Re: DIS: Clairvoyant Roshambo

2019-08-04 Thread James Cook
On Sun, 4 Aug 2019 at 05:45, Aris Merchant
 wrote:
> On Sat, Aug 3, 2019 at 10:31 PM Jason Cobb  wrote:
>
> > On 8/4/19 1:23 AM, James Cook wrote:
> > >Whenever a player has not done so in the past 4 days, e CAN
> > >Commune with the Wheel by announcement, specifying Rock, Paper or
> > >Scissors.  A player CAN Reach into the Past by announcement at any
> > >time. If a player Communes the Wheel at a time T, and does not
> > >Reach into the Past in the four days following T, then at time T
> > >the value of the Roshambo Wheel is changed to the value e
> > >specified.
> >
> >
> > I've been grappling with this for a while now, and I'm not sure that
> > this works. (Read: very, very unsure. It took me a while to decide to
> > even send this message, and I've started writing and then discarded
> > something like it several times.)
> >
> > Rule 2141 reads, in part:
> >
> > > A rule is a type of instrument with the capacity to govern the
> > > game generally, and is always taking effect. A rule's content
> > > takes the form of a text, and is unlimited in scope.
> >
> > This is the only place that states that the Rules actually take effect,
> > and when they do so. Given the specification "at time T", I don't think
> > that a Rule can point to an arbitrary time and say "disregard what time
> > it is now, I'm taking effect _then_".
>
>
> Even if this doesn’t actually work, we could probably understand it as
> establishing a legal fiction for the purposes of that rule. Of course,
> legal fictions can say whatever they want, so that wouldn’t be a problem.
> Convincing another rule of higher power to accept the legal fiction is a
> different matter, and why I don’t think this would work in general without
> a high powered enabling rule. In this specific case, that isn’t a problem
> because everything is self contained and no other rule needs to take notice
> of the legal fiction.
>
> -Aris

Argument in response to Jason Cobb, and a question:

First, argument that this Rule can do what it says (trying not to rely
on Aris's point that the legal fiction is self-contained):

When the player Communes with the Wheel (at time T), the rule is in
effect, and ordinarily could at that time say what the effect of an
action (like Communing with the Wheel) is. To make the time at which
the rule is having its effect more explicit, I could rephrase it to
"When a player Communes with the Wheel, the Roshambo Wheel is changed
to the value specified, as long as in the four days following the
player does not Reach into the Past". Would that help?

If you accept that much, then is there anything else special about
referring to the future? Does this cause any trouble that wouldn't be
caused by "The Roshambo Wheel is changed, unless the Pope is currently
thinking about food?" I think that would also make the value of the
wheel indeterminate (most of the time, anyway). I don't see what the
legal consequences of that are beyond where indeterminacy is
explicitly mentioned (R2202 (Ratification Without Objection) and R2162
(Switches)).

Question:

I don't think I quite understand how interaction with higher-powered
rules is supposed to mess this up. I'm not necessarily suggesting we
do this, but if winning one round caused one to immediately earn Coins
(rather than after a delay of 4 days), would that break the "self
contained" nature of this problem, and provide a test case for this?
What would happen?

-- 
- Falsifian


Re: DIS: Clairvoyant Roshambo

2019-08-04 Thread James Cook
On Sun, 4 Aug 2019 at 05:23, James Cook  wrote:
>
> > Okay, a few things.
> >
> > * Defining “unconditional announcement” is probably overkill; any sane
> > judge would arrive at that that anyway, and it adds a bit to bloat.
> > * You should probably say "Roshambo Score is an integer player switch" (R
> > 2509)
> > * You should probably say "increased by 1" and "decreased by 1" (or
> > incremented and decremented) instead of redefining those terms. (R2509)
> > * I'd prefer an award of coins along with a SHOULD encouraging the Herald
> > to give the patent title of "Time Lord"
> > * I agree that this almost certainly works in this limited case.
> >
> > -Aris
>
> Thanks for the comments! Updated draft below.

Oops, I forgot to remove the "by unconditional announcement"
definition. There are probably many other errors, but here's an update
that fixes that one:

AI: 1
Co-authors: Aris, Jason Cobb
Text:
Enact a new power-0.5 rule titled "Clairvoyant Roshambo", with the
following text.

  At every time, the Roshambo Wheel is set to exactly one of Rock,
  Paper or Scissors. When the Rules do not say that its value
  changes, it stays the same. If it would otherwise not be set to a
  value, it is set to Rock.

  Whenever a player has not done so in the past 4 days, e CAN
  Commune with the Wheel by announcement, specifying Rock, Paper or
  Scissors.  A player CAN Reach into the Past by announcement at any
  time. If a player Communes the Wheel at a time T, and does not
  Reach into the Past in the four days following T, then at time T
  the value of the Roshambo Wheel is changed to the value e
  specified.

  Rock beats Scissors, Scissors beats Paper, and Paper beats Rock.
  Roshambo Score is an integer player switch. Once per Agoran week,
  each player CAN Play Roshambo by announcement, specifying Rock,
  Paper or Scissors, but only if e has not Communed with the Wheel
  in the past 4 days.  When e does so:
  * If e specifies a value that beats the current value of the
Roshambo Wheel, then 4 days later, eir Roshambo Score is
increased by 1.
  * If e specifies a value that is beaten by the current value of
the Roshambo Wheel, then 4 days later, eir Roshambo Score is
decreased by 1.

  The Medium is an office, and the recordkeepor of Roshambo Score.

  A player with a Roshambo Score of at least 10 CAN Transcend Time
  by announcement.  When e does so, e wins the game, and all
  instances of the Roshambo Score switch are flipped to 0.


-- 
- Falsifian


Re: DIS: Clairvoyant Roshambo

2019-08-03 Thread Aris Merchant
On Sat, Aug 3, 2019 at 10:31 PM Jason Cobb  wrote:

> On 8/4/19 1:23 AM, James Cook wrote:
> >Whenever a player has not done so in the past 4 days, e CAN
> >Commune with the Wheel by announcement, specifying Rock, Paper or
> >Scissors.  A player CAN Reach into the Past by announcement at any
> >time. If a player Communes the Wheel at a time T, and does not
> >Reach into the Past in the four days following T, then at time T
> >the value of the Roshambo Wheel is changed to the value e
> >specified.
>
>
> I've been grappling with this for a while now, and I'm not sure that
> this works. (Read: very, very unsure. It took me a while to decide to
> even send this message, and I've started writing and then discarded
> something like it several times.)
>
> Rule 2141 reads, in part:
>
> > A rule is a type of instrument with the capacity to govern the
> > game generally, and is always taking effect. A rule's content
> > takes the form of a text, and is unlimited in scope.
>
> This is the only place that states that the Rules actually take effect,
> and when they do so. Given the specification "at time T", I don't think
> that a Rule can point to an arbitrary time and say "disregard what time
> it is now, I'm taking effect _then_".


Even if this doesn’t actually work, we could probably understand it as
establishing a legal fiction for the purposes of that rule. Of course,
legal fictions can say whatever they want, so that wouldn’t be a problem.
Convincing another rule of higher power to accept the legal fiction is a
different matter, and why I don’t think this would work in general without
a high powered enabling rule. In this specific case, that isn’t a problem
because everything is self contained and no other rule needs to take notice
of the legal fiction.

-Aris

>
>
>


Re: DIS: Clairvoyant Roshambo

2019-08-03 Thread Jason Cobb

On 8/4/19 1:23 AM, James Cook wrote:

   Whenever a player has not done so in the past 4 days, e CAN
   Commune with the Wheel by announcement, specifying Rock, Paper or
   Scissors.  A player CAN Reach into the Past by announcement at any
   time. If a player Communes the Wheel at a time T, and does not
   Reach into the Past in the four days following T, then at time T
   the value of the Roshambo Wheel is changed to the value e
   specified.



I've been grappling with this for a while now, and I'm not sure that 
this works. (Read: very, very unsure. It took me a while to decide to 
even send this message, and I've started writing and then discarded 
something like it several times.)


Rule 2141 reads, in part:


A rule is a type of instrument with the capacity to govern the
game generally, and is always taking effect. A rule's content
takes the form of a text, and is unlimited in scope.


This is the only place that states that the Rules actually take effect, 
and when they do so. Given the specification "at time T", I don't think 
that a Rule can point to an arbitrary time and say "disregard what time 
it is now, I'm taking effect _then_".


--
Jason Cobb



Re: Cheap first wins (Re: DIS: Clairvoyant Roshambo)

2019-08-03 Thread James Cook
On Fri, 2 Aug 2019 at 21:04, Kerim Aydin  wrote:
> Actually, I wonder if we should think about some kind of "debugging"
> mechanism for victories.  Something like "when a win method is first
> implemented (some mechanism, probably involving Agoran Consent, for
> figuring out whether the first win was due to a win as intended or due
> to finding a bug)".  If it was "win as intended" then champion,
> otherwise you get a "debugging" title.  After a certain amount of time
> that "debugging" goes away and it's a straight win - if you find a
> loophole that nobody's spotted at the beginning, you deserve the full
> win.

For Clairvoyant Roshambo in particular, what if the first version said
you gain 2 Coins for winning a round and lose 2 for losing a round,
and once that seems to be working, switch to Roshambo Score and some
big reward (maybe winning Agora) if your Score reaches 10?

More specifically, I suggest Playing Roshambo be a fee-based action
costing 2 Coins, and 4 days after playing, you earn 0, 2 or 4 Coins
depending on what the outcome was.

-- 
- Falsifian


Re: DIS: Clairvoyant Roshambo

2019-08-03 Thread James Cook
> Random "I" after "then at time T".
>
> Jason Cobb

Thanks, should be fixed in the draft I just published.

-- 
- Falsifian


Re: DIS: Clairvoyant Roshambo

2019-08-03 Thread James Cook
> Okay, a few things.
>
> * Defining “unconditional announcement” is probably overkill; any sane
> judge would arrive at that that anyway, and it adds a bit to bloat.
> * You should probably say "Roshambo Score is an integer player switch" (R
> 2509)
> * You should probably say "increased by 1" and "decreased by 1" (or
> incremented and decremented) instead of redefining those terms. (R2509)
> * I'd prefer an award of coins along with a SHOULD encouraging the Herald
> to give the patent title of "Time Lord"
> * I agree that this almost certainly works in this limited case.
>
> -Aris

Thanks for the comments! Updated draft below. I left the win alone for
now; will possibly follow up on the new thread. I plan to wait at
least until after the birthday tournament before submitting this.

AI: 1
Co-authors: Aris, Jason Cobb
Text:
Enact a new power-0.5 rule titled "Clairvoyant Roshambo", with the
following text.

  At every time, the Roshambo Wheel is set to exactly one of Rock,
  Paper or Scissors. When the Rules do not say that its value
  changes, it stays the same. If it would otherwise not be set to a
  value, it is set to Rock.

  To perform an action "by unconditional announcement" is to perform
  it by announcement and not specify any condition upon which the
  action depends in that announcement.

  Whenever a player has not done so in the past 4 days, e CAN
  Commune with the Wheel by announcement, specifying Rock, Paper or
  Scissors.  A player CAN Reach into the Past by announcement at any
  time. If a player Communes the Wheel at a time T, and does not
  Reach into the Past in the four days following T, then at time T
  the value of the Roshambo Wheel is changed to the value e
  specified.

  Rock beats Scissors, Scissors beats Paper, and Paper beats Rock.
  Roshambo Score is an integer player switch. Once per Agoran week,
  each player CAN Play Roshambo by announcement, specifying Rock,
  Paper or Scissors, but only if e has not Communed with the Wheel
  in the past 4 days.  When e does so:
  * If e specifies a value that beats the current value of the
Roshambo Wheel, then 4 days later, eir Roshambo Score is
increased by 1.
  * If e specifies a value that is beaten by the current value of
the Roshambo Wheel, then 4 days later, eir Roshambo Score is
decreased by 1.

  The Medium is an office, and the recordkeepor of Roshambo Score.

  A player with a Roshambo Score of at least 10 CAN Transcend Time
  by announcement.  When e does so, e wins the game, and all
  instances of the Roshambo Score switch are flipped to 0.


-- 
- Falsifian


Re: Cheap first wins (Re: DIS: Clairvoyant Roshambo)

2019-08-02 Thread Kerim Aydin
On Fri, Aug 2, 2019 at 2:14 PM Jason Cobb  wrote:
> How exactly would the Rules specify different methods of victory? I've
> seen that Victory Conditions were a thing in the past, but they don't
> exist any more.

It's ultimately up to the Herald's discretion and some degree of
consensus, but the "winning method" can be strongly suggested using
"by" the way we do for methods in general.  Since it's a "suggestion",
you can do it by putting it in the title ("Win by Apathy", "Win by
Paradox") or we could edit it into a rule:  "If a winner of a
tournament is determined within within 3 months of its initiation,
that person or persons win the game by Tournament".

It's also worth mentioning that these titles group common "types" of
wins over a long period of time.  For example, "Tournaments" used to
be called "Contests".  So for a long time, that category was
"Contest".  When the Tournament rules were adopted (there was a break
in between with no win type in that sort of category in the Rules) the
old Contest category was re-labeled "Tournament" including
retroactively.

-G.


Re: Cheap first wins (Re: DIS: Clairvoyant Roshambo)

2019-08-02 Thread ais...@alumni.bham.ac.uk
On Fri, 2019-08-02 at 14:56 -0700, Kerim Aydin wrote:
> On Fri, Aug 2, 2019 at 2:17 PM ais...@alumni.bham.ac.uk
>  wrote:
> > A bug exploit could /be/ a win as intended, if the bug had been
> > placed there intentionally by the proposer. "Convince people to
> > adopt a buggy victory condition and win immediately" is one of the
> > more common winning techniques at BlogNomic.
> 
> Rant:  This right here is the reason we almost never get around to
> actually playing by the intent of many subgames.  We just crash them
> until we're sick of all the CFJs and then repeal.  It really
> discourages me from bothering to write a long sub-game - debugging in
> play-mode is usually necessary, and I don't see much pride/point in
> "hey, I won because there was a misplaced comma or because a certain
> set of moves is fundamentally completely imbalanced, isn't that
> clever."  I mean it's fine on occasion but having that be the outcome
> of Every. Single. Subgame. just gets tiring.
> 
> Well, I guess the test mechanism is "Tournament" - where you can put
> a "judge by the intent" clause in there.

BlogNomic normally (not always) starts its subgames without any victory
condition, and only adds one after they've had several iterations of
nomicky changes applied to them.

It works a bit better than what we normally do in Agora, but has
problems of its own (especially in relation to people positioning
themselves in an attempt to anticipate what the victory condition would
be).

Perhaps what we need is some sort of escalating milestone system: run
games in multiple iterations, with the first "win" (which may be
trivial) being worth one point, the second two points, the third three
points, and so on, with the rules for the subgame being amendable only
between iterations. A scam could give you an advantage, but
consistently good gameplay would be worth more.

-- 
ais523



Re: Cheap first wins (Re: DIS: Clairvoyant Roshambo)

2019-08-02 Thread nch



On 8/2/19 4:56 PM, Kerim Aydin wrote:

On Fri, Aug 2, 2019 at 2:17 PM ais...@alumni.bham.ac.uk
 wrote:

A bug exploit could /be/ a win as intended, if the bug had been placed
there intentionally by the proposer. "Convince people to adopt a buggy
victory condition and win immediately" is one of the more common
winning techniques at BlogNomic.

Rant:  This right here is the reason we almost never get around to
actually playing by the intent of many subgames.  We just crash them
until we're sick of all the CFJs and then repeal.  It really
discourages me from bothering to write a long sub-game - debugging in
play-mode is usually necessary, and I don't see much pride/point in
"hey, I won because there was a misplaced comma or because a certain
set of moves is fundamentally completely imbalanced, isn't that
clever."  I mean it's fine on occasion but having that be the outcome
of Every. Single. Subgame. just gets tiring.

Well, I guess the test mechanism is "Tournament" - where you can put a
"judge by the intent" clause in there.


I think subgames should be pausable somehow. I think right now sometimes 
people 'crash the game' because they see a thing and want to do it 
before anyone else does, assuming someone else *will* if they don't. 
Pointing out a problem publicly, even in a fix proposal, just makes it 
more likely someone else does it.


The pausing method could vary from game to game, whether it's an Office 
that doesn't get to play and can do it on eir own, or maybe a vote of a 
few trusted players. Either one lets the coordination happen privately 
so the game can be paused until it's fixed.




Re: Cheap first wins (Re: DIS: Clairvoyant Roshambo)

2019-08-02 Thread Kerim Aydin
On Fri, Aug 2, 2019 at 2:17 PM ais...@alumni.bham.ac.uk
 wrote:
> A bug exploit could /be/ a win as intended, if the bug had been placed
> there intentionally by the proposer. "Convince people to adopt a buggy
> victory condition and win immediately" is one of the more common
> winning techniques at BlogNomic.

Rant:  This right here is the reason we almost never get around to
actually playing by the intent of many subgames.  We just crash them
until we're sick of all the CFJs and then repeal.  It really
discourages me from bothering to write a long sub-game - debugging in
play-mode is usually necessary, and I don't see much pride/point in
"hey, I won because there was a misplaced comma or because a certain
set of moves is fundamentally completely imbalanced, isn't that
clever."  I mean it's fine on occasion but having that be the outcome
of Every. Single. Subgame. just gets tiring.

Well, I guess the test mechanism is "Tournament" - where you can put a
"judge by the intent" clause in there.


Re: Cheap first wins (Re: DIS: Clairvoyant Roshambo)

2019-08-02 Thread ais...@alumni.bham.ac.uk
On Fri, 2019-08-02 at 14:02 -0700, Kerim Aydin wrote:
> Actually, I wonder if we should think about some kind of "debugging"
> mechanism for victories.  Something like "when a win method is first
> implemented (some mechanism, probably involving Agoran Consent, for
> figuring out whether the first win was due to a win as intended or due
> to finding a bug)".  If it was "win as intended" then champion,
> otherwise you get a "debugging" title.  After a certain amount of time
> that "debugging" goes away and it's a straight win - if you find a
> loophole that nobody's spotted at the beginning, you deserve the full
> win.
> 
> (Now that I've written this, it's the sort of thing that's clear in
> concept but really squishy to hard-code).

A bug exploit could /be/ a win as intended, if the bug had been placed
there intentionally by the proposer. "Convince people to adopt a buggy
victory condition and win immediately" is one of the more common
winning techniques at BlogNomic.

-- 
ais523



Re: Cheap first wins (Re: DIS: Clairvoyant Roshambo)

2019-08-02 Thread Jason Cobb

On 8/2/19 5:02 PM, Kerim Aydin wrote:

Fair point, and it's a matter of preference. This just seemed a bit
experimental for a full win mechanism to me.

Actually, I wonder if we should think about some kind of "debugging"
mechanism for victories.  Something like "when a win method is first
implemented (some mechanism, probably involving Agoran Consent, for
figuring out whether the first win was due to a win as intended or due
to finding a bug)".  If it was "win as intended" then champion,
otherwise you get a "debugging" title.  After a certain amount of time
that "debugging" goes away and it's a straight win - if you find a
loophole that nobody's spotted at the beginning, you deserve the full
win.

(Now that I've written this, it's the sort of thing that's clear in
concept but really squishy to hard-code).



I'm ambivalent about this - I see the case for a person deserving a win 
if they find a bug, but I also see the case that bugs happen and all of 
the consequences of a win shouldn't necessarily happen for a bug.


It feels artificial to restrict it to the first win (time limit is fine, 
though) - there can be multiple bugs in a subgame or copycats (although 
it seems to me, in my limited time here, that copycats don't really happen).


How exactly would the Rules specify different methods of victory? I've 
seen that Victory Conditions were a thing in the past, but they don't 
exist any more.


Jason Cobb



Cheap first wins (Re: DIS: Clairvoyant Roshambo)

2019-08-02 Thread Kerim Aydin
> > Fair point, and it's a matter of preference. This just seemed a bit
> > experimental for a full win mechanism to me.

Actually, I wonder if we should think about some kind of "debugging"
mechanism for victories.  Something like "when a win method is first
implemented (some mechanism, probably involving Agoran Consent, for
figuring out whether the first win was due to a win as intended or due
to finding a bug)".  If it was "win as intended" then champion,
otherwise you get a "debugging" title.  After a certain amount of time
that "debugging" goes away and it's a straight win - if you find a
loophole that nobody's spotted at the beginning, you deserve the full
win.

(Now that I've written this, it's the sort of thing that's clear in
concept but really squishy to hard-code).


Re: DIS: Clairvoyant Roshambo

2019-08-02 Thread Kerim Aydin
On Fri, Aug 2, 2019 at 1:48 PM Aris Merchant
 wrote:
> On Fri, Aug 2, 2019 at 1:46 PM Kerim Aydin  wrote:
> >
> > Aris wrote:
> > > * I'd prefer an award of coins along with a SHOULD encouraging the Herald
> > > to give the patent title of "Time Lord"
> >
> > Every other subgame has "win = Champion" (method of win could be noted
> > as "Time Lord").  But not sure why we'd have a special-coded patent
> > title for what's basically a win?
>
> Fair point, and it's a matter of preference. This just seemed a bit
> experimental for a full win mechanism to me.

Ah gotcha - interestingly I think of standalone patent titles like
that as "more" precious than champion but I don't have a particular
(i.e. rules-supported) reason for thinking that :).


Re: DIS: Clairvoyant Roshambo

2019-08-02 Thread Jason Cobb

On 7/31/19 11:04 AM, James Cook wrote:

   Whenever a player has not done so in the past 4 days, e CAN
   Commune with the Wheel by unconditional announcement, specifying
   Rock, Paper or Scissors.  A player CAN Reach into the Past by
   unconditional announcement at any time. If a player Communes the
   Wheel at a time T, and does not Reach into the Past in the four
   days following T, then at time T I the value of the Roshambo Wheel
   is changed to the value e specified.



Random "I" after "then at time T".

Jason Cobb



Re: DIS: Clairvoyant Roshambo

2019-08-02 Thread Aris Merchant
On Fri, Aug 2, 2019 at 1:46 PM Kerim Aydin  wrote:
>
> Aris wrote:
> > * I'd prefer an award of coins along with a SHOULD encouraging the Herald
> > to give the patent title of "Time Lord"
>
> Every other subgame has "win = Champion" (method of win could be noted
> as "Time Lord").  But not sure why we'd have a special-coded patent
> title for what's basically a win?

Fair point, and it's a matter of preference. This just seemed a bit
experimental for a full win mechanism to me.

-Aris


Re: DIS: Clairvoyant Roshambo

2019-08-02 Thread Kerim Aydin
Aris wrote:
> * I'd prefer an award of coins along with a SHOULD encouraging the Herald
> to give the patent title of "Time Lord"

Every other subgame has "win = Champion" (method of win could be noted
as "Time Lord").  But not sure why we'd have a special-coded patent
title for what's basically a win?


Re: DIS: Clairvoyant Roshambo

2019-08-02 Thread Aris Merchant
On Wed, Jul 31, 2019 at 8:04 AM James Cook  wrote:

> > That's a good point. Maybe we could add "as long as the announcement
> > is not conditioned on anything". It's possible that R478's requirement
> > that "by announcement" actions must be unambiguous would imply this
> > anyway.
> >
> > --
> > - Falsifian
>
> I have realized the value of the Roshambo Wheel switch will often
> become "indeterminate", and thus be reset to the default. So, I agree
> with Aris that some sort of higher-powered rule change would be needed
> to have changes to switches depend on the future.
>
> Fortunately, I can get around it by not making the Roshambo Wheel a
> switch. Updated draft, with the following changes:
> * Defined and used "by unconditional announcement".
> * The Roshambo Wheel is not a switch. I hope the new text works.
> * I removed With Notice from winning. I see Spaaace has it, but I'm not
>   sure why. I'll put it back if someone explains it.
> * Change "Spin" to "Commune" and "Change eir Mind about spinning" into
>   "Reach into the Past".
> * A player CANNOT play Roshambo if e has Communed in the past 4 days.
> * Default the Roshambo Wheel to Rock.
> * Add a delay between playing and updating a player's score, to keep the
>   score determinate. Add an officer to track the scores.
>
> AI: 1
> Co-authors: Jason Cobb
> Text:
> Enact a new power-0.5 rule titled "Clairvoyant Roshambo", with the
> following text.
>
>   At every time, the Roshambo Wheel is set to exactly one of Rock,
>   Paper or Scissors. When the Rules do not say that its value
>   changes, it stays the same. If it would otherwise not be set to a
>   value, it is set to Rock.
>
>   To perform an action "by unconditional announcement" is to perform
>   it by announcement and not specify any condition upon which the
>   action depends in that announcement.
>
>   Whenever a player has not done so in the past 4 days, e CAN
>   Commune with the Wheel by unconditional announcement, specifying
>   Rock, Paper or Scissors.  A player CAN Reach into the Past by
>   unconditional announcement at any time. If a player Communes the
>   Wheel at a time T, and does not Reach into the Past in the four
>   days following T, then at time T I the value of the Roshambo Wheel
>   is changed to the value e specified.
>
>   The Medium is an office. Roshambo Score is a player switch with
>   possible values all integers, tracked by the Medium.  To increase
>   a player's Roshambo Score is to flip it to a value one greater
>   than it was, and to decrease it is to flip it to a value one less
>   than it was.
>
>   Rock beats Scissors, Scissors beats Paper, and Paper beats Rock.
>
>   Once per Agoran week, each player CAN Play Roshambo by
>   unconditional announcement, specifying Rock, Paper or Scissors.
>   When e does so:
>   * If e specifies a value that beats the current value of the Roshambo
> Wheel, then 4 days later, eir Roshambo Score is increased.
>   * If e specifies a value that is beaten by the current value of the
> Roshambo Wheel, then 4 days later, eir Roshambo Score is
> decreased.
>
>   A player with a Roshambo Score of at least 10 CAN Transcend Time
>   by announcement.  When e does so, e wins the game, and all
>   instances of the Roshambo Score switch are flipped to 0.
>
> --
> - Falsifian
>

Okay, a few things.

* Defining “unconditional announcement” is probably overkill; any sane
judge would arrive at that that anyway, and it adds a bit to bloat.
* You should probably say "Roshambo Score is an integer player switch" (R
2509)
* You should probably say "increased by 1" and "decreased by 1" (or
incremented and decremented) instead of redefining those terms. (R2509)
* I'd prefer an award of coins along with a SHOULD encouraging the Herald
to give the patent title of "Time Lord"
* I agree that this almost certainly works in this limited case.

-Aris


Re: DIS: Clairvoyant Roshambo

2019-07-31 Thread James Cook
>   Once per Agoran week, each player CAN Play Roshambo by
>   unconditional announcement, specifying Rock, Paper or Scissors.
>   When e does so:

Oops, this part still needs to be updated.

Once per Agoran week, each player Can Play Roshambo by unconditional
announcement, specifying Rock, Paper or Scissors, but only if e has
not Communed with the Wheel in the past 4 days. When e does so: ...

-- 
- Falsifian