Alicorn wishes me to note that she considers anyone playing a Diplomacy game without prior out-of-game-context agreements secured to have waived eir right to complete honesty from her, but the general principle still stands.
That she wishes you to note this is yet further evidence of her principled honesty!
She appears to have also sacrificed her ability to communicate in game without costly signalling. Her word now conveys exactly zero information inside the game. That is a distinct disadvantage to her.
One: I’m not playing. I could precommit to throw every game of Diplomacy without a “distinct” disadvantage because I’m not playing. Two: I don’t lose the ability to communicate; everyone is assumed to be possibly lying in a game of Diplomacy, and I was just correcting the assumption that I would behave atypically. If I were playing, which I am not.
One: I’m not playing. I could precommit to throw every game of Diplomacy without a “distinct” disadvantage because I’m not playing.
The relevance of my statement is, of course, bounded by the relevance of yours. The counterfactual implications of a counterfactual as it were.
Two: I don’t lose the ability to communicate; everyone is assumed to be possibly lying in a game of Diplomacy, and I was just correcting the assumption that I would behave atypically.
You did not (counterfactually) lose any ability relative to a baseline. You lost ability relative to whatever benefits you would have gained via the principled honesty reputation which you have been trying to signal. I assume that you do, in fact, gain something in the way of trustworthiness by such signalling efforts outside of the game. Unless you are suggesting that any faith I have gained in your personal integrity is misguided? ;)
A principled, honest person would lie in a game of Diplomacy or Junta, or other similar games. Lying is part of the game. As I noted elsewhere in this thread, I strongly dislike the idea of playing these games within some real-world metagame framework.
Further, I’d take a positive inference from someone who said, “I will lie for my own benefit in a Diplomacy game,′ because it’s clear to me that they are playing the same game I am. I have an awfully strong reputation for principled honesty (says me), but I’ll tell you right now: When I promise you that Russia and I are sworn enemies and I desperately need you to move northward to fight the Red Menace, I may be moving in from the south to take some of your neglected property. For the good of the world, of course.
And if you say afterward that I am a dishonest person, you need to play a different game. Or maybe I do. But you’re just wrong in considering me dishonest.
Or maybe I did misread this. Please correct my misinterpretation if I did.
You are. This isn’t about being a “principled, honest person”. It’s about winning.
I have an awfully strong reputation for principled honesty (says me), but I’ll tell you right now: When I promise you that Russia and I are sworn enemies and I desperately need you to move northward to fight the Red Menace, I may be moving in from the south to take some of your neglected property. For the good of the world, of course.
When I said “exactly zero” I was saying it with emphasis. You, given your stance, literally do not have the ability to communicate at all in a game theoretic sense without costly signalling. This doesn’t mean you are a bad person and I definitely don’t want to shame you into ‘better’ behavior. Because being unable to communicate effectively sometimes makes you lose, which makes me win.
I’m considering now a situation in which ‘Russia’ (it was a game of risk, not Diplomacy per se) is a rival of mine and also an immediate potentially overwhelming threat to a neighbour of mine. I had power enough to defeat both of them, but it would be costly to me. I told the third party that I would not attack him on a different front without giving him a full turn warning. It didn’t require a compact, any sort of agreement between us. It was just a fact. That player could believe me and move all his forces to fight Russia. Your word, however, would have been nothing. Russia would have weakened you sufficiently that another enemy would have overwhelmed you.
I understand that you are playing a meta-game in which you shame people out of things like taking vengeance when it does not benefit them. That is your prerogative. I speak here not of what people should do, merely what works. Alicorn’s declaration was regarding what her word meant in regard to whatever out of game arrangements she may make. I merely point out that sacrificing her ability to speak honestly and be believed in game is a strict disadvantage within said context. This is something that is counter-intuitive to many people—which is why I made a note.
First off, you’ve perhaps misread my vengeance comment. In-game vengeance may well be proper gaming; you’re just not going to get a palpable carry-over for it into the next game. There’s no shaming of the vengeful at all.
Secondly, my commentary still has substantial value in a Diplomacy game. Trust, but verify and all. Diplomacy’s about talking (usually; there are no-press games.) If you walked into one of my games, you’d have no advantage whatsoever for whatever trusty goodness you think you have.
Thirdly, I still view the intrusion of real-world considerations onto game ethics as undesirable. If it’s Survivor and you don’t eat if someone doesn’t kill the rabbit, then it’s a different situation. But each game has it’s own rules; if you communicate your bridge hand through hand signals, you’re a scummy cheat—even if it helps you win. I don’t do that, because it’s wrong. Certainly, making private real-world side deals strikes me as cheating, and would be in my circle. Trying to cash in on a rep for real-world honesty strikes me as misguided.
you communicate your bridge hand through hand signals, you’re a scummy cheat—even if it helps you win. I don’t do that, because it’s wrong. Certainly, making private real-world side deals strikes me as cheating
Bridge specifies that communicating information about your hand is against the rules; Diplomacy says that making deals is specifically part of the rules. Diplomacy doesn’t provide an enforceable contract, sure, but that just means that finding a method of creating enforceable contracts gives you an advantage.
You lost ability relative to whatever benefits you would have gained via the principled honesty reputation which you have been trying to signal.
I would consider it unethical to lie to someone who I have some reason to believe wouldn’t have waived their right to honesty. Someone who believes that I won’t lie to them might not be disposed to waive that right. So I couldn’t ethically take advantage of the sort of misunderstanding Yvain had about the scope of my ethics.
Don’t misunderstand me. I don’t suggest that you were making a mistake and I respect and acknowledge proactive honesty of the type you mention. I just note that in itself it is disadvantageous within said context.
It had incidentally occurred to me that so sabotaging yourself, conditionally on out of game arrangements could be used to benefit yourself (in game) by providing more incentive for others to make such arrangements. It struck me as somewhat ironic that granting oneself the ability to betray actually could amount to a self destructive signal used for the purpose of influence. (Again, just what could be done, not what you are doing.)
That she wishes you to note this is yet further evidence of her principled honesty!
She appears to have also sacrificed her ability to communicate in game without costly signalling. Her word now conveys exactly zero information inside the game. That is a distinct disadvantage to her.
One: I’m not playing. I could precommit to throw every game of Diplomacy without a “distinct” disadvantage because I’m not playing. Two: I don’t lose the ability to communicate; everyone is assumed to be possibly lying in a game of Diplomacy, and I was just correcting the assumption that I would behave atypically. If I were playing, which I am not.
The relevance of my statement is, of course, bounded by the relevance of yours. The counterfactual implications of a counterfactual as it were.
You did not (counterfactually) lose any ability relative to a baseline. You lost ability relative to whatever benefits you would have gained via the principled honesty reputation which you have been trying to signal. I assume that you do, in fact, gain something in the way of trustworthiness by such signalling efforts outside of the game. Unless you are suggesting that any faith I have gained in your personal integrity is misguided? ;)
I must be misreading this.
A principled, honest person would lie in a game of Diplomacy or Junta, or other similar games. Lying is part of the game. As I noted elsewhere in this thread, I strongly dislike the idea of playing these games within some real-world metagame framework.
Further, I’d take a positive inference from someone who said, “I will lie for my own benefit in a Diplomacy game,′ because it’s clear to me that they are playing the same game I am. I have an awfully strong reputation for principled honesty (says me), but I’ll tell you right now: When I promise you that Russia and I are sworn enemies and I desperately need you to move northward to fight the Red Menace, I may be moving in from the south to take some of your neglected property. For the good of the world, of course.
And if you say afterward that I am a dishonest person, you need to play a different game. Or maybe I do. But you’re just wrong in considering me dishonest.
Or maybe I did misread this. Please correct my misinterpretation if I did.
You are. This isn’t about being a “principled, honest person”. It’s about winning.
When I said “exactly zero” I was saying it with emphasis. You, given your stance, literally do not have the ability to communicate at all in a game theoretic sense without costly signalling. This doesn’t mean you are a bad person and I definitely don’t want to shame you into ‘better’ behavior. Because being unable to communicate effectively sometimes makes you lose, which makes me win.
I’m considering now a situation in which ‘Russia’ (it was a game of risk, not Diplomacy per se) is a rival of mine and also an immediate potentially overwhelming threat to a neighbour of mine. I had power enough to defeat both of them, but it would be costly to me. I told the third party that I would not attack him on a different front without giving him a full turn warning. It didn’t require a compact, any sort of agreement between us. It was just a fact. That player could believe me and move all his forces to fight Russia. Your word, however, would have been nothing. Russia would have weakened you sufficiently that another enemy would have overwhelmed you.
I understand that you are playing a meta-game in which you shame people out of things like taking vengeance when it does not benefit them. That is your prerogative. I speak here not of what people should do, merely what works. Alicorn’s declaration was regarding what her word meant in regard to whatever out of game arrangements she may make. I merely point out that sacrificing her ability to speak honestly and be believed in game is a strict disadvantage within said context. This is something that is counter-intuitive to many people—which is why I made a note.
That doesn’t seem quite right to me.
First off, you’ve perhaps misread my vengeance comment. In-game vengeance may well be proper gaming; you’re just not going to get a palpable carry-over for it into the next game. There’s no shaming of the vengeful at all.
Secondly, my commentary still has substantial value in a Diplomacy game. Trust, but verify and all. Diplomacy’s about talking (usually; there are no-press games.) If you walked into one of my games, you’d have no advantage whatsoever for whatever trusty goodness you think you have.
Thirdly, I still view the intrusion of real-world considerations onto game ethics as undesirable. If it’s Survivor and you don’t eat if someone doesn’t kill the rabbit, then it’s a different situation. But each game has it’s own rules; if you communicate your bridge hand through hand signals, you’re a scummy cheat—even if it helps you win. I don’t do that, because it’s wrong. Certainly, making private real-world side deals strikes me as cheating, and would be in my circle. Trying to cash in on a rep for real-world honesty strikes me as misguided.
I hope this helps clarify my position.
--JRM
Bridge specifies that communicating information about your hand is against the rules; Diplomacy says that making deals is specifically part of the rules. Diplomacy doesn’t provide an enforceable contract, sure, but that just means that finding a method of creating enforceable contracts gives you an advantage.
We do not agree.
I would consider it unethical to lie to someone who I have some reason to believe wouldn’t have waived their right to honesty. Someone who believes that I won’t lie to them might not be disposed to waive that right. So I couldn’t ethically take advantage of the sort of misunderstanding Yvain had about the scope of my ethics.
Don’t misunderstand me. I don’t suggest that you were making a mistake and I respect and acknowledge proactive honesty of the type you mention. I just note that in itself it is disadvantageous within said context.
It had incidentally occurred to me that so sabotaging yourself, conditionally on out of game arrangements could be used to benefit yourself (in game) by providing more incentive for others to make such arrangements. It struck me as somewhat ironic that granting oneself the ability to betray actually could amount to a self destructive signal used for the purpose of influence. (Again, just what could be done, not what you are doing.)