Subject: Nomic: 2 things

From: Joel Uckelman <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 23 Jun 2000 11:58:32 -0500

1. First, I'd like to welcome those who have (re)subscribed to the Berserker 
Nomic mailing list in the last few weeks. It's good to see that there's 
interest in getting things rolling again.

2. One important thing I think we need to decide before resuming play is what 
sort of ontology of actions we want. I see two possibilities (though I don't 
claim this to be exhaustive), analogous to physical and human-created law. The 
former was how we, for the most part, conducted Berserker. Under such a 
system, illegal and impossible are synonymous--the rules serve as abstract 
limitations within our game just as physical laws constrain our actions in the 
world. Thus, I could no more break a rule than travel faster than light. The 
latter system, like human-created bodies of law, does not itself limit the 
actions of agents under its jurisdiction--i.e., the existence of a law against 
theft does not make it impossible for me to steal--instead, it might stipulate 
a course of action in the event of its violation--i.e., it caught, I am 
arrested and thrown in jail.

I tend to prefer the second system due to some drawbacks of the first. Since 
illegal actions were impossible in Berserker, judicial decisions could result 
in the identification as a non-event of something hitherto thought to be an 
in-game event. This leads to the awkward situation of either a) rewinding the 
game to the point at which the non-event occurred or b) undoing just those 
actions made possible by the non-event. The former seemed (and still seems) 
too drastic though it would, strictly speaking, be the correct response to 
such a situation. Understandably, we chose b).

Additionally, we added a statute of limitations, which declared "actions" not 
judicially challenged within two turns to be legal. On reflection, I think 
such a rule in a physics-like game is simply unintelligible. Note the actual 
text of the rule:

Rule 455/0(m) : Statute of Limitations

A Judgment may not undo actions that occurred more than two turns prior to its 
corresponding Request for Judgment. All such actions are to be considered 
legal and in accord with the Rules.

The problem stems from determining the referent of "actions". In a 
physics-like game, the rules specify what actions are possible--thus, for 
something to be termed an action, it must be possible within the game. 
Presumably, when a player attempts something within the game it will from that 
point either be an action or a non-action. Thus, if it is an action, R455/0 is 
inoperative, because actions are legal *by definition*; conversely, if it is a 
non-action, R455/0 has nothing to say about it--it guards only actions from 
legal challenge. What's worse, if this rule is construed as it was intended, 
it would actually have us altering the past, which raises a host of difficult 
questions. At this point, it might be objected that the difficulties I note 
are due to poor implementation of the idea and not a flaw in the idea itself. 
I grant this is possible, but have yet to devise a scheme in which something 
like this does work.

An advantage of a law-like system is that there is no question about what 
actions happened--all actions are possible. Instead, the courts must decide 
which actions are illegal and must be reversed (or ignored). What does 
everyone else think about this? Tom and I talked about it some a few days ago, 
so I'm sure he has something to say about it...

-- 
J. Uckelman
[email-masked]
http://www.public.iastate.edu/~uckelman/

---

From: Matthew G Potter <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 23 Jun 2000 12:22:07 -0500

<voice="brak">

It's merely symptomatic of our postmodern ennui.  There are no absolutes, 
unless you define our life as meaningless, when it's really your own 
freedom you detest!

...I like pork!

</voice>

---

From: desert search for techno allah <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 23 Jun 2000 20:44:55 CDT

>so I'm sure he has something to say about it...

I see this as the only reasonable alternative. Physics-like (physicist?)
rules have no place in a game of this format. Because any action is
either (a) specified to "happen" according to the rules when some
set of conditions are met, or (b) prompted by a player's "speech"
via email, we should do what these kinds of actions suggest.

Speech acts suggest a mirroring of typical real-life legislative
or parlimentary procedure - things "happen" when they happen according
to the rules, but there are also safeguards which say when things
didn't happen according to the rules. I think it's best here to
avoid confusing terminology - certainly every even "happens" in
this case, but that's not the point. Using words like "reversed"
or "ignored" seems to be a throwback to "undoing" actions, which
is the kind of language we don't want. If the president suddenly
stepped to the mic and started firing underlings and asking for
his bitches, but was later found to be (at the time) mentally
unstable, it seems the government wouldn't "undo" the firings,
it would simply note that the president's utterances had had no
effect.

On the other hand, if the president made pronouncements which
had, say, economic effects, and those effects were actually
tangible (someone actually loses money that was once theirs),
"undoing" actions makes more sense. Still it makes more sense to me,
rather than "rewinding" the game as if it were some large state
machine, to just effect the change through game machinery on
a less total level: give the money back. But don't "undo" anything.

There may be a slight problem, though. Actions under (a) above
seem highly physicist. How do they interact with (b)?

Josh

-- 
josh blog: http://www.public.iastate.edu/~kortbein/blog/
      tdr: http://www.public.iastate.edu/~kortbein/tdr/

---

From: Joel Uckelman <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 23 Jun 2000 21:55:36 -0500

> is the kind of language we don't want. 

Mea culpa. This is a difficult thing to talk about precisely; the same words 
can seemingly apply to both cases. What I meant by "reversed" was something 
akin to "set back to the way things were before", in the sense that I can 
"reverse" rearranging my furniture by spending more time moving it back the 
way it was after having changed it arrangement. The implication that I could 
make it so I had never moved my furniture in the first place is what I'm 
opposing; nothing of this sort was meant.

> If the president suddenly

I take it you mean something akin to "restitution" here. That was what I had 
in mind to start with, though I didn't (and should have) make it clear.
 
> seem highly physicist. How do they interact with (b)?

Hmm. That's a good question. With regard to (a) do you mean things like 
scheduled voting? I suspect that most things of this nature would be pegged to 
the passage of time, and though they would be causally privileged over player 
actions, I'm not sure they would pose a serious problem. Perhaps an example 
would be enlightening. Josh?

---

From: desert search for techno allah <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 23 Jun 2000 22:16:19 CDT

>would be enlightening. Josh?

Yes, I do mean things like that - also automatic transfers of property,
funds, legalization and nullification of rules, etc.

At the moment I can't think of any examples that cause problems.
But I didn't really mean to indicate that I thought there were
any interesting examples - just that, because "automatic" actions
will probably be tied to the passage of real time, and thus we'll
treat them much the same as we do real-life events, we may be
tempted to think in similar ways about speech actions. Which
we shouldn't. That's all.

Josh

---

From: Dan Waldron <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 23 Jun 2000 23:25:19 -0400 (EDT)

The rules could require (and authorize) players to perform such automatic
actions themselves, within a set time period.  If there is to be some