Comment author: MichaelHoward 14 November 2010 02:05:58PM 1 point [-]

Doesn't iteration cause this strategy to be balanced out?

The games described in the post were online - they're normally played against different opponents each time. The game that's about to start is only planned to happen once.

After it becomes clear that two players have an unbreakable alliance, it's in the best interest of the rest of the players to destroy those two first in all future games.

Only if iteration was a factor, and even then, that argument could be applied to most forms of cheating.

This passage from the TV Tropes page on the Scrub is relevant

Only if iteration was a factor, and even then, only in a sense that could be applied to most forms of cheating.

Comment author: thezeus18 14 November 2010 11:32:28PM 1 point [-]

It's really only applicable to forms of cheating which can be countered by non-cheaters ganging up on the cheaters. If the cheat causes an automatic win in every game, the scrub argument against its banning doesn't apply.

But I agree, I was assuming iteration. Obviously, the scrubbiness of the rule against unbreakable alliances (and thus the cheatiness of the tactic), would depend on metagame circumstances.

Comment author: MichaelHoward 13 November 2010 12:42:41AM 12 points [-]

The game of Diplomacy I won, I won through an enforceable side contract (which lost me a friend and got me some accusations of cheating, but this is par for the course for a good Diplomacy game). I was Britain; my friend H was France... A lot of people made fun of me for this, including H, but in my defense I did end up winning the game.

I strongly agree with this Newbies' Guide:

You must always play each game fairly to give each player an equal opportunity to do well… don't sign up for a game with your best friend and have an unbreakable alliance from turn one... winning in these situations does not say anything about your skills as a Diplomacy player, only that you can win by cheating (well duh).

Comment author: thezeus18 14 November 2010 09:15:33AM *  1 point [-]

Doesn't iteration cause this strategy to be balanced out? After it becomes clear that two players have an unbreakable alliance, it's in the best interest of the rest of the players to destroy those two first in all future games.

This passage from the TV Tropes page on the Scrub is relevant:

The mistake the Scrub often makes is making up rules too soon. The Metagame can often turn an apparent imbalance on its head. A lower tier character can become a higher tier one, or vice versa. Or something that seemed initially very unbalanced can be countered with time and effort at learning the tactic. The Scrub circumvents this by simply banning the practice without making a good faith effort in actually getting around it with the in-game rules.

In response to Abnormal Cryonics
Comment author: thezeus18 27 May 2010 06:17:21AM *  1 point [-]

I'm surprised that you didn't bring up what I find to be a fairly obvious problem with Cryonics: what if nobody feels like unthawing you? Of course, not having followed this dialogue I'm probably missing some equally obvious counter to this argument.

Comment author: gelisam 20 March 2010 03:44:24PM *  4 points [-]

I don't think we can reasonably elevate our estimate of our own rationality by observing that we disagree with the consensus of a respected community.

But isn't Eliezer suggesting, in this very post, that we should use uncommon justified beliefs as an indicator that people are actually thinking for themselves as opposed to copying the beliefs of the community? I would assume that the standards we use to judge others should also apply when judging ourselves.

On the other hand, what you're saying sounds reasonable too. After all, crackpots also disagree with the consensus of a respected community.

The point is that there could be many reasons why a person would disagree with a respected community, one of which is that the person is actually being rational and that the community is wrong. Or, as seems to be the case here, that the person is actually being rational but hasn't yet encountered all the evidence which the community has. In any case, given the fact that I'm here, following a website dedicated to the art of rationality, I think that in this case rationality is quite a likely cause for my disagreement.

I should not be able to discredit a theory by the act of collecting all possible evidence and publishing before they have a chance to think things through.

I agree that if a piece of evidence is published before it is predicted, this is not evidence against the theory, but it does weaken the prediction considerably. Therefore, please don't publish this entire collection of all possible evidence, as it will make it much harder afterwards to distinguish between theories!

Comment author: thezeus18 21 March 2010 12:19:50AM 6 points [-]

"But isn't Eliezer suggesting, in this very post, that we should use uncommon justified beliefs as an indicator that people are actually thinking for themselves as opposed to copying the beliefs of the community? I would assume that the standards we use to judge others should also apply when judging ourselves.

On the other hand, what you're saying sounds reasonable too. After all, crackpots also disagree with the consensus of a respected community."

Eliezer didn't say that we should use "disagreeing with the consensus of a respected community" as an indicator of rationality. He said that we should use disagreeing with the consensus of one's own community as an indicator of rationality.