User talk:ServusCallidus

From BlogNomic Wiki
Jump to navigation Jump to search

A few thoughts:

Organisation and Philosophical Dredging - I've always thought that the wiki should have more historical information consolidated - my Logbook of Dynasties has been an attempt to put lots of information about successive dynasties on one page, but I haven't had much time to fill past dynasties out. I think the wiki should have a page on all core rules proposals, rather than them being spread out in the dynastic histories. Game Changelog doesn't do this, because it only records major changes, and only records proposals that passed.

"most of the essays deal with fairly impersonal topics" - because Blognomic changes, and players idle. The only player who has been continuously active in my Blognomic lifetime is Jonathan dark, and writing an essay on any other player may not have much use.

Social Power on votes - I don't think this works or should work. A vote, at least for me, is based on what I think of the proposal, not of the players before me voted on it. It's always - even in core proposals - going to be tarnished by their personal gamestate, and what is to their advantage. Of course, slouches and players who are not playing the proposal part of the game will be influenced by this, but this is only if there is a consensus - I find that if there is a big argument over a proposal, slouches will just ignore it, so influence doesn't affect that.

--Lawnomos 00:41, 22 April 2026 (UTC)
Organisation and Philosophical Dredging - I believe that's a good idea!
Social Power on votes - Perhaps! I went ahead and investigated. I have a scrape of every Proposal and comment on the blog from 10 Apr 2025 to 1 of Jan 2012, but I haven't checked if it has any gaps or mistakes yet. In any case, I then calculated "Vote Prediction Power" (which may or may not be the "social influence" metric I'm looking for), which calculates what % of the votes that come after a player's vote, match that player's vote; relative to the total amount of votes. This doesn't count the default self-FOR vote that your own Proposals have. A score of 100% isn't possible since this doesn't count your own vote, a General score of 80% means that in a 5-player dynasty, you are always voting before anyone else and everyone that votes after you always votes in the same way you do. A General score of 0% means that you always vote last. I took the top 30 people who have cast the most votes, and sorted them by their General score.
Rank Player General Pro-FOR Pro-AGAINST Votes (F) Votes (A) Votes (T)
1 Kevan 73.42% 76.58% 69.41% 2592 2051 4643
2 Purplebeard 72.82% 72.52% 73.45% 4302 1164 5466
3 ais523 71.41% 73.66% 68.29% 4573 2978 7551
4 SingularByte 70.92% 73.56% 63.08% 6912 3392 10304
5 Josh 69.88% 75.06% 61.12% 2486 1471 3957
6 RaichuKFM 69.20% 71.79% 63.88% 6313 3089 9402
7 quirck 68.42% 69.67% 65.83% 4572 2267 6839
8 Trapdoorspyder 67.62% 69.38% 62.80% 9283 3712 12995
9 Lulu 67.49% 71.82% 59.05% 8794 5213 14007
10 DoomedIdeas 67.25% 67.68% 66.16% 4141 6357 10498
11 Publius Scribonius Scholasticus 65.93% 67.97% 61.78% 2461 2136 4597
12 Habanero 65.87% 66.44% 64.24% 5371 2917 8288
13 Larrytheturtle 65.36% 67.00% 60.12% 5251 1646 6897
14 JonathanDark 64.68% 71.13% 49.01% 1478 609 2087
15 Darknight 64.63% 65.31% 62.63% 1583 5362 6945
16 derrick 63.13% 68.29% 54.23% 7174 6113 13287
17 TyGuy6 63.02% 66.90% 56.29% 4022 3263 7285
18 Brendan 62.82% 66.45% 53.21% 1496 5642 7138
19 card 62.82% 64.91% 59.32% 7254 3411 10665
20 lemon 61.96% 63.47% 58.07% 5742 2279 8021
21 Clucky 61.14% 66.29% 55.07% 1146 972 2118
22 Lawnomos 61.11% 64.85% 53.82% 2941 5144 8085
23 Madrid 60.40% 67.46% 45.62% 6973 3310 10283
24 DeactivatedUser4498 60.32% 61.99% 55.20% 1530 4992 6522
25 pokes 59.85% 61.18% 57.37% 9465 10145 19610
26 Bucky 58.23% 67.65% 50.72% 4515 6610 11125
27 redtara 58.19% 63.67% 48.48% 2411 3637 6048
28 Snisbo 57.03% 60.26% 47.24% 3031 4040 7071
29 Chiiika 56.44% 57.69% 54.81% 3262 4957 8219
30 Desertfrog 53.01% 54.65% 47.85% 3161 141 3302
--ServusCallidus (talk) 06:43, 22 April 2026 (UTC)
That's super interesting. Maybe another metric to consider: how often a player's vote causes subsequent changes of votes (so: when a player votes counterflow, eg voting against after a scattering of fors, causing some of those fors to switch to againsts). Josh (talk) 09:52, 22 April 2026 (UTC)
I will check that out, I wonder how the output "score function" we're looking for, for this idea, should look like based on an input of a sequence of votes. --ServusCallidus (talk) 16:40, 22 April 2026 (UTC)
I think the vote counts are wrong - I have only commented in the blog 1134 times but it says I have voted 8085 times. --Lawnomos 21:38, 22 April 2026 (UTC)
Ugh, posted at the same time and I had to manually sort out where to put this and the last message which may have caused some confusion. Sorry. Is that the number of people who have voted after me? --Lawnomos 21:41, 22 April 2026 (UTC)
Yes, there was some mishandling in my Mediawiki table conversion, sorry about that, this should be correct
Player General Positive Negative Total Counterflow Score Accumulated Counterflow Attemps Total
Kevan 92.21% 92.96% 92.08% 494 740 4635
TyGuy6 91.29% 90.35% 91.84% 65 131 633
Josh 91.18% 90.41% 91.45% 299 611 3949
Clucky 90.21% 86.25% 91.39% 222 490 2114
Bucky 89.81% 82.92% 90.73% 101 232 1014
Desertfrog 89.49% 94.44% 85.24% 13 39 416
Publius Scribonius Scholasticus 88.67% 100.00% 81.11% 10 39 367
derrick 88.58% 94.15% 86.29% 79 176 1133
Habanero 88.36% 87.49% 89.07% 36 67 728
JonathanDark 87.92% 93.56% 83.98% 90 122 2084
ayesdeeef 87.89% 91.67% 86.55% 23 59 311
Purplebeard 87.34% 88.29% 87.02% 40 65 641
SingularByte 87.32% 89.64% 85.00% 50 78 922
ais523 87.07% 83.94% 87.61% 67 113 781
card 86.96% 91.74% 84.34% 65 95 1159
Brendan 86.55% 88.01% 85.63% 118 303 2059
Larrytheturtle 85.33% 85.32% 85.34% 33 61 689
pokes 84.87% 82.19% 85.73% 82 184 1456
Madrid 84.55% 95.24% 82.14% 38 120 1028
RaichuKFM 83.86% 88.90% 80.64% 59 91 937
lemon 83.07% 87.22% 78.39% 51 108 796
DoomedIdeas 82.69% 81.33% 83.54% 26 38 577
Vovix 82.64% 82.74% 82.56% 15 54 256
Cpt_Koen 82.24% 85.71% 79.81% 34 80 306
Lawnomos 81.82% 100.00% 75.21% 15 34 441
redtara 81.11% 92.59% 75.03% 26 86 376
quirck 80.67% 72.41% 84.42% 48 89 679
Chiiika 80.32% 76.46% 81.66% 31 84 574
Zack 78.37% 85.42% 75.80% 15 53 327
scshunt 77.87% 72.81% 79.64% 27 67 262
Trapdoorspyder 77.56% 78.91% 76.78% 52 90 1264
Lulu 77.41% 78.61% 76.93% 73 119 1331
DeactivatedUser4498 75.29% 81.20% 70.50% 38 108 2028
Snisbo 73.43% 73.35% 73.58% 26 62 402
Darknight 70.32% 75.87% 67.65% 37 59 2112

--ServusCallidus (talk) 21:39, 22 April 2026 (UTC)

There seems to be content lost, maybe related to us editting the same page at the same time (and my own clumsiness) --ServusCallidus (talk) 21:43, 22 April 2026 (UTC)
For a single vote to contribute to a player's counterflow score, all of the following must be true:
  1. The proposal has a final outcome of Enacted, Failed, or Vetoed.
  2. The vote direction is for or against (other directions are ignored).
  3. At least one prior vote exists in the proposal before this one.
  4. Prior votes are not exactly 50% for and 50% against.
  5. The vote direction opposes the prior majority.
  6. The vote direction matches the final outcome of the proposal.

I am admittedly very tired at the moment, sorry for my grogginess --ServusCallidus (talk) 21:47, 22 April 2026 (UTC)

Reordered stuff and re-added lost content, sorry for the confusion.--Lawnomos 21:52, 22 April 2026 (UTC)

Thanks, I appreciate it. Looking over my tables, I realize that asking an LLM "Please format this for MediaWiki" is perhaps not the best way to do that, there are some hallucinated values, quite sloppy of me. I should adjust my code so that it outputs directly into a MediaWiki format. --ServusCallidus (talk) 07:24, 23 April 2026 (UTC)