[Nomic] Arbitration

[Adam Biltcliffe]

On Sep 22 2004, Stuart Moore wrote:

> The Rule of Dispute Resolution
> 
> If a member of the list of voters ("the disputer") disagrees with 
> another member ("the disputee") on their interpretation of the current 
> game state, the disputer may state publically that they dispute the game 
> state, and explain what they believe the game state should be. All 
> members of the list of voters may then vote. The time at which all 
> members have been informed of the dispute is the "Start of the voting 
> period"
> 
> During the voting period, additional interpretations of the game state 
> may be suggested and voted on as with the original interpretations.
> 
> If within one week of the start of the voting period, one specific 
> interpretation of the game state has votes from at least two thirds of 
> the members of the list of voters, then that interpretation is accepted.
> 
> Votes may be changed or withdrawn within the voting period.
> 
> If one week after the start of the voting period this has not occurred, 
> then "the disputer" and "the disputee" must select a member of the list 
> of voters randomly, by drawing names from a hat or other process agreed 
> between them. This member will rule on the current game state, and their 
> decision cannot be disputed.

Ok, for once, I don't have any trivialities to nitpick ... but I don't like 
this rule.

I think the assumption that any dispute over the gamestate is between two 
people is wrong; far more likely is that it's between one person and 
everyone else, or two complete halves of the set of players.

I think it's awkward to require disputes to take up to a week to be 
resolved, especially if the disputed claim is one such as "I have won the 
game" or "the game is in a massively different state to what everyone 
believes".

I think requiring a two-thirds majority of the entire list of voters is 
dangerous, since I'd prefer it if the game were accessible to players who 
don't want to commit themselves to too much. I'm unhappy about the 
possibility of any arbitrary member of the list of voters being selected to 
make possibly momentuous decisions on the game state, for the same reason.

I don't want to end up taking too many ideas from past Nomics, but the 
Call-For-Judgement system has a lot of appeal. (Essentially, any player may 
present a statement which they wish to have ruled true or false, a willing 
player is selected [randomly or algorithmically] as judge, and then the 
judge passes judgement on the issue, with any player able to appeal the 
decision if it appears to have been made on a flawed basis). I also quite 
like the idea that we could elect someone as arbitrator every week or 
fortnight and that person would take the role of judge in resolving 
disputes, or alternatively that there is some property of the game that 
determines the judge.

Also, I think your proposal requires a lot of book-keeping. This is 
something that needs to be addressed if and when we formalise the system 
for voting on rule changes, and I think it also needs to be addressed in 
any long-term dispute resolution rule.

adam