--- Log opened Wed Nov 28 00:00:06 2012
05:12 < conseo> mcallan: i have a more realistic attack, if you can specify needs with your vote, you can effectly consume all resources and make every plan fail
05:38 < conseo> (in general the problem is that you cannot simply work with everybody together, politicians don't care, but if you really want to reach consensus, bogus voters don't help, they skew the discourse)
09:44 < ThomasvdE> conseo: hey C. are u here?
10:35 < conseo> ThomasvdE: sry in meeting atm., maybe finished 20 mins
10:49 < conseo> ThomasvdE: re
12:53 < ThomasvdE> conseo: sorry, I was gone
16:15 < mcallan> conseo: but negative aspects of the account (needs, targets) apply upstream (to attackers voters), while only the positive aspects (resource pledges) flow downstream (to candidate attackee).  so there's no actual attack via the rac
16:16 < mcallan> http://zelea.com/w/Category:Account
16:22 < conseo> right, but a vote can be conditional. i can pledge resources, if i participate in ("take") some others. this can be very fixed, e.g. transportation, infrastructure costs etc. people could generally express their needs to be reflected in the ressource management as well without needing our targets. without it you cannot judge whether a plan is realizable, targets don't add up and are difficult to synchronize with
16:22 < conseo>  resource flow (they are disconnected)
16:29 < mcallan> i don't understand the nature of the attack you propose.  is it making false pledges in order to cause confusion?
16:30 < conseo> it is taking too much by some voters, while a plan without them might be realizable.
16:30 < conseo> (the same plan)
16:32 < conseo> in that sense dart sectors are a special resource
16:35 < conseo> or formulated differently: targets are for the collective plan perspective, while it deals badly with individual practical concerns. both can make sense, but allowing people to define needs with the vote for a plan is more consensual than some collective target.
16:36 < conseo> well individually more expressive and therefore strengthening the meaning of the consensus, i mean
16:41 < conseo> (just to reclarify, i propose the inverse of a pledge, a negative one, so to speak)
16:49 < mcallan> so this is not a problem with the current design as it stands, but with a separate proposal of yours?
16:58 < conseo> yes
17:07 < conseo> sry, didn't make that clear. will post elsewhere. just wanted to know if you have come across the same problem
17:19 < conseo> (you are sadly the only guy to talk to about that stuff, though you are not interested in economics and busy with more important stuff)
17:35 < mcallan> i was just distracted trying out Liquidizer (some new tool)...
17:36 < mcallan> when you post, plz share link
17:37 < conseo> ok
17:40 < conseo> it is not really new, is it?
17:42 < mcallan> i never saw it before, don't think.  http://liquidizer.github.com/
17:43 < conseo> yes, i have been to liquidizer.org and viewing a demo on youtube
17:44 < conseo> (didnt knew it before as well)
17:47 < conseo> is it used?
17:48 < mcallan> not sure, probably.  that review alex posted in metagov covers it
17:50 < conseo> oh ok
17:51 < mcallan> views society as a "game" in game theoretic terms: http://zelea.com/var/tmp-public/SSRN-id1679002.pdf
17:55 < mcallan> (not a society i want to participate in)
17:55 < conseo> yes, game theory is a terrible mathematical distraction from the consensus problem imo. i find the tool horrible, all the numbers don't have any meaning about the actual content and try to find a compromise "magically" through mathematics.
17:56 < mcallan> (yes, i agree.  as i say, not a society i want to participate in)
17:56 < conseo> my tool simply replies 42 as the final compromise. problems solved :-D
17:58 < conseo> well, if they enjoy, maybe the come across some creative ideas...
17:58 < conseo> i am off for today
17:59 < mcallan> true, they might
17:59 < mcallan> your day is ending, and mine is just beginning...
17:59 < mcallan> cu
18:00 < conseo> gn8
18:00 < conseo> have a nice day :-)
18:00 < mcallan> there's only 10 hours of light, and i hardly see any of it :-)
18:02 < conseo> well, it is not a lot better here, except that i am in a odd building during the day and it is dark when i come out
18:03 < conseo> cu
--- Log closed Thu Nov 29 00:00:24 2012