CCC game - now Magic and genre discussion

[Salmoneus]

http://www.cs.wustl.edu/~legrand/rbvote/calc.html

this seems to work wonderfully
EDIT: damn, it doesn't give the ranked list of losers. it does tell us that preliminary results indicate the condorcet winner is lyra.

It should be noted that for some methods, like the various Condorcets, there is no meaningful ranking of losers. And do we really want a Condorcet winner??

Personally, I'd just go with a plain ol' Borda Count, ideally the Kiribati subtype. Would anyone have any major objections to that? The big problem I can see is that since there was no restriction on entries, cloning will skew the results. So, I'd suggest a two-stage process, combining an initial Approval round to eliminate the least popular candidates and minimise cloning issues, and then a Borda round to finalise the results. [I wouldn't just use Approval all the way through, because IMO Approval Voting is too worried about avoiding upsetting people (which is less of an issue here because there are multiple winners and nobody's getting shot) at the cost of paying less attention to who people actually prefer]. This needn't be too complicated for voters, because you can just ask for a ranked ballot and impose a threshold on it to indicate approval; then, candidates who fail the approval round can be struck off the ballots. We get the benefits of two rounds of voting, but we only have to vote once.

[While I'm at it:
- Range Voting: too vulnerable to subjective calibration issues. I.e. people who express themselves more enthusiastically get more of a say than leveler heads.
- MBC: not necessary, I don't think. No clear reason in this case why ranking more candidates should increase the voting power of an individual]

[Salmoneus]

Hmm, how about Zju's idea, plus normalization so each voter is counted the same?

Say everyone gets 4 votes. This gives integer votes if a person votes for 4 maps: 4, 3, 2, 1.

If you vote for three maps, we first assign 3, 2, 1. That adds up to 6 so we multiply by 10/6 to get 5, 3.33, 1.67.

If you vote for 5 maps, we first assign 5, 4, 3, 2, 1. Then multiply by 10/15 to get 3.33, 2.667, 2, 1.333, .667.

My first reaction: well, I've never seen THAT approach to Borda truncation!
On closer inspection, it's easy to see why: it massively benefits bullet voting. A person who thinks about it and with consideration carefully orders five votes... has his first preference count for only a third of the preference of the guy who just runs off one name. Is that wise or fair?

[zompist]

I dunno. We do want a ranked list of winners, so it'd be best if everyone supplied 4 to 5 names.

So maybe we should just go 5, 4, 3, 2, 1. If you listed more than five, only the first five count. If you listed less, your ballot influences the whole shebang less and it should, because we want five names.

[Salmoneus]

Yes. This is what I meant by a Kiribati-style Borda Count. [Which is greatly susceptible to cloning, hence my further suggestion. What I mean by this is: in a Borda Count, the "type" of candidate that has the most candidates has a big advantage, even if if it's not any more popular. This is partly reduced by only ranking a subset, but it's still a considerable factor]

However, I feel I should just add: in a Borda Count, the ranking drop-off is up for debate. The traditional BC decreases the points linearly with position - so 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8. But it doesn't have to. The Nauru varient goes 24, 12, 8, 6, 24/5, 4, 24/7, 3, etc. That is, normal Count uses the formula P=M-(N-1), where P is points gained by a candidate from one ballot, M is the maximum points that any candidate can get from one ballot, and N is the rank given to that candidate on that ballot; Nauru uses P=M/(N-1) instead.

Why? Because a) the Nauru system gives an advantage to first-choice candidates in what is otherwise a consensus system, and b) voters increasingly order their votes at random at the bottom of the ballot, so the formula make the difference between two ranks bigger at the top of the ballot than at the bottom accordingly.

Conceivably you could even go the other way and make the ranks closer at the top - that would be better at avoiding the most hated candidates.

Aren't electoral system FUN!?

[ivazaéun]

Aren't electoral system FUN!?

And that's before we even start considering Arrow's impossibility theorem! Great fun to be had...

[Ars Lande]

Surely this is fairly meaningless unless there's some discussion in advance about what type of setting this is? (particularly since on the evidence of the first round there won't be much discussion in the voting process itself). I mean, are you asking for fire elements and giants, or humans with bumpy foreheads, or magic badger spirits, or realistic aliens?

[I think, incidentally, that 'differences from humans' is a bad way to go about it, as it encourages people to see humans as the default, resulting in less conceptually independent and coherent species - it's like making a conlang by deciding how it's going to not be English.]

Let's discuss this then!
I wouldn't mind having all of the above, myself. Why not have fire giants and bumby forehead humanoid coexisting?

A way to see if there are any potential issues could be to see what people intend to do. Not going into the details, I'll go for a naturalistic approach myself; I'll probably stick to a humanoid species.
I think Torco intends to do much of the same.

What do you all think?

[Salmoneus]

I think "humans" should be provided as a default answer, so that nobody has to give up the chance of making a species just to provide the obvious option.
[If I don't make a species, I'll suggest humans, but I haven't decided yet]

Yes, you can have mephits and klingons in one world, but that's also a decision about setting.

I suppose this is partly a bigger problem with Zompist's methodology, which is that by putting all the options in the world, just more or less important, it's impossible to make any actual coherent setting decisions. It's a democracy without any deliberation - which is likely to lead to incoherence.

At the very least there ought to be some sort of decision on whether magic (and/or any other to us supernatural elements) exists.

[KathTheDragon]

I think it could to interesting to put in a rare, restricted magic, just to see how different cultures might react to finding themselves in possession of it. Naturally, D&D and Harry Potter are ruled out unconditionally. I'm thinking a few simple types of kinesis.

[Ars Lande]

I think "humans" should be provided as a default answer, so that nobody has to give up the chance of making a species just to provide the obvious option.
[If I don't make a species, I'll suggest humans, but I haven't decided yet]

Agreed.

About magic:
My position is that people should feel free to include magic in their works - or not. With KathAveara's caveat: magic should not be D&D-style, and that its effect should be constrained, either by limited scale, or by unreliability, or whatever.

[Torco]

A way to see if there are any potential issues could be to see what people intend to do. Not going into the details, I'll go for a naturalistic approach myself; I'll probably stick to a humanoid species.
I think Torco intends to do much of the same.

Yes. Please naturalistic.

I don't mind tiny weaksauce magic*, but I wouldn't want a magical world. Maybe we want *some* magic, but I'd like a world which could be understood without that concept: like, there could be magic in *our* world, but we think there isn't and we do just fine.

By weaksauce magic I mean, in this context, like a small bit of divination, techniques to enhance health, intuition and mental peace, and maybe like only a 0,003% of the population being able to use their minds to exert a couple newtons of force. But lets not have magical cellphones and stone-age cars powered by magical gremlins sitting under the hood

About magic:
My position is that people should feel free to include magic in their works - or not. With KathAveara's caveat: magic should not be D&D-style, and that its effect should be constrained, either by limited scale, or by unreliability, or whatever.

strong disagree... or, rather, strong agree... but this is a collective work and, thus, overarching things like the world map, the metaphysics, and whether or not trees can play poker is something that we all need to decide: like, the "they" in "their works" here is everyone, so we as a group are free to choose magic or not. but it is we who should choose, methinks. Otherwise we'd get an incredible amount of incoherence, as Sal points out. And we might want that, but I think we don't... or, at the very least, I don't.

Maybe we should add a round to the game? the metaphysics round?
conmetaphysics? with the default position being "naturalistic conmetaphysics, no magic <or, if there's any magic its indistinguishable from chance and/or not really demonstrable so whatever", and people could propose like "monotheistic metaphysics" and "polytheistic metaphysics" or "D&D metaphysics" and so on?

[Ars Lande]

strong disagree... or, rather, strong agree... but this is a collective work and, thus, overarching things like the world map, the metaphysics, and whether or not trees can play poker is something that we all need to decide: like, the "they" in "their works" here is everyone, so we as a group are free to choose magic or not. but it is we who should choose, methinks. Otherwise we'd get an incredible amount of incoherence, as Sal points out. And we might want that, but I think we don't... or, at the very least, I don't.

'Weaksauce magic' is a pretty good description of what I'd like to see, so if you don't mind I'll borrow it

Allowing weaksauce magic is, I think, a good way to accomodate both those who'd like to use supernatural elements, and those who'd rather not while keeping some coherence. I think it's a consensus solution that could make most participants, if not all, happy.

(I don't want to use magic, or anything supernatural, myself — but it wouldn't be fair to impose that preference on everyone.)

[Torco]

Well, I'd prefer no magic, but I could settle for weaksauce magic.

I'll try to draft a "weaksauce magic manifesto" soon xD

[KathTheDragon]

I'd like something maybe a tad stronger than weaksauce. Just a tad, though.

[Risla]

Could also do reasonably powerful magic with significant tradeoffs---like doing any magic takes years off the user's lifespan.

[KathTheDragon]

But that would heavily discourage use of magic, which is (IMO) not a good thing.

[Salmoneus]

I wouldn't mind a setting with lots of magic. But then, that may just be because all my own settings have little or no magic and I've been wanting to do something more traditional for a while. And to be honest I don't know how much I'll be participating anyway.

[zompist]

OK, we should probably try for consensus on these two points before starting the species round for serious:

* How much magic is allowed?
-- none
-- weaksauce (rare abilities that don't affect much)
-- more (limited in some coherent fashion)
-- ladle it on, à la Harry Potter

* What genre are we aiming at?
-- fantasy (humanoids predominate; multiple species coexist happily)
-- sf (plausible planet where humans are discouraged)
-- alternate history (one family of hominid sapients)

Maybe just explain your preferences here, and we'll see if there's a consensus or if a vote is needed.

Note: I don't have a strong opinion myself on either question.

[Torco]

Ooh, how about we make it so the winner of one round gets to have like veto power, or a double vote, or something like that, for the next round? that'd be neato... like, there'd be some stakes. [I almost wrote winners, but then that'd include me and thus be a douchebag proposal]

I mean, I definitely see how this need for consensus would emerge after each round or so, either in the form of "what do we do next" or "what does the outcome of the last vote mean".

[Matrix]

I don't really have any strong opinions on the issues zomp listed.

[Civil War Bugle]

I prefer minimal or no magic, although it's a weak preference, and prefer humanoid or humanish species, because when we design languages, I expect to want to make a humanish phonology.

[Lyhoko Leaci]

I'd prefer lots of magic + fantasy, but don't really care too much.

Another note: What sort of solar system is this planet in? Does it have a red dwarf star? A sun-like star? 2 stars? Is the planet actually a moon of a gas giant? If so, how many other moons does the gas giant have? If not, how many moons does the planet have? What are the basics of the other planets and how many are there? Some of this stuff will likely be important for the mythology of the people once we get around to that point.

[alassion]

For magic, I prefer either "more" or "weaksauce" over "none." I'd be fine with "none", though. I have a strong dispreference for "ladle it on."

For species, I prefer "fantasy." When we vote for species, maybe we could vote for a "main" species, and then vote for species to include. All of the later history, culture, and language rounds would focus on the main race, although some details would be provided about the others. Using Almea as an example, we know lots about the history, languages, and cultures of Uesti, but far fewer of these details for Iliu or Flaids. We do have broad descriptions of what Iliu and Flaids are like and where they live, though, as well as some examples of the influences they've had on Uesti history and culture.

Then, in CCC2: Electric Boogaloo, we pick another sapient and repeat the process. I imagine that I and most people would just put "human" for the main race in the first go-round, but it's possible someone posits a sapient species we like better.

I disprefer a more sf-like setting for this particular game. If we were going to do a more realistic sf-style setting, I would rather have started with a solar system instead of a continent. I think we've more or less assumed an Earth-like planet orbiting a Sun-like star.

[احمکي ارش-ھجن]

I think there should be limited magic, more than weaksauce though, however I don't want flying 1960s cars, death stars,, killer trees also not a fan of the kind of steam punk that involves magic and technology.
I'm favourable towards certain humans being able to manipulate more "physical" magic, like pyrokinesis, telekinesis, kinda like the X-men?

In my story, I had magic explained by the descent of a super-heavy dense metal that was radioactive...
It was also that metal came from the dead bodies of god-like creatures... so...

[ol bofosh]

These are my own preferences:

* How much magic is allowed?
-- weaksauce (rare abilities that don't affect much)
-- more (limited in some coherent fashion)

* What genre are we aiming at?
-- fantasy (humanoids predominate; multiple species coexist happily)

[KathTheDragon]

Last night, while I was going to sleep, I actually had an idea for a system of magic. It goes something like this.

Every single thing has a magical 'aptitude', ranging between 0 and 10. Non-living things have an aptitude of 0. Plants and simple organisms have aptitudes ranging from 0 to 1. More complex animals have aptitudes ranging from 1 to 3. Intelligent animals have aptitudes ranging from 3 to 4. Sapients have aptitudes 4 and above. If their aptitude is above 5, they have access to simple telekinesis. It it's above 6, they have access to more complex kineses. If it's above 7 (and there should only be a handful of sapients throughout all history who are this powerful), they have access to manipulation of energy and matter on a more fundamental level. At 8 and above, they can control space and time, and 9 to 10 is basicly where any deities are.
The majority of most populations would have aptitudes between 4 and 5, and are non-magical. A decent fraction would be between 5 and 6, and a definite minority between 6 and 7. The magic usable between 5 and 6 is more or less for entertainment and manual labour, and for the most part, one magician can only do what one non-magician can do, but more easily, like juggling, or pulling around a cart full of bricks.
However, some populations could all be below 5, or all be above 5. There's no reason why this can't happen.

Like I said, I did think this up just before I fell asleep, so it may not be all that good. If it doesn't get used here, I may use it elsewhere.

Edit: I'd probably prefer a fantasy setting, species-wise.