Nomic: Wiki Edition --- Finished (More or Less)

Deimos27 · Post Post #350 (ISO) » Fri Nov 05, 2021 3:11 pm

If we necessarily want to allow a way to express "no preference" while maintaining electoral eligibility then to keep the things fair that could involve e.g. making a 3 + 3 + 3 point structure (for 1st, 2nd, and 3rd preference) rather than 5 + 3 + 1 permissible

Deimos27 · Post Post #351 (ISO) » Fri Nov 05, 2021 3:14 pm

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

ISO · Post Post #352 (ISO) » Fri Nov 05, 2021 3:15 pm

330 has expired. It is therefore rejected. We need more proposals.

Spoiler: Active Discussions as of this post

Jake The Wolfie · Post Post #353 (ISO) » Fri Nov 05, 2021 3:16 pm

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

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 goal
and
unfairly furthers that individual's electoral prospects

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.

Jake The Wolfie · Post Post #354 (ISO) » Fri Nov 05, 2021 3:18 pm

In post 352, Ircher wrote:330 has expired. It is therefore rejected. We need more proposals.

Spoiler: Active Discussions as of this post

Uh, ircher? Where in the rules does it say that proposals can expire?

Jake The Wolfie · Post Post #355 (ISO) » Fri Nov 05, 2021 3:19 pm

Nevermind, I found it.

ISO · Post Post #356 (ISO) » Fri Nov 05, 2021 3:20 pm

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.

StrangerCoug · Post Post #357 (ISO) » Fri Nov 05, 2021 5:06 pm

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.

Jake The Wolfie · Post Post #358 (ISO) » Fri Nov 05, 2021 5:11 pm

brb gonna go be spurious and whatnot with my proposals

Deimos27 · Post Post #359 (ISO) » Fri Nov 05, 2021 5:15 pm

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.

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.

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 we

did

attach 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 · Post Post #360 (ISO) » Fri Nov 05, 2021 5:18 pm

This game is actually perfect for people who study my degree I should get them to join the forum just for it.
I'm reading for a BA joint honours in Philosophy, Politics, and Economics.

Deimos27 · Post Post #361 (ISO) » Fri Nov 05, 2021 5:23 pm

In 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.

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 lol

ISO · Post Post #362 (ISO) » Fri Nov 05, 2021 5:30 pm

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 · Post Post #363 (ISO) » Fri Nov 05, 2021 5:31 pm

You misunderstand what I'm saying then. I am not saying that polarized players are bad, I am saying that

requiring a player to commit to beliefs that they do not hold

is 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.

Deimos27 · Post Post #364 (ISO) » Fri Nov 05, 2021 5:37 pm

Aw dang this was def in my IB physics. Not Ohm. Not Kirchhoff. I don't remember whose law it is rn.

F = k(q₁q₂)/r^2

Think the formula looked like this though
k is a constant
q1 and q2 are the charges
r is the distance between the charges

ISO · Post Post #365 (ISO) » Fri Nov 05, 2021 5:38 pm

I am only judging the bonus question if you get the initial question correct.

Jake The Wolfie · Post Post #366 (ISO) » Fri Nov 05, 2021 5:40 pm

I may be dumb...

...

...

Deimos27 · Post Post #367 (ISO) » Fri Nov 05, 2021 5:44 pm

In 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 that
requiring a player to commit to beliefs that they do not hold
is 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.

What do you even mean by incentivising lying do you actually think we're gonna have a situation where someone has

exactly

0 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 they

could

make 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 · Post Post #368 (ISO) » Fri Nov 05, 2021 5:44 pm

In post 365, Ircher wrote:I am only judging the bonus question if you get the initial question correct.

Bruhhhh I hope no one gets this before I have time to go to the library tomorrow.

Jake The Wolfie · Post Post #369 (ISO) » Fri Nov 05, 2021 6:02 pm

In post 367, Deimos27 wrote:
In 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 that
requiring a player to commit to beliefs that they do not hold
is 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.
What do you even mean by incentivising lying do you actually think we're gonna have a situation where someone has
exactly
0 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 they
could
make 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:
"When a number of persons conduct any joint enterprise according to rules and thus restrict their liberty, those who have submitted to these restrictions when required have a right to a similar submission from those who have benefited by their submission." (H. L. A. Hart, "Are There Any Natural Rights?", 1955)

It sounds complicated but this principle is always summarised as basically "when we work together to create mutual benefits, each of us who receives from the benefit has an obligation to share in the costs of creating that benefit". If you want to benefit from the existence of the electoral system (i.e. you want to stand a chance to win), you have an obligation to share in the costs that make that electoral system possible: to make a vote (and thereby improving the prospects of your opponents). After all, they do the same for you.

I also refer you to the first formulation of Kant's categorical imperative—universalisability: "act only in accordance with that maxim through which you can at the same time will that it become a universal law" (Groundwork of the Metaphysics of Morals, 1785). What this principle essentially means is that only actions which could consistently be done by everyone (are universalisable) are moral. If no one voted in the election, what would happen? No one would be elected; an election, strictly speaking, could not even be considered to have happened. So "not voting in elections" results in a logically inconsistent (or at least morally undesirable) outcome when universalised as a maxim, and so it cannot be moral.

Do you really think that I could just say "I didn't

mean

to 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 never

not

vote, 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.

Deimos27 · Post Post #370 (ISO) » Fri Nov 05, 2021 6:24 pm

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 (literally

exactly

0 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)

and

that 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 having

literally

no opinion about who among the other players would be a better director)

and

even 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 · Post Post #371 (ISO) » Fri Nov 05, 2021 6:28 pm

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 that

still

be disagreeable to you?

Deimos27 · Post Post #372 (ISO) » Fri Nov 05, 2021 6:29 pm

Because I think at this rate it appears unlikely that we will be making progress through reasoning, a compromise such as that should cover your concerns.

Deimos27 · Post Post #373 (ISO) » Fri Nov 05, 2021 6:31 pm

Can others chime in? Are people in agreement broadly at least that the electoral rules need amending?

Jake The Wolfie · Post Post #374 (ISO) » Fri Nov 05, 2021 6:39 pm

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.