Nomic: Wiki Edition --- Finished (More or Less)
-
-
Deimos27 Mafia Scum
- Mafia Scum
- Mafia Scum
- Posts: 2246
- Joined: October 16, 2016
- Location: Finland/UK
-
-
Deimos27 Mafia Scum
- Mafia Scum
- Mafia Scum
- Posts: 2246
- Joined: October 16, 2016
- Location: Finland/UK
It seems highly unnecessary to me though I don't get this "polarisation" angle at all really.
If your preferences aren't strong and people get mad(?) at you for your vote you can always just say "my preferences were not strong" like I don't get how this is gonna cause any real negative effects for group cohesion or whatever it is you're implying exactly-
-
Ircher He / Him / HisWhat A Grand IdeaHe / Him / His
- What A Grand Idea
- What A Grand Idea
- Posts: 15207
- Joined: November 9, 2015
- Pronoun: He / Him / His
- Location: CST/CDT
-
-
Jake The Wolfie he/theyMafia Scumhe/they
- Mafia Scum
- Mafia Scum
- Posts: 3607
- Joined: July 13, 2019
- Pronoun: he/they
- Location: Floorda
In post 348, Deimos27 wrote:I don't understand what the relevance of the first fact you stated is
I also don't understand in what sense it is incentivising players to "become polarised" or what the downside in that is supposed to be
It makes people become polarized in the sense that if you literally do not care, but will still take the job if offered, then this prevents that from happening. If everyone wants one player to be in the board, a desirable position, then that player would need to show bias towards other players first, even if they don't care about voting.In post 349, Deimos27 wrote:The goal of the election is to establish what the collective group preference is. When someone does not participate it hinders that goalandunfairly furthers that individual's electoral prospects
If you don'thavea preference, that shouldn't hinder you from being elected. It would be like if voting abstain or not voting at all on proposals costed you 1 point each time you did it, it would incentivize polarization, and we would never have that.Show"I'm sorry that you put asbestos in your coffee."
"All dictionaries aught to have one typo."
Here's some text to break up all the links in my sig.
Currently my favorite role I've seen in a Normal.
Get to know a Wolf-
-
Jake The Wolfie he/theyMafia Scumhe/they
- Mafia Scum
- Mafia Scum
- Posts: 3607
- Joined: July 13, 2019
- Pronoun: he/they
- Location: Floorda
Uh, ircher? Where in the rules does it say that proposals can expire?In post 352, Ircher wrote:330 has expired. It is therefore rejected. We need more proposals.
Spoiler: Active Discussions as of this postShow"I'm sorry that you put asbestos in your coffee."
"All dictionaries aught to have one typo."
Here's some text to break up all the links in my sig.
Currently my favorite role I've seen in a Normal.
Get to know a Wolf-
-
Jake The Wolfie he/theyMafia Scumhe/they
- Mafia Scum
- Mafia Scum
- Posts: 3607
- Joined: July 13, 2019
- Pronoun: he/they
- Location: Floorda
Nevermind, I found it.Show"I'm sorry that you put asbestos in your coffee."
"All dictionaries aught to have one typo."
Here's some text to break up all the links in my sig.
Currently my favorite role I've seen in a Normal.
Get to know a Wolf-
-
Ircher He / Him / HisWhat A Grand IdeaHe / Him / His
- What A Grand Idea
- What A Grand Idea
- Posts: 15207
- Joined: November 9, 2015
- Pronoun: He / Him / His
- Location: CST/CDT
I think you both raise good points, but I don't think there is an easy way to solve both situations simultaneously. Like many things, there is a trade off between the two. I think Deimos's suggestion of changing the point distribution if you don't want to write in a preference might be a ways towards a solution, but I'm not certain that's really worthwhile. As it currently stands, you either have to vote for three candidates or not at all.
pedit: 306. I kinda don't like that rule actually, at least not as implemented.
Edit:
How to earn Knowledge Points!
* Knowledge Points are earned, not given. You may do with them as you wish once you receive them, but I will not be just handing them out.
* As the name implies, Knowledge Points are earned based on demonstrating knowledge of some sort. This can take a variety of forms.
* For each well-thought out proposal (even if I don't necessarily agree with it), you will earn 20 KP. Note that the proposal /must/ be well thought out. Proposals that are nonsensical or made up on the spur of the moment do not qualify. A good way to ensure your proposal qualifies is to draft it before bringing it to a formal vote.
* During discussions, if you present a well-thought out perspective on an issue, I will award you a number of KP I deem appropriate. It will be at least 5 KP, but it could be more based on how well-thought out and comprehensive it is!
* Justifying a vote with a coherent explanation will net you 1 KP.
* I may do a question of a day. Googling the specific answer is prohibited unless I state otherwise, but using physical books, notes, etc. is fine. Online tools like graphing and numerical calculators (not symbolic ones like WolframAlpha) are also okay. If I do a question of the day, it is very likely it will be biased towards mathematics. The first player to answer correctly will receive 15 KP. I obviously have no way of enforcing this, so we will operate on the honor system.
* KP may be earned in other ways at my discretion.
* These rules are subject to change as I deem fit. I am not bound to these rules, but I will try to stick to them.Last edited by Ircher on Fri Nov 05, 2021 5:06 pm, edited 1 time in total.-
-
StrangerCoug He/HimDoes not ComputeHe/Him
- Does not Compute
- Does not Compute
- Posts: 12457
- Joined: May 6, 2008
- Pronoun: He/Him
- Location: San Antonio, Texas
For a moment I thought it was a draft for a rule proposal and was going to say that we would need to agree on a definition of "well-thought out" to be a good, objective rule, but then I realized that knowledge points were your currency, so I don't think it's as important to formalize that definition. Right now I'm about ready to fall asleep, which is probably why I misinterpreted as a rule draft.STRANGERCOUG: Stranger Than You!
Current avatar by PurryFurry of FurAffinity.
What Were You Thinking XV! is in progress.-
-
Jake The Wolfie he/theyMafia Scumhe/they
- Mafia Scum
- Mafia Scum
- Posts: 3607
- Joined: July 13, 2019
- Pronoun: he/they
- Location: Floorda
brb gonna go be spurious and whatnot with my proposalsShow"I'm sorry that you put asbestos in your coffee."
"All dictionaries aught to have one typo."
Here's some text to break up all the links in my sig.
Currently my favorite role I've seen in a Normal.
Get to know a Wolf-
-
Deimos27 Mafia Scum
- Mafia Scum
- Mafia Scum
- Posts: 2246
- Joined: October 16, 2016
- Location: Finland/UK
If "showing bias" has any actual negative effects we shouldn't publicise results at all because 4 out of the 5 people showed bias by voting so now our entire group dynamic is like 4 times as polarised apparently so we're doomed now. You've not demonstrated any mechanism for the tangible harm that removing a perverse incentive to abstain will create. Because that's what this is. You can still abstain, you just shouldn't be strategically incentivised to do so.In post 353, Jake The Wolfie wrote:It makes people become polarized in the sense that if you literally do not care, but will still take the job if offered, then this prevents that from happening. If everyone wants one player to be in the board, a desirable position, then that player would need to show bias towards other players first, even if they don't care about voting.
If you don't have a preference, that shouldn't hinder you from being elected. It would be like if voting abstain or not voting at all on proposals costed you 1 point each time you did it, it would incentivize polarization, and we would never have that.
This is deeply disanalogous to a point penalty for abstaining on proposals because abstaining on proposals does not currently create an unfair advantage in favour of your own proposals passing at the expense of other people's proposals. So there is no perverse incentive attached to abstaining on proposals and therefore no reason to attach a point penalty to it. If wedidattach a point penalty to it for some reason, however, that wouldn't be bad because it generates some abstract "polarisation". If it's bad at all it's for far more nuanced reasons. The ethics around abstentions are actually very interesting. I drafted a whole rant about it that makes reference to practices e.g. in European parliament that I can post if anyone is interested.
If you want to partake in the benefits of the electoral system (i.e. stand a chance to be elected) you incur a moral obligation to partake in the costs that make that electoral system possible: namely, to make a vote (and thereby aid the electoral prospects of your opponents). They, after all, do the same for you.
If you don't have an alternative solution we absolutely need to amend the electoral system because these "polarisation" effects are so abstract and unrealistic that they are easily outweighed by the fact that abstaining provides an obviously significant unfair advantage.-
-
Deimos27 Mafia Scum
- Mafia Scum
- Mafia Scum
- Posts: 2246
- Joined: October 16, 2016
- Location: Finland/UK
-
-
Deimos27 Mafia Scum
- Mafia Scum
- Mafia Scum
- Posts: 2246
- Joined: October 16, 2016
- Location: Finland/UK
Ummm in addition to the abstentions in the European Parliament thing I also drafted two moral arguments for why we should institute the electoral amendment I suggested. With citations. So if you want to see that let me know lolIn post 356, Ircher wrote:As the name implies, Knowledge Points are earned based on demonstrating knowledge of some sort. This can take a variety of forms.-
-
Ircher He / Him / HisWhat A Grand IdeaHe / Him / His
- What A Grand Idea
- What A Grand Idea
- Posts: 15207
- Joined: November 9, 2015
- Pronoun: He / Him / His
- Location: CST/CDT
One additional rule for QoTD (Question of the day): You only get 2 guesses a day, and your second guess must be at least eight hours after your first.
Question of the Day #1
Category: Physics
Question: What physical law describes the force between two point charges? (Note: Spelling counts.)
Bonus: You will gain an extra 3 KP if you provide the correct mathematical formulation of the law in addition to the name. You must state what each variable means; however, constants may simply be specified as constants without naming the specific constant or its value. Units are optional here as well.-
-
Jake The Wolfie he/theyMafia Scumhe/they
- Mafia Scum
- Mafia Scum
- Posts: 3607
- Joined: July 13, 2019
- Pronoun: he/they
- Location: Floorda
You misunderstand what I'm saying then. I am not saying that polarized players are bad, I am saying thatrequiring a player to commit to beliefs that they do not holdis bad, and should not be encouraged. I don't know how you misread this simple and basic idea.
It is not disanalogous, mainly because we should not encourage players to lie. At all. What I just described is called lying, and we should not encourage that. Furthermore, the more a player lies about their stance, the less it will be them lying and the more it will be them telling the truth, a truth that they didn't arrive at organically, but in which they were forced to choose something. Sure, they got a choice in what they chose, but they didn't have the option of "no choice". Attempting to remove "No Choice" is how you get persecution, on all scales and of every measure.
Just because Player A wants power doesn't mean that they are morally obligated to choose other players who want power too. That's not how this works, that's not how any of this works. You're just throwing the term morally obligated around as a buzzword, without backing it up.Show"I'm sorry that you put asbestos in your coffee."
"All dictionaries aught to have one typo."
Here's some text to break up all the links in my sig.
Currently my favorite role I've seen in a Normal.
Get to know a Wolf-
-
Deimos27 Mafia Scum
- Mafia Scum
- Mafia Scum
- Posts: 2246
- Joined: October 16, 2016
- Location: Finland/UK
-
-
Ircher He / Him / HisWhat A Grand IdeaHe / Him / His
- What A Grand Idea
- What A Grand Idea
- Posts: 15207
- Joined: November 9, 2015
- Pronoun: He / Him / His
- Location: CST/CDT
-
-
Jake The Wolfie he/theyMafia Scumhe/they
- Mafia Scum
- Mafia Scum
- Posts: 3607
- Joined: July 13, 2019
- Pronoun: he/they
- Location: Floorda
I may be dumb...
...
...Show"I'm sorry that you put asbestos in your coffee."
"All dictionaries aught to have one typo."
Here's some text to break up all the links in my sig.
Currently my favorite role I've seen in a Normal.
Get to know a Wolf-
-
Deimos27 Mafia Scum
- Mafia Scum
- Mafia Scum
- Posts: 2246
- Joined: October 16, 2016
- Location: Finland/UK
What do you even mean by incentivising lying do you actually think we're gonna have a situation where someone hasIn post 363, Jake The Wolfie wrote:You misunderstand what I'm saying then. I am not saying that polarized players are bad, I am saying thatrequiring a player to commit to beliefs that they do not holdis bad, and should not be encouraged. I don't know how you misread this simple and basic idea.
It is not disanalogous, mainly because we should not encourage players to lie. At all. What I just described is called lying, and we should not encourage that. Furthermore, the more a player lies about their stance, the less it will be them lying and the more it will be them telling the truth, a truth that they didn't arrive at organically, but in which they were forced to choose something. Sure, they got a choice in what they chose, but they didn't have the option of "no choice". Attempting to remove "No Choice" is how you get persecution, on all scales and of every measure.
Just because Player A wants power doesn't mean that they are morally obligated to choose other players who want power too. That's not how this works, that's not how any of this works. You're just throwing the term morally obligated around as a buzzword, without backing it up.exactly0 preference between alternatives. Even then they wouldn't have to lie about it, they could vote and say "I was forced to do it to stay eligible" and there would be no lying involved. Or theycouldmake no choice. Then they just don't have the option of still reaping personal gains from other people making a choice. As they shouldn't.
I didn't mean to use "moral obligation" as a buzzword. I meant to summarise in layman's terms a real idea in moral philosophy. Since you want me to back it up I will provide two groundings (this includes that exact quote which I decided to include in my earlier post):
Spoiler:-
-
Deimos27 Mafia Scum
- Mafia Scum
- Mafia Scum
- Posts: 2246
- Joined: October 16, 2016
- Location: Finland/UK
Bruhhhh I hope no one gets this before I have time to go to the library tomorrow.In post 365, Ircher wrote:I am only judging the bonus question if you get the initial question correct.-
-
Jake The Wolfie he/theyMafia Scumhe/they
- Mafia Scum
- Mafia Scum
- Posts: 3607
- Joined: July 13, 2019
- Pronoun: he/they
- Location: Floorda
Do you really think that I could just say "I didn'tIn post 367, Deimos27 wrote:
What do you even mean by incentivising lying do you actually think we're gonna have a situation where someone hasIn post 363, Jake The Wolfie wrote:You misunderstand what I'm saying then. I am not saying that polarized players are bad, I am saying thatrequiring a player to commit to beliefs that they do not holdis bad, and should not be encouraged. I don't know how you misread this simple and basic idea.
It is not disanalogous, mainly because we should not encourage players to lie. At all. What I just described is called lying, and we should not encourage that. Furthermore, the more a player lies about their stance, the less it will be them lying and the more it will be them telling the truth, a truth that they didn't arrive at organically, but in which they were forced to choose something. Sure, they got a choice in what they chose, but they didn't have the option of "no choice". Attempting to remove "No Choice" is how you get persecution, on all scales and of every measure.
Just because Player A wants power doesn't mean that they are morally obligated to choose other players who want power too. That's not how this works, that's not how any of this works. You're just throwing the term morally obligated around as a buzzword, without backing it up.exactly0 preference between alternatives. Even then they wouldn't have to lie about it, they could vote and say "I was forced to do it to stay eligible" and there would be no lying involved. Or theycouldmake no choice. Then they just don't have the option of still reaping personal gains from other people making a choice. As they shouldn't.
I didn't mean to use "moral obligation" as a buzzword. I meant to summarise in layman's terms a real idea in moral philosophy. Since you want me to back it up I will provide two groundings (this includes that exact quote which I decided to include in my earlier post):
Spoiler:meanto give off the impression that I prefer these people over you, I just wanted to remain eligible" and not be seen as a twat? In either case, you still lose. You either don't say "I was forced to vote" and give the impression that you do prefer these people over others (lying), or you do say it and you look like a twat.
See, I don't believe that. I believe that everyone has an equal right in the necessities and pleasures of life, even if they don't contribute. (which would be extra hard, considering that even if you were given all the necessities and pleasures of life [see, the ultra rich], you won't just stop. You would keep going, finding something to alleviate your boredom. If all of your problems were solved, you would find more problems to solve, or find different problems that have infinitely many solutions. Anyway, this is irrelevant.) Even if you were to be a twat and not contribute, that doesn't mean that everyone else will, and in fact others will still contribute just for fun. Coming back to our election, there will be players here that will nevernotvote, even if they want to be on the board more than anyone else [see: me]. More importantly, there isn't a moral obligation to both want to benefit from the system while also not contributing to the system, mainly because your overall impact will be much less the more people who contribute in that system.Show"I'm sorry that you put asbestos in your coffee."
"All dictionaries aught to have one typo."
Here's some text to break up all the links in my sig.
Currently my favorite role I've seen in a Normal.
Get to know a Wolf-
-
Deimos27 Mafia Scum
- Mafia Scum
- Mafia Scum
- Posts: 2246
- Joined: October 16, 2016
- Location: Finland/UK
Yes. Or at any rate, I believe that people who would see such people as twats are themselves twats.
Your point that it's ok to benefit from the system while not contributing to it "because your overall impact will be much less the more people who contribute in that system" is undermined by the case study right before us. We have only one person not contributing and their lack of vote demonstrably had an impact, because we cannot know if they would have had a 1st preference for Ircher (in which case Ircher would currently be the legitimate winner) or if they would have had a preference over you vs me or lendunistus vs me (in which case you or lendunistus would be legitimate board members and I would be holding an illegitimate place). Even one vote is currently demonstrably of utmost significance in "overall impact".
The fee for standing to receive votes from other people is to agree to also give votes to other people. If someone wants to opt in for a chance at power but is unwilling to give anyone else a chance at power they are the twattiest of the twats.
People who abstain in the status quo and thereby gain an unfair strategic advantage either have an arguably legitimate reason (literallyexactly0 preference between candidates) or they do not. If eliminating the latter cases also creates minor difficulties for someone holding the former reasons (really very minor due to the multiple options they have available as I outlined in my previous post on this matter)andthat situation is exceedingly rare in the first place (consider how unlikely it actually is to be a participant in this game, having read the posts, and nonethelesss havingliterallyno opinion about who among the other players would be a better director)andeven in that former case it may have been fairer for the abstainer to make arbitrary votes in order to give at least some competitors an equal chance at winning ... then I continue to believe that the issue of which consideration outweighs which is fairly clear.-
-
Deimos27 Mafia Scum
- Mafia Scum
- Mafia Scum
- Posts: 2246
- Joined: October 16, 2016
- Location: Finland/UK
What do you think about the suggestion then that someone who wants to abstain can do so while continuing to participate at the cost e.g. of all other candidates receiving 2nd preference points (3). That eliminates the relative advantage they would have gained without distorting the relative rankings of the other players. Would thatstillbe disagreeable to you?-
-
Deimos27 Mafia Scum
- Mafia Scum
- Mafia Scum
- Posts: 2246
- Joined: October 16, 2016
- Location: Finland/UK
-
-
Deimos27 Mafia Scum
- Mafia Scum
- Mafia Scum
- Posts: 2246
- Joined: October 16, 2016
- Location: Finland/UK
-
-
Jake The Wolfie he/theyMafia Scumhe/they
- Mafia Scum
- Mafia Scum
- Posts: 3607
- Joined: July 13, 2019
- Pronoun: he/they
- Location: Floorda
How so? How can you not read that as either "I'm trying to keep up appearances here" or "I'm lying to you, because I'm trying to keep up appearances here."?
Sure, but this is a restriction of the medium. SC not voting did have an impact here because it couldn't plausibly not have an impact, because everyone who is voting must show strong preference here, rather than weak preference. It is not my fault that after stress testing the election that it failed.
What if SC didn't have a strong enough preference to warrant a vote? For example, voting Ircher as a 3rd place and no other votes. In the current system, you can't have weak preferences, so the next solution is to not vote.
Anyone who abstains can do it for legitimate reasons that don't just involve "I do not care.". It could be "I want to give myself the biggest chances to win", or could be "I don't care enough", or "I value you all approximately equally, and so requiring me to rank my choices here is not going to be fruitful.", or it could even be "I didn't want to participate in the first place". Just because someone abstains doesn't mean that they either don't care or will win by any means necessary.Show"I'm sorry that you put asbestos in your coffee."
"All dictionaries aught to have one typo."
Here's some text to break up all the links in my sig.
Currently my favorite role I've seen in a Normal.
Get to know a Wolf
Copyright © MafiaScum. All rights reserved.