Tuesday, March 14, 2017

Proposal: Maxim of Quantity, take 2

Self-killed. Failed by Derrick

Adminned at 16 Mar 2017 14:34:54 UTC

Add a rule to the Appendex called “The Maxim of Quantity” as follows:

The ruleset is assumed to follow Grice’s Maxim of Quantity, that is, that it is to be interpreted as being exactly as informative as is necessary for a native English speaker to understand it.  Specifically, a clause with “may” specifies the limits of an action that may be performed (“may collect three items” does not allow for an interpretation of “may collect any number of items, including three”, but only the meaning “may collect only three items”) and it cannot be interpreted to mean that abiding by the limitation is optional unless “may” is followed by “choose to”.

Now without a “must”.  I don’t think this is necessary, but maybe it will shut Cuddlebeam up.



03-14-2017 21:04:29 UTC

Any extra clause like this I predict will cause more problems than it will solve. We generally know what ‘may’ means. Codifying exactly what English words mean is an endless rabbit hole that likely won’t even stop Cuddlebeam CfJs.

Oracular rufio:

03-14-2017 21:20:11 UTC

It will stop them from passing.  You guys passed a few of them last dynasty, apparently.


03-14-2017 21:28:46 UTC

My concern with this is that the ruleset cannot be assumed to be follow Grice’s Maxim of Quantity. It quite clearly does not always provide exactly as much information as necessary to be understood, but rather is frequently unclear. The glossary seems sufficiently clear to me.

Oracular rufio:

03-14-2017 21:34:06 UTC

Interpreting something as if it provides the required information does not necessarily mean that it can’t be ambiguous or unclear.  It just means, in that case, that you can interpret it to many any one of the ambiguous meanings.  This just means that you can’t assume the presence of information that is not actually given.  This is basically how we play already, it’s just an explicit codification.


03-14-2017 21:35:52 UTC

Were there any passed last dynasty of any real importance?

Oracular rufio:

03-14-2017 21:38:22 UTC

I don’t know, but perhaps if they stop getting passed they will stop being proposed.


03-14-2017 21:49:28 UTC

The only one passed last dynasty that you might object to was the infinite well water CfJ, and Grice’s Maxims may have been unrelated to the actual issue, which is that the ruleset said both that each Villager “may carry up to three Remedies” and that “may carry more than one of the same Remedy”. If it said I “may carry 3” and also that I “may carry 4”, what’s the maximum limit on my number of remedies?

That said, I do regret voting for that CfJ. The rule’s intention was clear, just not its literal wording.

Oracular rufio:

03-14-2017 21:53:15 UTC

“Up to three” and “more than one of the same” do not contradict each other.  Obviously, though, if it says “may carry 3” and “may carry 4” it means that you may carry four.  That wasn’t the case then, though, (AFAIK since I wasn’t playing then).


03-14-2017 21:58:01 UTC

Good point (them not contradicting), another reason I think my vote was in error.


03-14-2017 22:03:37 UTC

I think the ruleset is fine as-is, and going forward I’ll just be more proactive in voting down silly CfJs.


03-14-2017 22:41:14 UTC

imo Nomic is about literal wording but then again people can vote for or against CfJ’s or stuff with whatever reason (or no reason at all) they want. It just kinda hinges on what people want, shrug.

Oracular rufio:

03-15-2017 23:02:49 UTC

against so that this doesn’t have to wait another day in the queue.


03-15-2017 23:23:09 UTC

While the topic is open:

I’d personally prefer seeing scams based on mechanical rule interactions that exist even when the rules are interpreted as intended. But as you say, it all depends on what people will vote for.