I just came across my old Thesis, which I'd completely forgotten about, "The concept of a 'rule change' in Peter Suber's Initial Set". Like everyone else, we seem to have assumed that the claim labelled (*) in the Thesis is false. It's be interesting to design an initial set which clears up the conceptual haziness around exactly what a 'rule change' is.
ftp://ftp.cse.unsw.edu.au/pub/users/malcolmr/nomic/articles/agora-theses/lib-steve2.html On 28 June 2013 15:20, Kerim Aydin <ke...@u.washington.edu> wrote: > > > On Fri, 28 Jun 2013, Steven Gardner wrote: > > What I'd be looking for is a ruleset which fixes bugs likes changing > rule numbers, defines simultaneity, incorporates > > some lessons about pragmatism in a minimally committal way and generally > leaves the rest open for players to explore > > politics and law and not bug-fixes and mechanics. > > I was wondering on the advantages of that versus an identical ruleset > with a stated set of "judge's precedents" that the Speaker could > "recommend" would guide decisions. > > E.g.: > "In this game, things [do/don't] happen simultaneously, > forfeiture means you [do/don't] quit immediately, etc." > > Also, I wonder in Blitz if it's worth saying "if there's a paradox, > nobody wins, everyone loses". Just cut the incentive for non-pragmatism > way down. > > > > > -- Steve Gardner Research Grants Development Faculty of Business and Economics Monash University, Caulfield campus Rm: S8.04 | ph: (613) 9905 2486 e: steven.gard...@monash.edu *** NB I am now working 1.0 FTE, but I am away from my desk** on alternate Thursday afternoons (pay weeks). *** Two facts about lists: (1) one can never remember the last item on any list; (2) I can't remember what the other one is.
