| --- Log opened Mon Aug 08 00:00:36 2011 |
| 00:01 | | Vornicus [Vash@Nightstar-f03c5637.sd.cox.net] has quit [[NS] Quit: Spaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaace sleeeeeeeeeeeeeeeep!] |
| 00:36 | | AnnoDomini [annodomini@Nightstar-22909972.adsl.tpnet.pl] has quit [[NS] Quit: leaving] |
| 00:45 | | You're now known as TheWatcher[T-2] |
| 00:47 | | You're now known as TheWatcher[zZzZ] |
| 01:07 | | Attilla [Some.Dude@Nightstar-f29f718d.cable.virginmedia.com] has quit [Ping timeout: 121 seconds] |
| 02:17 | | * gnolam stabs Xubuntu. |
| 02:32 | < kwsn> | :P |
| 02:32 | < kwsn> | BY USING LINUX YOU'RE SUPPORTING GOOGLE D: |
| 02:32 | | * kwsn of course is being a complete bitch |
| 02:33 | < gnolam> | Spontaneously borking itself is NOT something a well-behaved OS does. |
| 02:33 | < kwsn> | o rly |
| 02:34 | < gnolam> | And that apt and Synaptic are slow as ass does not help things. |
| 02:35 | < froztbyte> | the apt updates that have come into play around the time of squeeze's release have been making it pretty nice to deal with |
| 02:36 | < froztbyte> | and I'm reminded of that every time I work on something that's pre-squeeze |
| 02:36 | < gnolam> | This reinstall is taking way too long. |
| 02:42 | < McMartin> | dd is the one true installation method |
| 02:46 | < gnolam> | And now, just 122 updates to go. :P |
| 03:03 | | Phox is now known as Phox|Magical_Bike |
| 03:10 | < gnolam> | ... aaand I left it alone for too long. Forgot about the wholly unnecessary system-crashing screensaver. :P |
| 03:13 | < McMartin> | install windows problem solved |
| 03:14 | < gnolam> | Defeats the whole purpose of having a Linux test machine. :P |
| 03:15 | < gnolam> | Otherwise: yes, I would have ditched Linux a long time ago. :P |
| 03:15 | < gnolam> | Too much frustration. |
| 03:15 | < McMartin> | Not a serious recommendation. |
| 03:16 | < McMartin> | That said, Any reason you're going with Xubuntu instead of the stock distro, which is probably better tested and at the very least fails to crash my VM when it blanks the screen? |
| 03:16 | < gnolam> | GNOME. |
| 03:16 | < McMartin> | You mean, one that's demonstrably better than the thing you've placed it with? |
| 03:17 | < McMartin> | "I don't like being kicked in the shins, so I'm going to shoot myself in the face" seems like poor problem solving. |
| 03:18 | < gnolam> | A) I want something light-weight. B) I despise GNOME's attitude towards usability. |
| 03:18 | < gnolam> | And who said anything about /blanking/ the screen? I said "wholly unnecessary screensaver". |
| 03:18 | < McMartin> | You said it crashed the system. |
| 03:19 | < gnolam> | Yes. |
| 03:19 | < McMartin> | The last time I installed ubuntu, which was GNOME 11.04, it had a screen blanker and it didn't crash the system. |
| 03:24 | < gnolam> | XFCE is the least awful environment I've found. So I'm sticking with it. |
| 03:24 | < gnolam> | In case you're wondering, the previous one was GNOME. |
| 03:25 | < gnolam> | (And once again, I mourn the loss of KDE 3. I could've actually used that on my main machine.) |
| 03:29 | | gnolam [lenin@Nightstar-202a5047.priv.bahnhof.se] has quit [[NS] Quit: Z?] |
| 04:16 | | Phox|Magical_Bike is now known as Phox |
| 04:20 | | Kindamoody is now known as Kindamoody[zZz] |
| 04:56 | | kwsn is now known as kw\t-2 |
| 04:57 | | kw\t-2 [kwsn@6824B1.5AFD35.C0F31F.42DAA5] has quit [[NS] Quit: moo] |
| 05:15 | | Kazriko [kaz@Nightstar-d6e676ef.client.bresnan.net] has quit [Connection closed] |
| 05:39 | | * Reiver decides he needs to write up a proof sheet for Ergo after debates in his most recent playthrough. |
| 05:39 | < Reiver> | So, the rules of Ergo: Four lines of proof, boolean logic, each line is considered to be fundamentally TRUE and no paradoxes are allowed. |
| 05:40 | < Reiver> | Thus, a line with >A means "A is TRUE", while >~A is "A is FALSE". |
| 05:40 | < Reiver> | >A THEN B means "if A, then B" (Implicit if) |
| 05:41 | < Reiver> | What does > A AND B mean? |
| 05:41 | < Reiver> | Are both A & B true, or is it another conditional that doesn't say anything except the two must both be the same? |
| 05:45 | < McMartin> | If it's boolean logic, then A AND B means that A and B are both true. |
| 05:46 | < McMartin> | "A is the same truth value as B" is either A XNOR B, or A IFF B. |
| 05:46 | < McMartin> | (Likewise, IF A THEN B is the same thing as B OR ~A.) |
| 05:46 | < McMartin> | IFF is read "if and only if" |
| 05:49 | < McMartin> | Also, I suggest "IMPLIES" instead of "THEN". |
| 05:49 | < McMartin> | Or just a straight up -> |
| 05:49 | < McMartin> | (IFF is written <->) |
| 05:49 | < McMartin> | AKA the TIE Interceptor operator |
| 05:49 | < McMartin> | |o| |o| |o| PEW PEW PEW |
| 05:50 | < Reiver> | -> is fine |
| 05:50 | < Reiver> | (The cards have artwork preprinted etc, but I can't do a sideways U) |
| 05:50 | < Reiver> | >A OR B |
| 05:51 | < McMartin> | Valid as long as either A or B can be true. |
| 05:51 | < McMartin> | De Morgan's is your friend here, really. |
| 05:51 | < McMartin> | A OR B <-> ~(~A AND ~B) |
| 05:51 | < Reiver> | So >A AND B means that both are true, but A OR B is a conditional that one must be true, but neither are clarified until pointed out later? |
| 05:51 | < McMartin> | Right. |
| 05:52 | < McMartin> | If all you know is "A OR B" you cannot say anything about either one. |
| 05:52 | < McMartin> | If, however, you later get ~A you can definitively say B must be true. |
| 05:52 | < Reiver> | Right |
| 05:53 | < Reiver> | So OR means you can do >A OR B >~A >>Result: A is False, B is True |
| 05:53 | < McMartin> | Yup |
| 05:53 | < Reiver> | But without the second line both are in Limbo. |
| 05:53 | < McMartin> | Quite so. |
| 05:53 | < Reiver> | Wheras AND means... hn, that's something to check |
| 05:53 | < Reiver> | > A AND B >~A - legal? |
| 05:54 | < McMartin> | No, that's a contradiction. |
| 05:54 | < McMartin> | Line 1 says that A is true and that B is true; line 2 says that A is false. |
| 05:54 | < McMartin> | It's kind of odd that there's an AND at all |
| 05:54 | < McMartin> | Since the rules appear to imply that there's an AND connecting each line. |
| 05:54 | < McMartin> | There shuold be no difference between > A AND B and > A > B |
| 05:55 | | * Reiver goes and attempts to figure out the origional and completely broken rules to make sure he didn't miss a statement somewhere. |
| 05:55 | < McMartin> | I'm going by boolean logic here. |
| 05:55 | < Reiver> | Yeah |
| 05:55 | < Reiver> | The intent is that you make up four lines of boolean logic, attempting to use it to prove your own variable TRUE and everyone else FALSE or LIMBO without getting PARADOX |
| 05:56 | < Reiver> | The four lines are AND'd together essentially; you can't have two lines that contradict each other |
| 05:56 | < Reiver> | ... though it does mean that, hn |
| 05:57 | < Reiver> | > A AND B may be equivalent to >A >B, but >A AND B can with two cards be turned into > (if) A AND B THEN C |
| 05:57 | < McMartin> | Right |
| 05:57 | < McMartin> | Also, you can use it to get past the four-sentences limit. |
| 05:57 | < Reiver> | And you've only got four lines of proof, so AND is a good way to -- yeah |
| 05:58 | < Reiver> | Lets you chain logic statements together, at the cost that they're more easily screwed with. |
| 05:58 | < McMartin> | I assume there are rules for dicking with precedence |
| 05:58 | < McMartin> | A AND (B THEN C) is much different from (A AND B) THEN C |
| 05:58 | < Reiver> | There are 6 Parethesis cards~ |
| 05:58 | < McMartin> | That is Not Many. |
| 05:58 | < McMartin> | Unless they come in pairs. |
| 05:58 | < Reiver> | Nope. |
| 05:58 | < McMartin> | That is, one card lets you block it out |
| 05:59 | < McMartin> | So, uh, doesn't that result in SYNTAX ERROR? |
| 05:59 | < Reiver> | You must play parenthesis cards as a pair. |
| 05:59 | < McMartin> | Basically, do you play both brackets at once, or is it "left paren", "right paren"? |
| 05:59 | < McMartin> | Ah |
| 05:59 | < Reiver> | But they count as one 'card play' |
| 05:59 | < McMartin> | Aha, OK |
| 06:00 | < Reiver> | But yes, you only ever get three sets of brackets on the board. |
| 06:00 | < Reiver> | http://wiki.starforge.co.uk/wiki/Ergo - card counts are at the bottom |
| 06:00 | < Reiver> | (Justification and Fallacy are hilarious) |
| 06:03 | < Reiver> | I note that given you're all doing this logic crap each round, three sets of brackets tends to be quite sufficient as it is~ |
| 06:04 | < Reiver> | Example from last time round: > ~~~~~A got altered into >~B AND ~~~~A right before the ergo was played ?? |
| 06:04 | < Reiver> | (You can put down two cards a turn, they don't have to be at the end of a line~) |
| 06:09 | | * ToxicFrog stabs backloggery.com IN THE GODDAMN FACE |
| 06:10 | < Reiver> | aw, ToxicFrog |
| 06:10 | | * Reiver suggests you settle down for a nice quiet evening of coding Felt instead~ |
| 06:11 | < McMartin> | Oh yeah, they changed their forms, didn't they~ |
| 06:11 | < McMartin> | There is now a comment field |
| 06:12 | < Reiver> | (Programmerspeak, Justification: Read only. Fallacy: Commented out. And one can counter the other.) |
| 06:12 | < McMartin> | Oh, Parenthesis cards can be spun around. |
| 06:12 | < McMartin> | THey aren't L/R. |
| 06:12 | < Reiver> | ... Oh, yes |
| 06:12 | < Reiver> | It did not occour to me to explain that, sorry! |
| 06:13 | < ToxicFrog> | McMartin: er? No, that's always been there. |
| 06:13 | < ToxicFrog> | The problem is that I can't figure out how to log in to the damn thing in an automated manner. |
| 06:13 | < ToxicFrog> | In the browser? Works fine. |
| 06:13 | < Reiver> | So yeah, you just need two of one card, not two uniques. |
| 06:14 | < ToxicFrog> | From a script sending the same request? Nothing. |
| 06:20 | < ToxicFrog> | ...alternately, I am brain-damaged |
| 06:20 | < ToxicFrog> | And was sending the request as chunked rather than form-encoded |
| 06:20 | | * Reiver pokes his brain. |
| 06:21 | < Reiver> | Is the following valid? |
| 06:21 | < Reiver> | > C OR A AND D >~A |
| 06:21 | < Reiver> | AND Binding stronger than OR. |
| 06:24 | < McMartin> | ~A means A AND D is false; thus, C is forced to be TRUE by this statement. |
| 06:24 | < McMartin> | D is LIMBO. |
| 06:27 | < Reiver> | Right! |
| 06:27 | < Reiver> | So D is not bound by its partner being shot. |
| 06:28 | < McMartin> | Quite so. |
| 06:28 | < Reiver> | (This is, I suspect, why there is a point to the AND cards at all~) |
| 06:28 | < McMartin> | Kinda |
| 06:28 | < Reiver> | Had someone put down ~C first, both A and D would have been TRUE. |
| 06:29 | < McMartin> | ... right. |
| 06:29 | < Reiver> | No? |
| 06:29 | < McMartin> | I was going to say, that D is only there for making ERGO a legal play if B were elsewhere and D weren't. |
| 06:29 | < Reiver> | heh, right |
| 06:29 | < Reiver> | Or for screwing with A if you were in fact D |
| 06:30 | < Reiver> | Now A has the headache that going NOT C means they're sharing a victory point, f.ex |
| 06:30 | < Reiver> | (Gameplay note: Almost every game of Ergo I have ever played ends with an ERGO.) |
| 06:31 | < McMartin> | I notice that as written ERGO is a legal play when paradoxes are on the board. |
| 06:31 | < Reiver> | Er |
| 06:31 | < Reiver> | I think the rule as intended is that paradoxes are not supposed to happen |
| 06:31 | < Reiver> | But if you play an ERGO then find out that there was a paradox, the round is void |
| 06:31 | < McMartin> | How does that interact with fallacy timeouts? |
| 06:32 | < Reiver> | Oh, yes |
| 06:33 | < Reiver> | That rule is, AFAICT meant to be "You can play a Fallacy to fix a paradox" |
| 06:33 | < McMartin> | Except fallacies timeout |
| 06:34 | < McMartin> | That means that someone can introduce a paradox that doesn't come into effect until after the fallacy times out. |
| 06:34 | < Reiver> | Yeah, so the intended use case would be "Play Fallacy to fix, play an Ergo right quick while the board is still valid" |
| 06:34 | < Reiver> | I'm reasonably certain it wasn't intended that you can deliberately program a paradox for the fallacy timeout. |
| 06:34 | < McMartin> | OK, so, I guess I missed a rule where it's illegal to play things that create paradoxes |
| 06:35 | < McMartin> | And I'm always on the lookout for The Nihilist Option here because I play with evil people. |
| 06:35 | < Reiver> | ... I missed putting that rule in? O.o |
| 06:35 | < Reiver> | ahahahaha, thank you |
| 06:35 | < Reiver> | Yes, building the Proof is meant to include the little tidbit that you're not allowed to knowingly introduce a PARADOX onto the table. |
| 06:36 | < McMartin> | ... yeah, OK, I don't get to play this game with most of my friends. |
| 06:36 | < Reiver> | ... really? |
| 06:36 | < Reiver> | They'd want to play >A >~A ? |
| 06:36 | < McMartin> | (There is a game design weakness I'm unusually sensitive to in which a player that is losing can force everyone else to lose.) |
| 06:36 | < McMartin> | (GUESS WHY I'M UNUSUALLY SENSITIVE TO IT) |
| 06:36 | < McMartin> | (This is also why we cannot play Chrononauts without houseruling.) |
| 06:36 | | * Reiver frowns |
| 06:37 | < Reiver> | So being allowed to intentionally introduce paradoxes would fix this issue? |
| 06:37 | < Reiver> | I'd have thought it would have made it worse, given the propensity for 'break the proof, play Ergo for 0 sum' |
| 06:37 | < McMartin> | I'd put in one of two fixes |
| 06:37 | < McMartin> | Fix 1: You can deliberately introduce paradoxes, but ERGO can only be played if no paradox is on the table. |
| 06:38 | < McMartin> | Fix 2: You must provide a satisfying assignment with every play. |
| 06:38 | < Reiver> | I think Fix 2 is the intended, though I'm worried I may be missing a subtle issue here |
| 06:38 | < McMartin> | Note that "satisfying assignment" means "TRUE is TRUE, FALSE is FALSE, but LIMBO lets you pick choices for psych warfare purposes." |
| 06:39 | < McMartin> | Basically, Fix 2 makes stealth disproofs impossible. |
| 06:39 | < Reiver> | Extrapolate what you mean by "LIMBO lets you pick" ? |
| 06:39 | < McMartin> | Because you cannot force a player to FALSE without them hearing "FALSE" as part of the play and thus being alerted to your shenanigans. |
| 06:39 | < McMartin> | A satisfying assignment is one in which the values of A, B, C, and D make everything work |
| 06:39 | < McMartin> | It is the existence proof that there is no paradox. |
| 06:40 | < McMartin> | If something is FALSE in a satisfying assignment, that means you don't get the point in scoring; TRUE here means "true in ALL satisfying assignments." |
| 06:40 | < Reiver> | Er, right |
| 06:40 | < McMartin> | LIMBO is "there exist satisfying assignments regardless of whether this variable is true or false" |
| 06:41 | < McMartin> | Fix 2, however, does not interact with fallacies. |
| 06:41 | < McMartin> | So: |
| 06:41 | < McMartin> | Two options here |
| 06:41 | < Reiver> | Fallacies are intended to basically comment a line out |
| 06:41 | < McMartin> | Option 1: When providing satisfying assignments under fix 2, you have to also respect fallacied lines. |
| 06:42 | < Reiver> | >A >B >~C >~D "I FALLACY B, play ERGO: I get a point, no-one else does!" |
| 06:42 | < McMartin> | Option 2: You can deliberately introduce paradoxes, but *only while a Fallacy is in play*; the paradox occurs when the fallacy times out. At this point ERGO is disabled. |
| 06:42 | < Reiver> | (Is the intended use case.) |
| 06:42 | < McMartin> | I think Option 2 is better here. |
| 06:42 | < McMartin> | Yeah, but it's not the only one. |
| 06:42 | < Reiver> | Righto |
| 06:43 | < McMartin> | And the ability to program in paradoxes sounds like it's Important. |
| 06:43 | < McMartin> | You're just supposed to, you know, win first. |
| 06:43 | < McMartin> | But you can't say "you have to win here" |
| 06:43 | < Reiver> | ha, yes |
| 06:43 | < McMartin> | BEcause there are other players interfering. |
| 06:43 | < Reiver> | So the key is that ERGO is illegal until the PARADOX is fixed? |
| 06:43 | < McMartin> | Yeah. |
| 06:43 | < McMartin> | Now, whether you want to let that make paradox a legal strategy or not... |
| 06:44 | < McMartin> | ... that's hard to enforce. |
| 06:44 | < McMartin> | I'd make it a rare thing because it's too powerful a tool for the person losing |
| 06:44 | < McMartin> | They can just keep throwing wrenches in the works and blocking the round from ending. |
| 06:44 | < Reiver> | Right. |
| 06:44 | < Reiver> | So: Why is option 2 better? |
| 06:45 | < McMartin> | Because Option 1 doesn't let you do this: |
| 06:45 | < McMartin> | > A AND B > B > ~C > ~D "I fallacy B, negate the 'B' in line 1, and ERGO my next turn if not stopped" |
| 06:46 | < Reiver> | It may be worth noting you could ERGO in the same round you fallacy. Does this alter matters? |
| 06:46 | < McMartin> | ERGO isn't a play? |
| 06:46 | < Reiver> | Up to 2 Proof cards, n specials, 2 discards. |
| 06:46 | < Reiver> | Ergo is a special. |
| 06:46 | < McMartin> | Oh, I thought it was 2, period. |
| 06:46 | < McMartin> | OK, so, yeah. |
| 06:47 | < McMartin> | In taht case, Option 1 is even wose |
| 06:47 | < McMartin> | *worse |
| 06:47 | < McMartin> | Because you can't program in the contradiction and win with it. |
| 06:47 | < Reiver> | "On each turn, a player may choose to play up to two Proof Cards, and as many Special cards as they wish, in whatever order desired. Players may choose to pass, and play no cards on their turn if they wish. They may then choose to discard up to two cards from their hand." |
| 06:47 | < McMartin> | That does, however, give us Option 3 |
| 06:47 | < Reiver> | ^ Could I rephrase that better? |
| 06:47 | < McMartin> | "You can contradict a fallacied line, but only on a turn you also play ERGO" |
| 06:47 | < McMartin> | I was skimming. |
| 06:47 | < Reiver> | Righto |
| 06:48 | < Reiver> | hn |
| 06:48 | < McMartin> | I don't think it's reasonable to allow players to rely on the honor system for not introducing paradoxes. |
| 06:48 | | Derakon is now known as Derakon[AFK] |
| 06:48 | < Reiver> | This is fair |
| 06:48 | < McMartin> | But then, I guess my gaming groups play for blood. |
| 06:48 | < McMartin> | And this cries out as the Illuminati Cheating Rule |
| 06:49 | < McMartin> | "Don't get caught deliberately introducing paradoxes" |
| 06:49 | < Reiver> | Haha, right |
| 06:49 | < Reiver> | My concern with use cases where you can legitimately program in Paradox is that it is possible to result in a proof that is broken and thus leaves player stuck on how to move forward; worse yet would be a round where the paradox means you can't end the play. |
| 06:49 | < McMartin> | Paradox would only block Ergo. |
| 06:50 | < McMartin> | If you prove yourself into a corner, everyone passes and nobody gets any points. |
| 06:50 | < Reiver> | So... it'd come down to primarily the 'everyone passes' clause? |
| 06:50 | < McMartin> | Yeah |
| 06:50 | < Reiver> | (The timeout ones seem to be very rare) |
| 06:50 | < McMartin> | Or a brilliant play with a carefully pointed fallacy~ |
| 06:50 | < McMartin> | That's why to make paradoxes rare, though, I think. |
| 06:50 | < McMartin> | If you can only do timed programming, you also risk someone deciding that everyone but you shall get a point. |
| 06:51 | < Reiver> | Rephrase? |
| 06:51 | < Reiver> | (Or rather: Is this a feature?~) |
| 06:51 | < McMartin> | Mmmm |
| 06:51 | < McMartin> | I don't know if it's a feature |
| 06:51 | < McMartin> | The game is intrinsically easy to throw. |
| 06:52 | | * Reiver has seen multiple games won by, eg, Round 1: A & B true. Round 2: A & C true... |
| 06:52 | < McMartin> | ... actually, that handles the paradox case easily |
| 06:52 | < McMartin> | You should only be able to play ERGO if you would get a point by doing so. |
| 06:53 | < Reiver> | ... Oh, that's clever. |
| 06:53 | < McMartin> | If you're playing for *stakes*, you'd want to strengthen that to "an ERGO play that results in a set of victors that does not include you is illegal" |
| 06:54 | < McMartin> | Otherwise B and D collude so that D will force a win for B if he can, and they split the prize money. |
| 06:55 | < Reiver> | (As noted: The rules for this game were, as written, terrible. There is a Long And Sordid Drama behind how they ended up that way [most infamous bit being 'They published the unfinished alpha instead of the final copy of them, and didn't even proofread it before they did so']; I've since seen what was a very brief summary of how things should have been, but it was not a complete ruleset. |
| 06:55 | < Reiver> | Hence my writing it up... and now occasionally running into funky Edge Cases.) |
| 06:55 | < Reiver> | A valid point |
| 06:55 | < McMartin> | Yeah, so |
| 06:55 | < McMartin> | Have you played Kill Dr. Lucky? |
| 06:55 | < McMartin> | Or heard of it? |
| 06:55 | < Reiver> | Yes indeed. |
| 06:55 | < McMartin> | My first game of it ended on the first attack. |
| 06:56 | < Reiver> | It basically relies on players preventing each other from getting in the kill, yes? |
| 06:56 | < McMartin> | Because there were six players. |
| 06:56 | < McMartin> | Player 1 makes an attack. |
| 06:56 | < McMartin> | Players 2-5 pass. |
| 06:56 | < McMartin> | Player 6 says "fuck you guys", passes too despite being able to stop it~ |
| 06:56 | < Reiver> | Aha, yes indeed |
| 06:56 | < Reiver> | I appreciate you pointing this out, incidentally |
| 06:56 | < Reiver> | Nilhist Strategies are not an intended feature |
| 06:56 | < McMartin> | This got an official rule change in the 2nd edition of Kill Dr. Lucky, making player 6's play mandatory |
| 06:57 | < McMartin> | The final player has to prove they can't stop it. |
| 06:57 | < Reiver> | Mostly because they are bad in that this game is 'first to three', so the last thing you want is to have four rounds of null scoring. |
| 06:58 | < Reiver> | Dicke Daimonen has a nice rule in that regard: The round ends and is scored when a player (Who is holding four bag-drawn coloured beads) cannot make a legal play. |
| 06:58 | < Reiver> | If you can make a legal play, you must - even if it is to your detriment (Part of the strategy is minimising the odds of this happening; it's an entropy management game) |
| 06:59 | < Reiver> | So the rule for ending the round: Declare you cannot make a legal play, and reveal what your beads are. Players go clockwise trying to find if there's a legal placement for one of your peices. |
| 07:00 | < Reiver> | (The latter mostly being if people find several options, the legal play chosen goes to He Who Would Have Gone Next.) |
| 07:01 | < Reiver> | Which means that you can't go "Whoops, I can't move haha I win now right?", and indeed, given that a players hand is normally secret, actively hurts you for /trying/. |
| 07:01 | < Reiver> | </aside> |
| 07:01 | < Reiver> | Anyway, so |
| 07:02 | < Reiver> | What's our preferable use case for "Paradoxes are rare"? |
| 07:02 | < Reiver> | I feel it is better to allow paradoxes into the game at all rather than making them strictly illegal |
| 07:02 | < Reiver> | If only so that there is a use case for when inexperienced players make a genuine error. |
| 07:02 | < Reiver> | "Well, that paradox wasn't meant to be there, but seeing as it is the rules say..." |
| 07:03 | < Reiver> | type deal. |
| 07:03 | < McMartin> | Yeah |
| 07:03 | < McMartin> | I think announcing satisfiers is the best way to do that. |
| 07:03 | < Reiver> | You don't want a round to lock up with "Um, that's not in the rules" four turns later~ |
| 07:03 | < Reiver> | Annoucing satisifiers being? |
| 07:03 | < jerith> | Is Ergo complex enough that you can Godel it? |
| 07:03 | < McMartin> | No; no quantifiers. |
| 07:04 | < McMartin> | "This isn't a paradox because A, B, C, D having values a, b, c, d makes all lines true" |
| 07:04 | < Reiver> | Oh. |
| 07:04 | < McMartin> | And to limit paradox spread, I'd go with "you can only introduce a paradox against a fallacied line if you ERGO that turn". |
| 07:04 | < Reiver> | Right |
| 07:05 | < Reiver> | So being able to claim that a value that is in LIMBO is true or false at any given time can solve a lot of paradoxes? |
| 07:05 | < McMartin> | Well, it means they aren't paradoxes at all. |
| 07:05 | < McMartin> | > A AND B as your sole line has C and D in limbo. |
| 07:05 | < Reiver> | LIMBO was mostly 'the statement doesn't actually say one way or the other about you' |
| 07:06 | < McMartin> | It's stronger than that. |
| 07:06 | < Reiver> | Which is preferable to FALSE on the basis that it's much harder to prove yourself true afterwards~ |
| 07:06 | < McMartin> | It's "you can't prove that it's always true." |
| 07:06 | < McMartin> | example |
| 07:06 | < Reiver> | (BRB; please continue) |
| 07:06 | < McMartin> | > A OR B has all plaeyrs in limbo |
| 07:06 | < McMartin> | However, unlike > |
| 07:06 | < McMartin> | It is not the case that all of them can be either. |
| 07:07 | < McMartin> | In particular, if A is false, B must be true, and if B is false, A must be true. |
| 07:07 | < McMartin> | But neither one has to be false. |
| 07:07 | < McMartin> | Finding a satisfying assignment doesn't mean that that's how the points go. |
| 07:07 | < McMartin> | (In particular, if someone claims a point by giving an assignment, you can prove they were in limbo by giving an assignment with them FALSE.) |
| 07:09 | < McMartin> | TRUE, FALSE, LIMBO, and PARADOX boil down to "true under all satisfying assignments", "false under all satisfying assignments", "false under some satisfying assignments", and "there are no satisfying assignments" |
| 07:16 | < McMartin> | Really, the concept of FALSE is not terribly useful |
| 07:16 | < McMartin> | It just means finding the assignment that means they don't get a point is easy. |
| 07:46 | | Kindamoody[zZz] is now known as Kindamoody |
| 07:54 | < Reiver> | Well, A OR B means they're both in limbo |
| 07:54 | < Reiver> | But as you say if you're B all you realy need to do is pull of ~A elsewhere |
| 07:54 | < Reiver> | While ~B means you need to change that line directly before you can become TRUE again. |
| 07:55 | < McMartin> | What I'm saying is, it's not the case that LIMBO means "can be *anything*" |
| 07:55 | < Reiver> | Just "Has not actively been proven true or false yet" |
| 07:55 | < Reiver> | Correct? |
| 07:55 | < McMartin> | Right. |
| 07:55 | < Reiver> | So, hn |
| 07:55 | < Reiver> | To check: |
| 07:55 | < McMartin> | It turns out that FALSE and LIMBO are always identical for scoring purposes. |
| 07:55 | < McMartin> | All that matters, assuming no paradox, is: |
| 07:56 | < Reiver> | > A OR B > B THEN C |
| 07:56 | < McMartin> | (a) true under all possible conditions |
| 07:56 | < Reiver> | When you say you can give them values to satisfy stuff, can you declare B to be true so your C is true? |
| 07:56 | < McMartin> | (b) false under at least one possible condition. |
| 07:56 | < McMartin> | That's right: A false, B true, C true is a satisfying assignment. |
| 07:56 | < McMartin> | But so is A true, B false, C false, or A true, B false, C true. |
| 07:57 | < McMartin> | So all three are in fact still in limbo there. |
| 08:01 | < McMartin> | (The real rule here is "if there's any consistent reading where you're false, you don't get a point.") |
| 08:09 | < Reiver> | Yeah |
| 08:09 | < Reiver> | Mind you, I never did claim that LIMBO vs FALSE was a huge distinction |
| 08:10 | < Reiver> | The key is to be TRUE. |
| 08:10 | < Reiver> | By the flavor of the text, what you're really worried about is being proven that you exist, in triplicate :P |
| 08:10 | < Reiver> | But provably false can be useful enough that we bother distninguishing it |
| 08:11 | < Reiver> | ~A > C is a good time to be able to tell that elsewhere in the proof we've demonstrated that A is, in fact, false |
| 08:11 | < Reiver> | Er, >~A THEN C |
| 08:11 | | * Reiver got fingers muddled. |
| 08:34 | | You're now known as TheWatcher |
| 09:01 | < McMartin> | OK! |
| 09:01 | < McMartin> | After dozens of hours of work, I've refactored this to the point where I could draft the feature I'm supposed to deliver tomorrow morning. |
| 09:01 | < McMartin> | Which I've done! Except it's been totally untestable until now due to aforementioned refactoring and the bugs introduced thereby swamping everything else. |
| 09:03 | | Rhamphoryncus [rhamph@Nightstar-14eb6405.abhsia.telus.net] has joined #code |
| 09:12 | | Kindamoody is now known as Kindamoody|out |
| 09:19 | | Kazriko [kaz@Nightstar-d6e676ef.client.bresnan.net] has joined #code |
| 09:40 | | Irssi: #code: Total of 20 nicks [2 ops, 0 halfops, 0 voices, 18 normal] |
| 09:57 | | Rhamphoryncus [rhamph@Nightstar-14eb6405.abhsia.telus.net] has quit [Ping timeout: 121 seconds] |
| 10:01 | | Rhamphoryncus [rhamph@Nightstar-14eb6405.abhsia.telus.net] has joined #code |
| 10:23 | | AnnoDomini [annodomini@Nightstar-68adeaf4.adsl.tpnet.pl] has joined #code |
| 11:07 | | Xitrum1902 [Xitrum1902@5B433A.A77D59.50700F.300A35] has joined #code |
| 11:18 | | Xitrum1902 [Xitrum1902@5B433A.A77D59.50700F.300A35] has left #code [] |
| 11:20 | | Attilla [Some.Dude@Nightstar-f29f718d.cable.virginmedia.com] has joined #code |
| 12:21 | | cpux is now known as shade_of_cpux |
| 12:25 | | gnolam [lenin@Nightstar-202a5047.priv.bahnhof.se] has joined #code |
| 12:26 | | Rhamphoryncus [rhamph@Nightstar-14eb6405.abhsia.telus.net] has quit [Client exited] |
| 13:07 | | Stalker [Z@Nightstar-3602cf5a.cust.comxnet.dk] has joined #code |
| 13:41 | | Thaqui [Thaqui@27B34E.D54D49.F53FA1.6A113C] has quit [Client closed the connection] |
| --- Log closed Mon Aug 08 14:02:57 2011 |
| --- Log opened Mon Aug 08 14:03:10 2011 |
| 14:03 | | TheWatcher [chris@Nightstar-3762b576.co.uk] has joined #code |
| 14:03 | | Irssi: #code: Total of 22 nicks [2 ops, 0 halfops, 0 voices, 20 normal] |
| 14:03 | | Irssi: Join to #code was synced in 38 secs |
| 14:48 | | * Reiver wrangles the Ergo rules, trying to tidy them up a bit after McM pointed out a somewhat fatal flaw in them. |
| 15:01 | < gnolam> | What, besides the operator precedences being perfectly bass ackwards, and the examples being completely broken? :P |
| 15:02 | < gnolam> | Well, actually... I think there were a few more issues we found with it. But I can't remember them right now. |
| 15:17 | | Stalker [Z@Nightstar-3602cf5a.cust.comxnet.dk] has quit [[NS] Quit: If the world didn't suck, we'd all fall off.] |
| 15:24 | < Reiver> | gnolam: omg, you saw the base game too? |
| 15:24 | | * Reiver presumes someone you know has a copy? |
| 15:34 | < gnolam> | Yep. Own it myself. |
| 15:34 | < gnolam> | Only played it once though. |
| 15:35 | < Reiver> | http://wiki.starforge.co.uk/wiki/Ergo - If you ever feel like trying it again, give this a go. |
| 15:35 | < gnolam> | The best thing is that they've got a PDF with updated rules. |
| 15:35 | < gnolam> | That are just as broken. |
| 15:35 | < Reiver> | Yeah |
| 15:35 | < Reiver> | Hence the above fix~ |
| 15:35 | < gnolam> | With an equally erroneous play example, but faulty in a different way than the original... |
| 15:36 | < Reiver> | Features include actual proper operator precidence, a turn mechanic that doesn't make you weep for three turns straight if you started with all operators (or equivalent), and JUSTIFICATION and FALLACY cards are Read Only / Comment Out for specific lines. |
| 15:37 | < Reiver> | As opposed to the batshit rule in the origional setup of "Make a player miss three turns" which is frankly, er, baffling. |
| 15:45 | < gnolam> | Yes. We modified that one as soon as it came up for the first time. :P |
| 15:48 | < Reiver> | I would very much welcome your having a look over the above rules |
| 15:48 | < Reiver> | They've worked pretty well for us so far |
| 15:49 | < Reiver> | (Implicit rule at the moment: You're not allowed to deliberately cause Paradoxes. This is the alterations I am working on after McMartin pointed out that this hadn't actually been said anywhere.) |
| 16:03 | | ToxicFrog [ToxicFrog@ServerAdministrator.Nightstar.Net] has quit [Operation timed out] |
| 16:08 | | ToxicFrog [ToxicFrog@ServerAdministrator.Nightstar.Net] has joined #code |
| 16:12 | | Stalker [Z@26ECB6.A4B64C.298B52.D80DA0] has joined #code |
| 16:18 | < gnolam> | I'll check it out. |
| 16:24 | < Reiver> | gnolam: Awesome, feedback would be appreciated. |
| 16:25 | < Reiver> | Just in case my transcribing and summarising missed anything else. :) |
| 16:29 | | Rhamphoryncus [rhamph@Nightstar-14eb6405.abhsia.telus.net] has joined #code |
| 17:03 | | Reiver [orthianz@9C034E.E649EA.3194C7.8381A3] has quit [Client closed the connection] |
| 17:03 | | Reiver [orthianz@9C034E.E649EA.3194C7.8381A3] has joined #code |
| 17:07 | | * Reiver inserts "And your own variable is TRUE" into the mix for Ergo cards, ponders how to wrangle the rules to handle the "No paradoxes" rules. |
| 17:14 | < AnnoDomini> | Rule 1: No paradoxes. Rule 2: See rule 1. |
| 17:15 | < Reiver> | Anno: It has been pointed out that there is a time when a partial paradox could be a reasonable effect |
| 17:16 | < Reiver> | Such that you're allowed to create a Paradox when one conflicting line is Fallacy'd, on the turn you then Ergo. |
| 17:17 | < Reiver> | This has the pleasant case of good luck in cards allowing you to pull off a rare and nifty move, while simultaneously allowing an escape clause for a bunch of newbies who fuck the logic and accidentally implement an Ergo so they can salvage the round. |
| 17:18 | < Reiver> | As I am quite aware that such games can have their fun utterly ruined by simple mistakes if the case of "Whoops guys we've got a Paradox" is irrecoverable - there is the arguement about whether it really is one, followed by the blame of who did it and protestations of innocence, followed by the "... Well, I guess we have to scrap that whole round and try again"; which leaves a distinctly unpleasant |
| 17:18 | < Reiver> | aftertaste to the experience. |
| 17:19 | < Reiver> | Having a "Fallacy then Ergo" as a saftey net for newbies is accordingly a good bet. |
| 17:19 | < Reiver> | So long as serious players can't exploit the Newbie Escape Hatch for Illuminati Cheating Methodology. :p |
| 17:19 | < Reiver> | (It's only cheating if you get caught doing it on purpose) |
| 17:20 | | Rhamphoryncus [rhamph@Nightstar-14eb6405.abhsia.telus.net] has quit [Client exited] |
| --- Log closed Mon Aug 08 17:55:51 2011 |
| --- Log opened Mon Aug 08 17:56:04 2011 |
| 17:56 | | TheWatcher [chris@Nightstar-3762b576.co.uk] has joined #code |
| 17:56 | | Irssi: #code: Total of 22 nicks [2 ops, 0 halfops, 0 voices, 20 normal] |
| 17:56 | | Irssi: Join to #code was synced in 38 secs |
| --- Log closed Mon Aug 08 21:33:21 2011 |
| --- Log opened Mon Aug 08 21:36:21 2011 |
| 21:36 | | TheWatcher [chris@Nightstar-3762b576.co.uk] has joined #code |
| 21:36 | | Irssi: #code: Total of 22 nicks [2 ops, 0 halfops, 0 voices, 20 normal] |
| 21:36 | | Irssi: Join to #code was synced in 38 secs |
| 21:45 | | simon_ [simon@Nightstar-a12ff716.gjk.dk] has quit [[NS] Quit: If there's one thing you can say about mankind, there's nothing kind about man.] |
| 21:46 | | simon_ [simon@Nightstar-883ecc1d.brahmaserver.dk] has joined #code |
| 22:36 | < TheWatcher> | Godsdamnit, why has dns suddenly broken in virtualbox *stab* |
| 22:41 | < TheWatcher> | Wait, I can't route any data out of the guest outside my internal firewall, what |
| 22:45 | < TheWatcher> | ... or maybe it's windows |
| 23:13 | | Kindamoody|out is now known as Kindamoody |
| 23:49 | | Stalker [Z@26ECB6.A4B64C.298B52.D80DA0] has quit [[NS] Quit: If the world didn't suck, we'd all fall off.] |
| 23:55 | | You're now known as TheWatcher[T-2] |
| 23:58 | | You're now known as TheWatcher[zZzZ] |
| --- Log closed Tue Aug 09 00:00:16 2011 |