= 27d567bc2d48d9f40e9ccc20ea370b15)
CronoDAS comments on Pract: A Guessing and Testing Game - Less Wrong
You are viewing a comment permalink. View the original post to see all comments and the full post content.
= 783df68a0f980790206b9ea87794c5b6)
Loading…= b715d02e85f7b3b4ae65ca3d3e450868)
Subscribe to RSS Feed
Powered by Reddit
= f037147d6e6c911a85753b9abdedda8d)
You are viewing a comment permalink. View the original post to see all comments and the full post content.
Comments (42)
There's another obvious rule problem.
Let's say my chosen set is the set of all sequences. No matter what sequence you or I name, it's in the set. What do I do when I have to name a sequence not in my set? The rules choke.
The obvious patch is to require that there be an infinite number of sequences in the set and an infinite number of sequences out of the set, so that nobody runs out of sequences.
The rules are fine. You simply can't follow them. You lose. Shoulda thought the sequence selection through a bit harder, huh?
There are many loopholes in the rules. The ones where you make it impossible for yourself to follow the rules ("anti-loopholes"?) seem the least worrisome.
I'm surprised no one has pointed out that you can lie: when your opponent guesses your set, change it to something that's consistent on the sequences classified so far.
I was serious about practicing being reasonable as well as reasoning. It's kind of sad that no one seems to care about that.
Unless, of course, one implements this game as a subgame of Nomic. :)
I had considered than and assumed that unless the sequence is recorded before beginning changing the sequence as specified must necessarily be allowed.
Obviously, the more one is forced to change their sequence, the more complexity they must add. Changing the sequence in real time to be coherent with all the things you have said so far would if anything be more fun and better practice. :)
Bollocks. A 'reasonable' application of 'reasonable' is to discussions on complexity of the sequence specifications. It is not, as you said, about who can apply the most fallacies in support of their absurd description. It is not reasonable to expect people to pretend the entire scoring system is not broken when it would be rather simple to fix.
I don't expect that. Maybe it didn't come through in the post, but I support the idea that players can and should agree to modify the rules to suit them. To some extent, that's what I mean by being reasonable. I think of the rules I've written as a suggested starting point.
I definitely expect that people who actually play Pract will discover things I didn't anticipate, maybe things no one anticipated.
Great. Well, if you'll agree to my (other.length + 10 > my.length) appeal clause then I'll challenge you to a game:
Wedrifid> 1, 2
Wedrifid> in
brian> in
brian> 7, 5, 4
brian> out
I really have to run, but I'll be back. Thanks.
wedrifid> out
wedrifid> 2, 3
wedrifid> in
brian> in
brian> 2, 4, 6
brian> out
Y'know, every comment has your name right at the top. You don't need to mimic IRC labels.
When I wrote the examples, I had the notion that they were on IRC, but I think we've been using it as a way to distinguish moves from remarks.
At least I think that's why we're doing it. Maybe we're each just following the other's lead.
Wedrifid?