The Y-axis on that political graph is weird. It seems like it's measuring moderate vs extremist, which you would think would already be captured by someone's position on the left vs right axis.

Then again the label shows that the Y axis only accounts for 7% of the variance while the X axis accounts for 70%, so I guess it's just an artifact of the way the statistics were done.

In Magic: The Gathering, basically anything technically complying with the rules is valid.

Magic actually offers a good example of varying chicanery levels. The game rules themselves are basically Chicanery: Yes. If it looks like a particular combination of cards could give you unlimited mana or unlimited damage, it probably does. (There are some exceptions, seemingly legal sequences of game actions that are not allowed, but not many.)

However, there are things around the game that are Chicanery: No, like bribing your opponent to concede or exploiting bugs in online versions of the game.

The same interviewer has now done two more podcasts on Ziz.

With Adrusi: 

With @jessicata: 

Edit: Another one with toasterlighting/Celene Nightengale. This one is mostly about Audere, the alleged murderer of the landlord.

Oh, I see, one could reasonably misinterpret the bullet points in my original comment as being about "the way many people have been describing the situation" rather than "major claims in the podcast". Sorry for the ambiguity.

To be clear these are just patterns of claims made by Slimepriestess in the linked podcast, and I have no corroborating evidence. But for example at 2:06:00 in the video she says:

At least as far as, like, Ziz et al goes, I don't think that's a remotely accurate description of... Like, there's no organization, there's no centralization, it's not like we have Ziz on, on speed dial and ask her what to do every day. Like, we're just a bunch of anarchist trans leftists that are, like, trying to exist in Current Year

With other variations of the same claims elsewhere in the video.

Major claims in the podcast that go against the way many people have been describing the situation:

• It's not a "cult" in the sense of demanding unquestioning obedience to an authority figure who enforces a dogma. (Though it fits other definitions of "cult" like "insular group with unusual beliefs".) It's a loose group of people who read each others' blogs and argued with each other on the same Discord servers. Ziz isn't in charge in any meaningful sense.
• The group's extreme actions aren't primarily due to the esoteric beliefs that take 100 pages of jargon-filled blog posts to explain, but due to Taking Seriously things like radical veganism ("Everyone who isn't vegan is complicit in the horrors of factory farming, and therefore evil.") and left-anarchism ("The government's authority is illegitimate, landlords are parasites, vigilante justice is cool and good.")

In Commerce & Coconuts, it seems like anyone who rolls a 4, 5, or 6 for boat building can coast on their starting supplies, build boats every turn, and escape by the end of turn 3 with no trading whatsoever.

a strategic voter doing approval voting learns to restrict their approval to ONLY the "electable favorite", which de facto gives you FPTP all over gain.

Wouldn't you restrict your approval to your favorite of the frontrunners, and every candidate you like better than that one? I don't see how you do worse by doing that under vanilla Approval Voting.

That leaves some favorable properties compared to FPTP

• If there's a candidate perceived as unelectable, but secretly most people like him more than the frontrunners, he will win under strategic approval voting.
• Clone candidates don't split the vote.

If you receive a threat and know nothing about the other agent’s payoffs, simply don’t give in to the threat!

With an important caveat: if carrying out the threat doesn't cost the threatener utility relative to never making the threat, then it's not a threat, just a promise (a promise to do whatever is locally in their best interests, whether you do the thing they demanded or not).

You're going to have a bad time if you try to live out LDT by ignoring threats, and end up ignoring "threats" like "pay your mortgage or we'll repossess your house".

This distinction of which demands are or aren't decision-theoretic threats that rational agents shouldn't give in to is a major theme of the last ~quarter of Planecrash (enormous spoilers in the spoiler text).

This theme is brought up many times, but there's not one comprehensive explanation to link to. (The parable of the little bird is the closest I can think of.)