I’m kind of confused which unilateralist got to design the game. You say:
The first person to click the Unilateral Virtue Link was a proponent of “Avoiding actions that noticeably increase the chance that the world will end.” But, this virtue was actually in the majority. The first unilateralist of a Virtue Minority was a proponent of “Accurately reporting your epistemic state.”
A year later, as we decided what to do for Petrov Day, we decided to lure the first unilateralist into a surprise meeting, where I then said “Here’s a reminder of what happened in Petrov Day last year. You now have one hour to design this year’s Petrov game. Go.”
So it sounds like the unilateralist who wanted to avoid actions that noticeably increase the chance the world will end got picked. But then it sounds like the winner made a game that was supposed to be about accurately reporting epistemic state:
The designer had (I think?) initially noticed the “focus on accurately reporting epistemic state” aspect, but said that during the stressful hour of designing the game had eventually forgotten that. The version they handed off wasn’t particularly optimized for that, but the framework of a social deception game seemed to me to be a good substrate for “accurate epistemic reporting.” [...] It seemed important to me that Petrov’s payoff specifically be about reporting his beliefs
The one who voted “not destroy the world” was the one I had design the game. (I’d intended it as a sort of doubleedged reward/punishment of “well, as the first unilateralist, you do get to design the game, but, you need to do it for a virtue you didn’t believe in.”)
The resulting thing didn’t quite work in the version they handed to us but was close enough that I feel pretty happy with the outcome.
I’m kind of confused which unilateralist got to design the game. You say:
So it sounds like the unilateralist who wanted to avoid actions that noticeably increase the chance the world will end got picked. But then it sounds like the winner made a game that was supposed to be about accurately reporting epistemic state:
The one who voted “not destroy the world” was the one I had design the game. (I’d intended it as a sort of doubleedged reward/punishment of “well, as the first unilateralist, you do get to design the game, but, you need to do it for a virtue you didn’t believe in.”)
The resulting thing didn’t quite work in the version they handed to us but was close enough that I feel pretty happy with the outcome.
Ah, thanks for clarifying that.