Ah, for the purposes of responding to the PMs (and writing my explanatory comment) I accepted the truth of the setup mostly without question, but it makes more sense in hindsight that the “Avoiding actions...” virtue was actually a strong majority vote.
About what to do about next Petrov Day, I mostly agree with Vanessa’s reasoning, but I don’t think it matters too much either way and don’t really think it’s about “honoring your word”.
Once the truth of the setup is violated, it’s mostly just about whether you want to do the thing that predictably would have been the result had the setup been honest.
If you had built in a special case to not send a second message to the majority-choosers at all, the result would have been that “Accurately reporting your epistemic state.” would be the winner.
If you had instead built in a special case where the majority-choosers get a slightly-modified second message (“currently in the minority” → “currently in the majority”), and “any minority group” were edited to “any group” in everyone’s second message, the result predictably would have been that “Avoiding actions...” wins.
I don’t know which of these modifications, if any, you would have actually built if you had more time to think / implement, but I don’t see any reason why you should feel particularly bound to do something a year from now by either of these counterfactuals about a 1-day game.
Ah, for the purposes of responding to the PMs (and writing my explanatory comment) I accepted the truth of the setup mostly without question, but it makes more sense in hindsight that the “Avoiding actions...” virtue was actually a strong majority vote.
About what to do about next Petrov Day, I mostly agree with Vanessa’s reasoning, but I don’t think it matters too much either way and don’t really think it’s about “honoring your word”.
Once the truth of the setup is violated, it’s mostly just about whether you want to do the thing that predictably would have been the result had the setup been honest.
If you had built in a special case to not send a second message to the majority-choosers at all, the result would have been that “Accurately reporting your epistemic state.” would be the winner.
If you had instead built in a special case where the majority-choosers get a slightly-modified second message (“currently in the minority” → “currently in the majority”), and “any minority group” were edited to “any group” in everyone’s second message, the result predictably would have been that “Avoiding actions...” wins.
I don’t know which of these modifications, if any, you would have actually built if you had more time to think / implement, but I don’t see any reason why you should feel particularly bound to do something a year from now by either of these counterfactuals about a 1-day game.