Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Re: OFF: [Speaker] CFJ 3400 assigned to woggle

2014-02-22 Thread omd
On Sat, Feb 22, 2014 at 4:44 AM, Fool fool1...@gmail.com wrote:
 No, that wasn't it. Of course there was a game to consider the best interest
 of, prior to ending it. What remains to be shown is that it was in the best
 interest of the game to continue it indefinitely. People win, games end;
 this is not harmful. To assert that Agora isn't the sort of game that ends
 is to beg the question!

Some ruleset refactoring doesn't make a game that makes a point of
having been continuously running for over 20 years, has a long history
of non-game-ending wins, and whose players did not intend it to end
suddenly take a 180 in a particular interpretation.  Removal of
explicit wording can cause the prior tradition to lose weight, but it
doesn't automatically drop it on the floor.

 In the new ruleset there were no statements that winning the game does
 not end, no statements about how Agora has functioned since the start.

There are at least two statements in the ruleset that strongly imply
that this is the case:

  (5) A pivot is either the instant at which Agora Nomic began
  (June 30, 1993, 00:04:30 GMT +1200) or an instant at
  which at least one person won the game.  When used as a
  period of time, a game is the period of time between a
  pivot and the next pivot.

and the bit about scores resetting to 0 - which, as I previously said,
could be interpreted as platonically starting a new game with a
continuation of the gamestate, to the extent that that outcome is
actually discernible from continuing the current game, but not as
leaving it to the players to decide how to continue, as you suggest.


Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Re: OFF: [Speaker] CFJ 3400 assigned to woggle

2014-02-22 Thread woggle
On 2/22/14, 1:44 , Fool wrote:
[snip]
 It is correct that R1698 had a chance to act before the game ended. So Alex
 Smith's proposed amendment would have been effective in preventing the end of
 the game. But in absense of that amendment, it remains to be shown that ending
 Agora falls under causing Agora to become ossified.
 
 Agora's not ossified, it's just done. Now, G. objects that it depends on what
 the meaning of the word is is... A finished game still exists, and is
 therefore ossified, therefore ending is prevented by R1698. I don't see in
 what sense this could be true.

The R1698 definition of Agora is ossified does not become undefined if Agora
does not exist. [1] The definition only asks whether it would be possible to
pass proposals or make arbitrary gamestate changes. These questions have clear
answers if Agora were to cease to exist.

[1] The definition would presumably cease to be effective, but, fortunately,
we're checking the definition at a time when it is clearly effective.

- woggle



Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Re: OFF: [Speaker] CFJ 3400 assigned to woggle

2014-02-22 Thread Kerim Aydin


On Sat, 22 Feb 2014, woggle wrote:
 On 2/22/14, 1:44 , Fool wrote:
 [snip]
  It is correct that R1698 had a chance to act before the game ended. So Alex
  Smith's proposed amendment would have been effective in preventing the end 
  of
  the game. But in absense of that amendment, it remains to be shown that 
  ending
  Agora falls under causing Agora to become ossified.
  
  Agora's not ossified, it's just done. Now, G. objects that it depends on 
  what
  the meaning of the word is is... A finished game still exists, and is
  therefore ossified, therefore ending is prevented by R1698. I don't see in
  what sense this could be true.
 
 The R1698 definition of Agora is ossified does not become undefined if Agora
 does not exist. [1] The definition only asks whether it would be possible to
 pass proposals or make arbitrary gamestate changes. These questions have clear
 answers if Agora were to cease to exist.

Indeed, this is why I was asking Fool to define what e meant by ceases to
exist.  Even IF the game ended, my contention is that we could still talk
meaningfully about the state of the game at that moment of ending.  If 
someone said  what were the scores when the game ended? I wouldn't say the 
scores ceased to exist, that's a meaningless question, I'd say these were 
the final scores.  That's true of any game, otherwise you couldn't have 
tournaments, playoffs, etc.

If one of those at the end of the game facts is Agora is Ossified, then
then we can still ask why R1698 didn't prevent that from happening, because
it should have!

I recognize that there's a fencepost issue here in terms of whether we're
talking about the moment before, the moment after, or the exact moment at
which the game ended.   I think there's some precedents on fencepost issues 
(that the rules have always been pretty silent on, so the revamp didn't
change anything) but I don't really remember what the precedents are.

Anyway, this point doesn't need resolution under the current judgement.

-G.






Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Re: OFF: [Speaker] CFJ 3400 assigned to woggle

2014-02-22 Thread Kerim Aydin


On Sat, 22 Feb 2014, Fool wrote:
 On the contrary, it used to be explicitly stated winning the game does not
 cause Agora to end, and moreover rule 101 used to say Agora since its
 inception has functioned not only a game but as a society. Then the ruleset
 was radically overhauled.

 In the new ruleset there were no statements that winning the game does not
 end, no statements about how Agora has functioned since the start. Agora is a
 game of Nomic. If this does not signal an intent to break from tradition, it
 should at least signal that the prior tradition lost a lot of weight.

To the extend that intent matters (not much!), I agree that I purposefully moved
back towards the we're playing a game of nomic in the re-write, and away
from the we're a society angle.  However, the operative part is not just
game in isolation, but a game of Nomic.  As I argued in an earlier email, 
we now have enough history of nomics in general to say that games of nomic are
quite unclear about what happens when a win occurs - the very act of blurring
gaming and metagaming in the principles of the ruleset leaves it unclear.

This is, in part, why the original Suberian ruleset made sure to specify that
the worst that could happen to you was leaving the game, because in nomic the
in-game and out-of-game are in a very different place than in traditional
games (didn't Vlad publish an actual novel about a game of nomic getting out
of hand that way?)

 But if winning didn't end the game, it seems it had no effect. (No titles, no
 nothing gosh, what a ripoff!) We should prefer an interpretation where
 winning has effect, and winning seems like the more important one to give
 effect to.

It has the effect of making omd won the game on such-and-such a date part of
the history of the game.  If more is desired, that fact can be converted
into something shiny, as omd has already made a proposal to do.

-G.




Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Re: OFF: [Speaker] CFJ 3400 assigned to woggle

2014-02-22 Thread Ørjan Johansen

On Sat, 22 Feb 2014, Kerim Aydin wrote:


This is, in part, why the original Suberian ruleset made sure to specify that
the worst that could happen to you was leaving the game, because in nomic the
in-game and out-of-game are in a very different place than in traditional
games (didn't Vlad publish an actual novel about a game of nomic getting out
of hand that way?)


I thought it was Swann (a bit hard to cross reference pseudonyms :P), but 
anyhow the book I remember is


http://www.amazon.com/The-Omega-Game-Steven-Krane/dp/0886779073

Greetings,
Ørjan.

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Re: OFF: [Speaker] CFJ 3400 assigned to woggle

2014-02-22 Thread Ørjan Johansen

On Sun, 23 Feb 2014, Ørjan Johansen wrote:

I thought it was Swann (a bit hard to cross reference pseudonyms :P), but 
anyhow the book I remember is


http://www.amazon.com/The-Omega-Game-Steven-Krane/dp/0886779073


Oh hm definitely Swann: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/S._Andrew_Swann

(BTW I never actually read the book; judging by the star ratings it's not 
his best one.)


Greetings,
Ørjan.

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Re: OFF: [Speaker] CFJ 3400 assigned to woggle

2014-02-22 Thread Kerim Aydin


On Sun, 23 Feb 2014, Ørjan Johansen wrote:
 On Sun, 23 Feb 2014, Ørjan Johansen wrote:
  I thought it was Swann (a bit hard to cross reference pseudonyms :P), but
  anyhow the book I remember is
  
  http://www.amazon.com/The-Omega-Game-Steven-Krane/dp/0886779073
 
 Oh hm definitely Swann: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/S._Andrew_Swann
 
 (BTW I never actually read the book; judging by the star ratings it's not his
 best one.)

Yep, that's the one (Both Vlad and Swann were before my time :) ).  
Never read it, either...




Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Re: OFF: [Speaker] CFJ 3400 assigned to woggle

2014-02-16 Thread omd
On Sun, Feb 16, 2014 at 9:37 PM, Fool fool1...@gmail.com wrote:
 I'd guess that platonically, nothing of the sort happened. The players
 pragmatically restarted the game.

It is absurd to interpret a clause of the form after a win, X
gamestate is reset in a way that does not platonically establish
further play when there are reasonable options which do, as such an
interpretation would make the clause meaningless.

This has not always been present in the past, but then again, as long
as Michael Norrish has not been the speaker, I'd say Rule 104 has been
sufficient inclarity to admit the game custom of not ending the game
on wins.


Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Re: OFF: [Speaker] CFJ 3400 assigned to woggle

2014-02-16 Thread Fool

On 2014-02-13 12:00 PM, Kerim Aydin wrote:



On Thu, 13 Feb 2014, Alex Smith wrote:

I think there's another subsidiary point here, which is how much power
does it take to end the game / series of games, anyway? It feels like
the answer should be 3, but I can't see an immediate reason why it's
any more than 1.


Well I think it would have to overrule R1698 at least (I'm sorry if
I missed your argument that R1698 doesn't apply, but I can't see
why it wouldn't).  -G.



Existence would be a necessary condition for ossification...



Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Re: OFF: [Speaker] CFJ 3400 assigned to woggle

2014-02-16 Thread Fool

On 2014-02-16 9:44 PM, omd wrote:

On Sun, Feb 16, 2014 at 9:37 PM, Fool fool1...@gmail.com wrote:

I'd guess that platonically, nothing of the sort happened. The players
pragmatically restarted the game.


It is absurd to interpret a clause of the form after a win, X
gamestate is reset in a way that does not platonically establish
further play when there are reasonable options which do, as such an
interpretation would make the clause meaningless.



Except it seems to me that sort of thing is common. A rule may say X and 
Y happens, and it may not be able to effect Y. But X still happens.


Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Re: OFF: [Speaker] CFJ 3400 assigned to woggle

2014-02-16 Thread Kerim Aydin



On Sun, 16 Feb 2014, Fool wrote:
 Existence would be a necessary condition for ossification...

I just don't understand why ending means ceases to exist in your
book.  No game ceases to exist when the game is over.

Even if the game ended, it would be the game of Agora that ended in
February 2014 and would still exist.  Adjustments are made to games
after-the-fact (e.g. an Olympic runner is disqualified and someone
else becomes the winner after the fact).

The cease to exist part is something that has no support that I can
see whatsoever.  What exact support, or definition of game, are you 
using to assume that it happens?





Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Re: OFF: [Speaker] CFJ 3400 assigned to woggle

2014-02-13 Thread Kerim Aydin



On Thu, 13 Feb 2014, Fool wrote:
 It has the power to award a win...

There's an alternate interpretation, btw, that no-one has brought 
up yet.

1.  (Accepting Fool's Premise):  Since winning is, by common
definition, part and parcel of ending the game, the two aren't
separable.

2.  Therefore, any rule that attempts to award a win is 
unsuccessful if it does not also have the power to end all 
aspects of the game.

3.  Therefore, the Win attempt failed in the first place, as the
rule was not powerful enough to end the game, therefore not
powerful enough to declare someone the winner.







Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Re: OFF: [Speaker] CFJ 3400 assigned to woggle

2014-02-13 Thread Alex Smith
On Thu, 2014-02-13 at 07:27 -0800, Kerim Aydin wrote:
 There's an alternate interpretation, btw, that no-one has brought 
 up yet.
 
 1.  (Accepting Fool's Premise):  Since winning is, by common
 definition, part and parcel of ending the game, the two aren't
 separable.
 
 2.  Therefore, any rule that attempts to award a win is 
 unsuccessful if it does not also have the power to end all 
 aspects of the game.
 
 3.  Therefore, the Win attempt failed in the first place, as the
 rule was not powerful enough to end the game, therefore not
 powerful enough to declare someone the winner.

I think there's another subsidiary point here, which is how much power
does it take to end the game / series of games, anyway? It feels like
the answer should be 3, but I can't see an immediate reason why it's
any more than 1.

We should legislate that away pretty quickly before someone uses it for
blackmail purposes as part of an escalation scam.

-- 
ais523



Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Re: OFF: [Speaker] CFJ 3400 assigned to woggle

2014-02-13 Thread Kerim Aydin


On Thu, 13 Feb 2014, Alex Smith wrote:
 I think there's another subsidiary point here, which is how much power
 does it take to end the game / series of games, anyway? It feels like
 the answer should be 3, but I can't see an immediate reason why it's
 any more than 1.

Well I think it would have to overrule R1698 at least (I'm sorry if
I missed your argument that R1698 doesn't apply, but I can't see
why it wouldn't).  -G.