So, should we have a thread where we recount lessons and experiences?
Should it be in Discussion or the main site?
And should I post it, or should Jack?
So the draw is unordered. I don’t deserve any more karma than prase or Vaniver. That said, you’ve done a ton of work and I would have no problem putting lessons together for a post. On the other hand, you totally deserve more karma for the work you put in moderating this- so if you want it, take it. If I posted in the discussion section it would be pretty easy to make sure all players got the same karma. If I post on the main page that gets a lot harder.
I also think losing players should be awarded with karma if they can recount important lessons. People shouldn’t have to give away insight without getting karma in return. So maybe we should just have a discussion thread where players talk about what they learned (and where the three of us can get victory karma)? And then you could just quote the worthwhile/top voted insights and put them in a post for the main page.
ETA: The other thing is the second game is still going. Since they might have their own lessons, the top level post could include those too- as they’ll probably have their own discussion thread for their winner/winners.
My preference is to not be the one who has to arrange this, but if no one else wants to I will take the responsibility. If everyone else agrees on you, I’d support that.
I’m opting for one comment instead of a host of small comments carrying on various parts of the conversation, so this may be a little difficult to read in the future.
I care about victory karma.
I maintain my original position, though, that the victory karma should come from providing valuable lessons and data. While I sympathize with the argument that players that provide insight shouldn’t go uncompensated, my impression of the game was that everyone was collectively agreeing to put together notes and insights and then the winners of the game would get the karma from the group effort- i.e., the compensation was the chance to win.
I am busy today, but should have the time in the next few days to put together a thread. My preference is for main, but the karma issues there are somewhat problematic. I like the idea of you making the thread (with content supplied by the players) and players having comments voted up, but if this is worth putting on the main page it seems like the victory karma should be scaled to the main page. Given my fellow winner’s opinions, though, that seems like a good all-around option.
If the focus is going to be about lessons, then here is one way to find those lessons: Let the victors point out mistakes—tactical or strategic—that they noticed had been made by other players in the game. Then let the accused mistake-makers analyze the lapse in rationality that led to the mistake being made. Or if they wish, they can provide an analysis showing that there was no mistake—only bad luck.
I know that my own mistakes arose from a variety of correctable causes—ranging from simple carelessness, through character flaws, to use of wrong decision-making algorithms.
This seems difficult because of imperfect information. I remember being flabbergasted when Germany didn’t bounce you out of Sweden (the standard play), but was that a mistake? I can’t tell without knowing what information he had at the time he made the decision. A core principle of decision analysis is that you don’t judge by outcomes but by the decision made ignorant of the outcome.
For example, one decision I’m ambivalent about was not moving to Tys when England vacated Tun (the same turn I took StP after saying I wouldn’t). I was >90% confident England would vacate both Tun and Tys, and taking both of them would have put me in a solid position. But, if I took Tys, I opened Austria and myself up to losing Rome, which would have been unrecoverable. I played the maximin strategy but suspected the expected utility strategy was to move to Tys. That’s the place to say whether or not I made a mistake, before we know that England did tell the truth.
I’ve finished my diary and uploaded it here- sorry about the delay! My emails will be collected and posted once I figure out a good way to do that from gmail. (There are a lot of them, so I’d like for it to be automated.)
It seems like we should try to have some sort of central repository for everyone’s stuff that wouldn’t fit into a post- like, the last page and a half of my 17 page diary is my summary of the game, and even then that might be a little long if everyone wrote that much.
Quite an interesting read. Also a bit surprising. From the way you played, I got the impression of you as this coldly detached Vulcan chessmaster veteran player who had no trouble always going for the move that was calculated to be the most effective. I didn’t expect to find out that you were as nervous about things as you were. :D
Regarding the Swedish bump—basically what happened was that I went looking for Diplomacy articles online, and came across this one. It claimed that
Firstly, I contend that there are only two cases where Germany should bounce Russia in Sweden. One, where Russia has opened to Silesia or Prussia, and two, when Germany is part of an EFG alliance.
and I figured that I might as well go along with the advice offered, since I didn’t know the game well enough to contradict it.
I’m not sure whether or not to follow it up with an apology. Apologizing makes it clear I think it’s a slight and will likely do little to smooth any feathers I’ve ruffled, while not apologizing makes it seem like I think he’s unimportant enough to discuss in the third person. That analysis suggests I should treat it as a nonevent but man do I feel bad about not apologizing.
Actually, I never thought anything about this. Because, well, at that point I was at such a position that talking about me in the third person was fully justified.
I have more comments as well, but I’d prefer for somebody to make a separate thread for the post-game discussion to make things more clear...
I missed this comment—it would be better to place it as a top-level comment rather than here, because it isn’t apparent when checking for new comments here.
Edit: I have finished reading of your diary, and it is brilliant. I was afraid of your stab in 1907 and later on, but I haven’t probably realised how close it was.
I think there should definitely be a separate thread, rather than this thread. I don’t really care where.
Also, another idea I’ll throw out for the future of LW diplomacy: create a winner’s (or survivors) bracket from this game, and our other game (“Rationalist Diplomacy Game 2”) once it concludes.
First, I don’t want any karma from that. Playing Diplomacy on LessWrong was fun, and I feel enough rewarded by my survival until the end. The karma system, despite its occasional non-standard uses (polls...) should remain what it was designed for: a tool for maintaining high quality of discussion.
The decision between Discussion or main should depend on the number of interested people, and the fact whether some more general rationality-related insights were gained. I don’t have any particular preference.
So, should we have a thread where we recount lessons and experiences? Should it be in Discussion or the main site? And should I post it, or should Jack?
So the draw is unordered. I don’t deserve any more karma than prase or Vaniver. That said, you’ve done a ton of work and I would have no problem putting lessons together for a post. On the other hand, you totally deserve more karma for the work you put in moderating this- so if you want it, take it. If I posted in the discussion section it would be pretty easy to make sure all players got the same karma. If I post on the main page that gets a lot harder.
I also think losing players should be awarded with karma if they can recount important lessons. People shouldn’t have to give away insight without getting karma in return. So maybe we should just have a discussion thread where players talk about what they learned (and where the three of us can get victory karma)? And then you could just quote the worthwhile/top voted insights and put them in a post for the main page.
ETA: The other thing is the second game is still going. Since they might have their own lessons, the top level post could include those too- as they’ll probably have their own discussion thread for their winner/winners.
My preference is to not be the one who has to arrange this, but if no one else wants to I will take the responsibility. If everyone else agrees on you, I’d support that.
I’m opting for one comment instead of a host of small comments carrying on various parts of the conversation, so this may be a little difficult to read in the future.
I care about victory karma.
I maintain my original position, though, that the victory karma should come from providing valuable lessons and data. While I sympathize with the argument that players that provide insight shouldn’t go uncompensated, my impression of the game was that everyone was collectively agreeing to put together notes and insights and then the winners of the game would get the karma from the group effort- i.e., the compensation was the chance to win.
I am busy today, but should have the time in the next few days to put together a thread. My preference is for main, but the karma issues there are somewhat problematic. I like the idea of you making the thread (with content supplied by the players) and players having comments voted up, but if this is worth putting on the main page it seems like the victory karma should be scaled to the main page. Given my fellow winner’s opinions, though, that seems like a good all-around option.
If the focus is going to be about lessons, then here is one way to find those lessons: Let the victors point out mistakes—tactical or strategic—that they noticed had been made by other players in the game. Then let the accused mistake-makers analyze the lapse in rationality that led to the mistake being made. Or if they wish, they can provide an analysis showing that there was no mistake—only bad luck.
I know that my own mistakes arose from a variety of correctable causes—ranging from simple carelessness, through character flaws, to use of wrong decision-making algorithms.
This seems difficult because of imperfect information. I remember being flabbergasted when Germany didn’t bounce you out of Sweden (the standard play), but was that a mistake? I can’t tell without knowing what information he had at the time he made the decision. A core principle of decision analysis is that you don’t judge by outcomes but by the decision made ignorant of the outcome.
For example, one decision I’m ambivalent about was not moving to Tys when England vacated Tun (the same turn I took StP after saying I wouldn’t). I was >90% confident England would vacate both Tun and Tys, and taking both of them would have put me in a solid position. But, if I took Tys, I opened Austria and myself up to losing Rome, which would have been unrecoverable. I played the maximin strategy but suspected the expected utility strategy was to move to Tys. That’s the place to say whether or not I made a mistake, before we know that England did tell the truth.
I’m actually confused about what you’re endorsing.
I’ve finished my diary and uploaded it here- sorry about the delay! My emails will be collected and posted once I figure out a good way to do that from gmail. (There are a lot of them, so I’d like for it to be automated.)
It seems like we should try to have some sort of central repository for everyone’s stuff that wouldn’t fit into a post- like, the last page and a half of my 17 page diary is my summary of the game, and even then that might be a little long if everyone wrote that much.
Quite an interesting read. Also a bit surprising. From the way you played, I got the impression of you as this coldly detached Vulcan chessmaster veteran player who had no trouble always going for the move that was calculated to be the most effective. I didn’t expect to find out that you were as nervous about things as you were. :D
Regarding the Swedish bump—basically what happened was that I went looking for Diplomacy articles online, and came across this one. It claimed that
and I figured that I might as well go along with the advice offered, since I didn’t know the game well enough to contradict it.
Actually, I never thought anything about this. Because, well, at that point I was at such a position that talking about me in the third person was fully justified.
I have more comments as well, but I’d prefer for somebody to make a separate thread for the post-game discussion to make things more clear...
I missed this comment—it would be better to place it as a top-level comment rather than here, because it isn’t apparent when checking for new comments here.
Here I link to my diary.
Edit: I have finished reading of your diary, and it is brilliant. I was afraid of your stab in 1907 and later on, but I haven’t probably realised how close it was.
I think there should definitely be a separate thread, rather than this thread. I don’t really care where.
Also, another idea I’ll throw out for the future of LW diplomacy: create a winner’s (or survivors) bracket from this game, and our other game (“Rationalist Diplomacy Game 2”) once it concludes.
With game hosts/moderators granted status as honorary survivors?
First, I don’t want any karma from that. Playing Diplomacy on LessWrong was fun, and I feel enough rewarded by my survival until the end. The karma system, despite its occasional non-standard uses (polls...) should remain what it was designed for: a tool for maintaining high quality of discussion.
The decision between Discussion or main should depend on the number of interested people, and the fact whether some more general rationality-related insights were gained. I don’t have any particular preference.
I second not caring much about victory karma. The bragging rights are worth a lot more. If Van doesn’t care we can just forget about it.