheat, so this is a legal random choice by rule 2505. However, there are several ways this procedure *could* be made to cheat: * Since the dice server rolls aren't sent to a list, you could repeat until you get the result you want. * The dice roll server message doesn't say how the dice rolls would be interpreted, so *that* could easily be adapted after the rolls are already known, even if the server message was sent to one of the lists. Because it would be easy to change the result probabilities in this way, I don't think this satisfies "SHOULD use a method for which the final probability distribution can be readily confirmed". Greetings, Ørjan. On Thu, 31 May 2018, Reuben Staley wrote: The forwarded message below contains the movement for this week. Q*Bert is at (0, 0) to start. Since there are players at (0, 0), Q*Bert moves orthogonally. Regardless of which way he moves, he will be on preserved land, meaning he must move again. Therefore he will move once more diagonally. Whether he moves again following that is dependent on whether or not the final move ends him up on preserved land. For the following random rolls: 1: northeast OR north 2: northwest OR west 3: southeast OR south 4: southwest OR east THEREFORE: Q*Bert moves: 1) south to (+1, 0) 2) southwest to (+2, -1) Since Q*Bert's color switch is black, Q*Bert makes both of those squares black. But they already are so it is utterly inconsequential. -- Trigon Forwarded Message Subject: [dicelog] Q*Bert Movement Date: Fri, 1 Jun 2018 00:47:06 +0200 (CEST) From: Dice Server -1vvs97g- Reply-To: reuben.sta...@gmail.com To: reuben.sta...@gmail.com This is an automatic message. This message was generated by reuben.sta...@gmail.com through the "hamete virtual dice server" at https://dicelog.com Message sent to: reuben.sta...@gmail.com Dice Roll Information: -- Dice Results: - Rolling "1d4" 2 times 1: 3 2: 4 sum: 7, average: 3.50 If you have any doubt, you can verify the validity of this message, using the Verification Number on https://dicelog.com/verif : 10fvnlbw3f or simply (*) click the URL: https://dicelog.com/verif?vnum=10fvnlbw3f (*): you may have a security warning about invalid SSL certificate, see why: http://dicelog.com/inc/sslwarning_en.html Regards, the dicelog.com team.
Re: DIS: Re: OFF: Q*Bert movement for June week 1
1. I forget to put the prefix one time and someone complains about it. Nice. 2. The best idea I have is sending the message directly to a-o. If you have any better ideas, let me know. If it's convenient for me, I'll do it. On Thu, May 31, 2018, 18:37 Ørjan Johansen wrote: > (1) This seems like as good a time as any to mention a pet peeve of mine: > I'd prefer it if actions made with officer authority always included the > [Officer] in the subject. > > I'd possibly prefer it to be re-added to the beginning even if it's > already in a "Re: ..." part of the subject, because otherwise mere > discussion cannot be distinguished from COE responses. > > (2) I assume that you wouldn't cheat, so this is a legal random choice by > rule 2505. However, there are several ways this procedure *could* be made > to cheat: > > * Since the dice server rolls aren't sent to a list, you could repeat >until you get the result you want. > * The dice roll server message doesn't say how the dice rolls would be >interpreted, so *that* could easily be adapted after the rolls are >already known, even if the server message was sent to one of the lists. > > Because it would be easy to change the result probabilities in this way, I > don't think this satisfies "SHOULD use a method for which the final > probability distribution can be readily confirmed". > > Greetings, > Ørjan. > > On Thu, 31 May 2018, Reuben Staley wrote: > > > The forwarded message below contains the movement for this week. Q*Bert > is at > > (0, 0) to start. Since there are players at (0, 0), Q*Bert moves > > orthogonally. Regardless of which way he moves, he will be on preserved > land, > > meaning he must move again. Therefore he will move once more diagonally. > > Whether he moves again following that is dependent on whether or not the > > final move ends him up on preserved land. > > > > For the following random rolls: > > > > 1: northeast OR north > > 2: northwest OR west > > 3: southeast OR south > > 4: southwest OR east > > > > THEREFORE: > > > > Q*Bert moves: > > > > 1) south to (+1, 0) > > 2) southwest to (+2, -1) > > > > Since Q*Bert's color switch is black, Q*Bert makes both of those squares > > black. But they already are so it is utterly inconsequential. > > > > -- > > > > Trigon > > > > > > Forwarded Message > > Subject: [dicelog] Q*Bert Movement > > Date: Fri, 1 Jun 2018 00:47:06 +0200 (CEST) > > From: Dice Server -1vvs97g- > > Reply-To: reuben.sta...@gmail.com > > To: reuben.sta...@gmail.com > > > > > > This is an automatic message. > > > > This message was generated by > > > >reuben.sta...@gmail.com > > > > through the "hamete virtual dice server" at https://dicelog.com > > > > Message sent to: > > > >reuben.sta...@gmail.com > > > > > > Dice Roll Information: > > -- > > > > > > > > > > Dice Results: > > - > > > > Rolling "1d4" 2 times > > > > 1: 3 > > 2: 4 > > > > sum: 7, average: 3.50 > > > > > > > > > > If you have any doubt, you can verify the validity of this message, > > using the Verification Number on https://dicelog.com/verif : > > > >10fvnlbw3f > > > > or simply (*) click the URL: > > > >https://dicelog.com/verif?vnum=10fvnlbw3f > > > > > > > > (*): you may have a security warning about invalid SSL certificate, > > see why: http://dicelog.com/inc/sslwarning_en.html > > > > Regards, > > the dicelog.com team. > > > > > > >
DIS: Re: OFF: Q*Bert movement for June week 1
(1) This seems like as good a time as any to mention a pet peeve of mine: I'd prefer it if actions made with officer authority always included the [Officer] in the subject. I'd possibly prefer it to be re-added to the beginning even if it's already in a "Re: ..." part of the subject, because otherwise mere discussion cannot be distinguished from COE responses. (2) I assume that you wouldn't cheat, so this is a legal random choice by rule 2505. However, there are several ways this procedure *could* be made to cheat: * Since the dice server rolls aren't sent to a list, you could repeat until you get the result you want. * The dice roll server message doesn't say how the dice rolls would be interpreted, so *that* could easily be adapted after the rolls are already known, even if the server message was sent to one of the lists. Because it would be easy to change the result probabilities in this way, I don't think this satisfies "SHOULD use a method for which the final probability distribution can be readily confirmed". Greetings, Ørjan. On Thu, 31 May 2018, Reuben Staley wrote: The forwarded message below contains the movement for this week. Q*Bert is at (0, 0) to start. Since there are players at (0, 0), Q*Bert moves orthogonally. Regardless of which way he moves, he will be on preserved land, meaning he must move again. Therefore he will move once more diagonally. Whether he moves again following that is dependent on whether or not the final move ends him up on preserved land. For the following random rolls: 1: northeast OR north 2: northwest OR west 3: southeast OR south 4: southwest OR east THEREFORE: Q*Bert moves: 1) south to (+1, 0) 2) southwest to (+2, -1) Since Q*Bert's color switch is black, Q*Bert makes both of those squares black. But they already are so it is utterly inconsequential. -- Trigon Forwarded Message Subject: [dicelog] Q*Bert Movement Date: Fri, 1 Jun 2018 00:47:06 +0200 (CEST) From: Dice Server -1vvs97g- Reply-To: reuben.sta...@gmail.com To: reuben.sta...@gmail.com This is an automatic message. This message was generated by reuben.sta...@gmail.com through the "hamete virtual dice server" at https://dicelog.com Message sent to: reuben.sta...@gmail.com Dice Roll Information: -- Dice Results: - Rolling "1d4" 2 times 1: 3 2: 4 sum: 7, average: 3.50 If you have any doubt, you can verify the validity of this message, using the Verification Number on https://dicelog.com/verif : 10fvnlbw3f or simply (*) click the URL: https://dicelog.com/verif?vnum=10fvnlbw3f (*): you may have a security warning about invalid SSL certificate, see why: http://dicelog.com/inc/sslwarning_en.html Regards, the dicelog.com team.
