| M P Darke on Wed, 11 May 2011 11:18:09 -0700 (MST) |
[Date Prev] [Date Next] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next] [Date Index] [Thread Index]
| Re: [s-d] Suggested new ruleset |
> Secondly, no, the game is what a /majority/ of people think it is. So > if one less than half the player base thinks it is that, and one > person who previously didn't starts thinking it is, then it becomes > that. > > Actually I think the problem is that it's quite likely that there will > be situations in which there is /no/ majority that agrees on what the > game is. We need to pull a Yudkowsky here, and define a "coherent > vision" of the game-state; i.e. a gamestate that weighs opinions on > individual aspects of the state based on how many people think them, > and breaks conflicts by fixing the issue that has a larger majority > with a single opinion on it in favour of that opinion, etc. A "plurality", which is a subgroup which is greater than any other subgroup, should suffice, no? Also, presumably it is possible to pick and choose the gamestate, depending upon what people believe to be the states of individual parts of the game. _______________________________________________ spoon-discuss mailing list spoon-discuss@xxxxxxxxx http://lists.ellipsis.cx/mailman/listinfo/spoon-discuss