DrakeMarshall

Kas I was part of the village in LG83 :eyes: Am I a part of the problem Very aggressive welcome to kayanaville I think we'll get along swimmingly

True, I am a pacifist Well, 10 (sz)ETH is worth at least 55 lumens of Stormlight, possibly more depending on the market :eyes:

X (doubt) You are exactly as much a pacifist as I am Even if you are Hoid or Khriss or Autonomy, I bet you won't be able to resist voting and doing analysis to support the village in some way I will bet you 10 whole (sz)ETH that somehow you won't be able to last a whole game where you leave well enough alone Yea which is why our discussion is such an incredibly deep rabbit hole In conclusion:

I think the real solution is obviously just to never vote against either one of us so that you don't have to decide :eyes: The way you read the bolded thing is valid and more literal, but mine is logically equivalent, and I'm trying to make a point here that ¬∃x (Dx → Mx) is probably not something you would ever want to use, because there are simpler ways to express the same logic, and the use of the conditional here is rather misleading

You have a great name Somebody more official than me should probably answer this, but: We are actually kinda desperate for more people, and are postponing the start of the game because we're waiting on getting more people, so I'm pretty sure we would really love to have you Fair warning though, this is kind of a crazy complex game to have as your first time in Sanderson Elimination. There are games with much simpler rules than this one. That is a very good question T(x) means "x is true" Th(x) means "x is a thing" The parantheses are sometimes left off bc we're lazy EDIT: Ye that's why I didn't make thingness into a predicate when I provided my initial translation, bc even though I wanted to I recognize it isn't really useful Well maybe I'm getting something wrong, but I am fairly sure statements that look like ∀x (Px → Qx) make quite a lot more sense than ones that look like ¬∃x (Px → Qx). Like, let's say Dx = "x is a dog" and Mx = "x is a mammal." ∀x (Dx → Mx) means all dogs are mammals. ¬∀x (Mx → Dx) means not all mammals are dogs. ¬∃x (Dx → Mx) means everything in the universe is a dog, and also nothing in the universe is a mammal It is in actuality a valid rule of inference that I was taught in a formal logic course, although I do not believe it is part of the most reduced set of moves, since it can be replicated using other moves. It's a bit fascinating how the minimal set of logic moves mirrors a lot of the same concepts you see in linear algebra with bases. It is also employed by fancy math nerds though yes

Not a predictate for "x exists" per se but a predicate for "x is a thing." Very technically, these are not the same, because not all things exist. However, everything that exists is a thing Regardless, I don't think including the predicate breaks anything? Here I'll even do the proof all verbose and fancy and proper like and you can tell me what you don't like 1. Th("¬∃x (Thx → Tx)") premise 2. ∀x Tx ↔ x premise 3. ¬∃x (Thx → Tx) assume to the contrary 4. ∀x ¬(Thx → Tx) quantifier negation, 3 5. ¬(Th("¬∃x (Thx → Tx)") → T("¬∃x (Thx → Tx)")) universal instantiation, 4 6. ¬(¬Th("¬∃x (Thx → Tx)") ∨ T("¬∃x (Thx → Tx)")) material implication, 5 7. ¬¬Th("¬∃x (Thx → Tx)") ∧ ¬T("¬∃x (Thx → Tx)")) DeMorgan's Law, 6 8. Th("¬∃x (Thx → Tx)") ∧ ¬T("¬∃x (Thx → Tx)")) double negative, 7 9. ¬T("¬∃x (Thx → Tx)")) simplification, 8 10. T("¬∃x (Thx → Tx)") ↔ ¬∃x (Thx → Tx) universal instantiation, 2 11. ¬∃x (Thx → Tx) → T("¬∃x (Thx → Tx)")) biconditional elimination, 10 12. T("¬∃x (Thx → Tx)")) modus ponens, 3, 11 13. T("¬∃x (Thx → Tx)")) ∧ ¬T("¬∃x (Thx → Tx)")) adjunction, 9, 12 14. ¬¬∃x (Thx → Tx) reductio ad absurdum, 3-13 I'm a bit rusty with this style of proof, it has been a while but hopefully this is reasonably clear edit: wait this needs changes its been a while ok >> edit2: fixed that's better >> it is a very silly proof when u think about it that is because the translation of ∄ x ∈ U ∋ Tx from math nerd symbols into philosophy nerd symbols is not actually ¬∃x (Thx → Tx), a more correct mapping would probably be ¬∃x (Thx ∧ Tx) and ¬∃x (Thx → Tx) is actually a very silly statement storm it Kas why'd you put ¬∃x (Thx → Tx) in my head ur doing me a confusion BUT the RAA argument still works even if you use the silly translation I have just proven as much I am fairly sure

I do have something like that in mind, yes. You could call it a holdover from mathematics, where specifying set membership is basically compulsory whenever you use quantifiers (in other words, in a math proof you can almost literally never get away with just saying "∃x", you are required to specify "∃ x ∈ S" where S is some kind of set). I happen to think that this way of doing it is usually just plain better So in the notation I am most comfortable with, it would be: ∄ x ∈ U ∋ Tx And, you are correct, the closest way to express that in your notation (which is the correct formal logic notation if ur a philosophy nerd instead of a math nerd, and is in fact the notation I learned in the 1 philosophy class that a philosophy professor pressed me into taking) is indeed this: ¬∃x (Thx → Tx). Where to make these two equivalent, "Thx" tests membership in U, i.e. it is true if and only if x is in U. ...However, it is all kind of moot, because in this case the set we are discussing is "everything." Now there is a rather significant can of wyrms that we could open here, because there are multiple ways of defining "everything" for this problem and I will assert that not all of those ways are equally correct, but wyrm-can-opening is strictly voluntary. However, the way I actually wrote it, "thing" was actually just intended as a variable name Which makes it exactly the same as "¬∃x Tx" even if I am a rebel and used different symbols Because, I did not want to get into the above can of wyrms, even if I was on some level thinking it Which apparently you picked up on anyways so ¯\_(ツ)_/¯ But in conclusion, I think you will probably agree that the RAA argument I made follows from either translation. There is an additional possible translation I can think of where the RAA argument doesn't work, due to the English language being hopelessly ambiguous, but it requires a fairly pathological reading of the sentence

"∄ (thing) ∋ (thing is true)" How would you translate it? :eyes:

What is this "we" you speak of you might live in a society but maybe I don't have u considered that Besides, it is impossible for nothing to be true! If it were, then the claim "nothing is true" could not be true, because it is also a thing Therefore at least one thing is true >:P "supposedly stable" I am not sure why stability is something to brag about anyways since you clearly can't WIN BIG if your boring currency has a predictable amount of value, but at the same time I do not think it is as stable as u think if it is fully contingent on ur own credit which will be subject to legal expenses if u are determined to stay ur course

Objection! It isn't my crypto, it isn't a scam, and it's also neither convenient nor convienninent because you're pursuing legal action over it which is very inconvenient! Nothing about that statement is true!

Convenient that you only mention this now after I start poking holes in your story :eyes:

And how pray tell did I pen a document I don't even have edit access to :eyes:

While there definitely most certainly is not an actual document out there somewhere that reveals my dastardly crypto related plans, because I certainly do not have any dastardly plans of any kind, I am somewhat offended by the implication that if such a document even existed, it would be that simple and short and unsophisticated. If such a document hypothetically existed (which it of course does not why would u think that), then just hypothetically it would probably be exactly 50 pages long at the present moment and still growing.

No u >:( There is nothing to expose, and in any case, you're the one trying to take me to court >:P I will happily cease and desist if you are no longer interested in doing so >:P Mayhaps the question is whether they would still be friends after dragging them into this wretched hive of kayana and villainy :eyes:

Oh yeah??? Where's the trademark on your name then? Can you prove that one existed that you didn't retroactively add? Can you prove that (sz)ETH is even based on your name? Can you provide evidence for the allegations that I, a humble investor, am in fact involved in the conception and/or naming of the anonymously founded cryptocurrency known as (sz)ETH? Where is your evidence for any of this????? Anyways, the coin is called (sz)ETH not Szeth_Pancakes. Even if I did come up with the name (and of course these allegations are actually false), the (sz) are in parantheses, it is in bold, it is in italics, the font size is different, the colors are different, and the highlighting is different, and there are no Pancakes or underscores. I think that is clearly sufficiently transformative to constitute fair use!! Whoever named this coin (which wasn't me) was probably perfectly within the bounds of the law. If you are determined to pursue these accusations which are baseless on multiple fronts, I guess I will see u in court good luck finding a prosecutor on Silverlight though Can you believe this guy??? Xino is saying you have no friends!! How rude!! >:P Don't listen to somebody who is that mean to you! The only sensible response is to prove him wrong!! Prove that you have at least 3 friends by buying into my crypto investment strategy!! What? Preposterous! There is no logical way for this to happen, because (sz)ETH is simply too colorful to go out of style. Doing this will only further my carefully laid plans!! When the lawsuit inevitably fails due to the accusations being obviously false, your financial loss will ruin your credit and make you unable to prop up your supposedly stable and boring ShardBux, thus conclusively proving that they don't have any True Value™

Wonderful, yes! My reliable sources tell me that, at the present time, the hot new coin in the cosmere is (sz)ETH. 30 to 40 (sz)ETH: an easy weeknight investment buy them directly from the Roshar System with your investiture charges! You will certainly not regret buying 30 to 40 (sz)ETH But wait, there's more! You may also help guarantee (that's right, guarantee!) a profit for yourself by convincing 3 other people to buy in! Trust me, it'll all work out

I have a FULLY 100% ORIGINAL POSTER DESIGN (DON'T STEAL) that I shall be placing a nice round 501 copies of all around the university: Edit: Also I don't mind postponing the start of the game.

I like this. It's very creative!! I think the limited number of vessels adds a lot of interestingness to the game. It also has fundamental parallels to body swapping games, which are a whole can of worms. Tbf, exorcist is the sort of role that is strongly village-leaning but which also would be totally okay and balanced to hand to an elim to throw people. Not to mention, "confirmed village role" is generally just a lot less meaningful in a conversion or bodyswapping game, unless that role happens to have conversion immunity built in to it, which none of these ones do. I dunno about game breaking I think that's a bit extreme but I agree with the sentiment. What is encouraged by the meta is at odds with what is encouraged by the game. I am actually more concerned about the elim meta than the village meta. For the villagers, this game challenges their meta, but I think the correct decision for the village is to recognize that lynching inactives is not as much of a waste in the context, and to make an intelligent decision to sometimes not follow the meta. If the village ultimately lost because they failed to do this, then it would imo be a deserved loss. For the elims, I am more concerned because the game basically encourages them to take over inactives (who are clearly much easier to impersonate), which therefore encourages them to be inactive (since they are mimicking an inactive player). The problem, as I see it, is that the pragmatic "optimal strategy" encouraged by the mechanics isn't actually very fun. In fact, it's kind of the least fun way to play a game about impersonating people, because it is specifically the option you pick where you are doing the least amount of impersonation possible. While I do think intentionally acting in a way contrary to "optimal strategy" can sometimes be a very valid way to have fun, I also generally feel it is some kind of failure on the game designer's part if meeting your objectives and making the game fun are ever mutually exclusive. On a more structural level, regardless of what players decide, the ratchet only goes one direction. You only ever really have the option of going from high to low, not the other way around, since it's substantially easier for a highly active player to imitate a more taciturn one than vice versa. So the inevitable effect will always be to decrease overall activity at least somewhat. I am not sure what the resolution to this is. But I am pretty sure having mechanical incentives for activity (which AFAIK, no bodyswapping game to date has done, even though other types of game have done this successfully) would not be a bad shout. Especially if whatever incentive there is gets inherited when you steal the account, this directly rewards elims for taking the risk of impersonating a more active player. This seems like a good thing to do. Varying activity levels between different players is something that is... Kind of always going to be the bane of bodyswapping games One of the inherent underlying issues I think is that artificially controlling your activity level to match someone else's is just effort that has very little to do with the actual fun parts of impersonation, such as trying to imitate speech patterns and personality. A solution to a lot of this is also just... Have lots of active players And that part isn't so much the game designer's responsibility Agree. While I do not think it is a required feature to have by any means, I will second that it is a helpful and good feature and it doesn't have any obvious downsides. Of course, I was mainly the beneficiary of this mechanic in Kas' game so it would be entirely valid to call me biased. Tbf, it may be difficult for the elims to succeed at bodyswapping, but it's also difficult for the village to deal with all of the potential situations created by bodyswapping. I think there are two questions to ask here. 1) Does including PMs in a game make bodyswapping become too risky to justify the potential rewards? I would argue no it doesn't. It's just so darn useful for the elims if it works. Not only can it undo progress that the village has built in past cycles, but sometimes it can even turn that progress into an anchor around their neck. Having what are basically expendable identities also opens up a lot of fun new plays if you don't mind playing aggressively 2) Regardless of balance considerations, does including PMs in a game make bodyswapping mechanics too demanding on players? This I think is more open-ended. Bodyswapping is already a fairly demanding mechanic (elims need to be very careful to blend in, villagers need to pay very careful attention to wording and activity levels in addition to all the normal SE things, so both teams already have a lot of work that they feel like they at least ought to be doing), so if PMs make things more demanding then it is potentially valid to wonder about it becoming too much. EDIT: Finally, one last observation about this whole setup, since you've already made it this far :P. Think about the late game. Suppose all but 1 of the elims are dead. Even with your edits, in this scenario, I am fairly sure the last elim can replenish lost vessels at the same rate the village can destroy them, unless the village uses a role such as the Assassin or Exorcist, which you were trying to avoid. This is especially relevant since a role like that might well not exist anymore because again late game. Maybe just add a rule that the same elim can't do corruption two nights in a row?

Yes! No! >:P If it makes you feel better than by all means do so (I've carefully studied the rules myself because that does make me feel better), but just to keep things in perspective, I'm pretty sure there are some people (who shan't be named >:P) who are playing this game without reading the rules at all, so like don't feel like you have to do this just to keep up or something. I am confident in asserting that literally nobody completely understands all of the potential rules interactions that could unfold in a game this complex, regardless of how much studying they have or haven't done, and personally I think that's part of the beauty of shard games! Not knowing what the heck is going on good luck anyways

My rival... FWIW I agree with the take that Odious Charges are just strong. While amusing, the prospect of Odium becoming invested in a planet and granting everyone 1/cycle kills is rather wild when you think about it. Making it sap a charge of investiture if one is available and only killing if it isn't sounds entirely reasonable to me but I don't mind much whatever Ash decides. Personally I think shard games are fun even though I also do not expect a huge degree of balance from them, but if you think you can improve the balance then more power to you You are still my rival however Wow, I feel called out I agree, I wouldn't want to be giving my rival advice

sir absolutely not when have i ever spoken in absolutes sir its not easy being green are u sure u are not a frog or a goblin or mayhaps a mysterious knight only one way 2 find out sir i have a hot new deal 4 u: u let me hit u with an axe, BUT u can hit me back after a year and a day

fun yes I respect your organizational talents. lovely :') none of the official game factions are green so I'm pretty sure that makes the 18th Shard Memers the real village here I think we can all agree That sounds an awful lot like an absolute, and only Skybreakers speak in absolutes!!! >:P yes i learned how to commit a ponzi scheme why do u ask?

Hey, LG43 technically had LG43a and LG43b, so you are in good company its a deal then!!! Everyone, be advised that the 18th Shard Memers have hereby changed names and will henceforth be known as the 18th Shard Memers. Please use the designated font, color, and size, or else be prosecuted to the maximum extent of the Law. correct it is obviously the forest green market but i just invested all of my life savings in PUMPCOIN it seems very trustworthy

nobody tells me what to do >:P surprise me >:P sir i am not a coward i am prepared to risk it for the biscuit on the crypto market and get my chance to earn big twice the stakes, double the steaks (they r not salmon steaks dont worry) unfortunately sir if u don't want volatility u shld probably also reject fiat and return to the gold standard >:P there is even a nice yellow brick road u can follow to get there >:P i for one embrace volatility however volatility is my middle name good i was worried for a second that u were not an upstanding establishment but i see u can be trusted

yes but does the conversion rate change continuously while u do a conversion due to supply & demand??? also do u do fractions in ur conversion because i am allergic to division