Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[Jeebus]

The wordings the cards would get if I valued "having the card text make these rulings clear" more than everything else I actually value more, would be:
- "If you Exiled a card you didn't have a copy of in Exile, +$3.
- "If you revealed the named card, each other player gains a Curse."
- Either "If they didn't reveal the named card, they gain a Curse" or "If they revealed a card they didn't name, they gain a Curse."
- "...from $3 to $6, and otherwise discards it. If they didn't trash a card, they gain a Curse."

Those wordings are not actually so bad, except Giant's. It's not like I have to be attached to Giant Cursing in the ubiquitous no-card case though. "...from $3 to $6. If it doesn't, they discard it and gain a Curse." No, that returns you to Bounty Hunter territory. Plus Giant is tiny text already.  "...from $3 to $6, and otherwise discards it. If they discarded it, they gain a Curse." I mean that's not great.

Time does not permit working more on this today.

I'm not sure if you're considering actually changing the cards. I guess it's not necessary and it seems like there would be problems with space. (But it would be nice if Sorcerer actually expressed a connection between the named card and the revealed card. As Gendo mentioned, it's the only "name a card" card that doesn't actually say why you're naming a card.)

Although ideally all wordings would be technically accurate, as you've said many times it's not always even desirable. On these cards it would perhaps be nice, but I think it's also fine to say that certain wordings have a slightly different intention behind them which is only relevant in corner cases. With your ideal clear wordings:

Bounty Hunter:
(Exile a card...) If you didn't have a copy of it in Exile --> If you Exiled a card you didn't have a copy of in Exile
Giant:
(trashes it if...) and otherwise discards it and gains a Curse --> If they didn't trash a card, they gain a Curse
Sorceress:
(Reveal the top card...) If it's the named card --> If you revealed the named card
Sorcerer:
(reveals the top card...) If wrong --> If they didn't reveal the named card

I think that's the best Sorcerer wording, since it follows Sorceress's wording.
Saying that this is the intention of the cards would produce the ideal rulings (and Sorcerer would Curse).

Bounty Hunter's "undefined" thing here produces: Bounty Hunter does not give +$3; Sorceress fails to Curse; Sorcerer does not Curse; Giant does not Curse. That's not so bad.

I believe this is the most technically accurate result of the current wordings. Whether it seems natural for casual players I don't know. Ideally all the card notes in the rules would say exactly what happens with an empty deck. And the newest Adventures rulebook actually specifies that Giant Curses with an empty deck.

[Gubump]

Bounty Hunter's "undefined" thing here produces: Bounty Hunter does not give +$3; Sorceress fails to Curse; Sorcerer does not Curse; Giant does not Curse. That's not so bad.

I have to beg to differ with this part. "Otherwise" is essentially shorthand for "if that if-statement was not true." In Giant, that if-statement was evaluated to be undefined, which is in fact not true, thus Giant curses.

[Jeebus]

Bounty Hunter's "undefined" thing here produces: Bounty Hunter does not give +$3; Sorceress fails to Curse; Sorcerer does not Curse; Giant does not Curse. That's not so bad.

I have to beg to differ with this part. "Otherwise" is essentially shorthand for "if that if-statement was not true." In Giant, that if-statement was evaluated to be undefined, which is in fact not true, thus Giant curses.

"Undefined" is not "false". But we had exactly this discussion in the thread already, so I refer you to that.

[AJD]

Bounty Hunter's "undefined" thing here produces: Bounty Hunter does not give +$3; Sorceress fails to Curse; Sorcerer does not Curse; Giant does not Curse. That's not so bad.

I have to beg to differ with this part. "Otherwise" is essentially shorthand for "if that if-statement was not true." In Giant, that if-statement was evaluated to be undefined, which is in fact not true, thus Giant curses.

"Undefined" is not "false". But we had exactly this discussion in the thread already, so I refer you to that.

Gubump didn't say "undefined" is "false"; he said it isn't "true".

[Jeebus]

Gubump didn't say "undefined" is "false"; he said it isn't "true".

True. Then he's saying the exact same thing as Gendo has been saying.

[Jeebus]

Just to add that Barbarian is exactly like Giant. But unlike for Giant, the rulebook doesn't say what happens with an empty deck.

[Jeebus]

I see that the Temple Gates client has implemented these cards as follows:

Giant: if there's no card, you don't gain a curse.
Barbarian: if there's no card, you don't gain a curse.
Sorcerer: if there's no card, you don't gain a curse.
Sorceress: if there's no card, the other players don't gain a curse.
Bounty Hunter: if there's no card, you don't get +$3.

They all follow what I thought made the most sense in this thread.

But, the first three (Giant, Barbarian, Sorcerer) don't follow the last rulings that I'm aware of. Are they wrong in the client, or have you made new rulings, Donald X.?

[Donald X.]

I see that the Temple Gates client has implemented these cards as follows:

Giant: if there's no card, you don't gain a curse.
Barbarian: if there's no card, you don't gain a curse.
Sorcerer: if there's no card, you don't gain a curse.
Sorceress: if there's no card, the other players don't gain a curse.
Bounty Hunter: if there's no card, you don't get +$3.

They all follow what I thought made the most sense in this thread.

But, the first three (Giant, Barbarian, Sorcerer) don't follow the last rulings that I'm aware of. Are they wrong in the client, or have you made new rulings, Donald X.?

Going from the wiki texts. Telling you my rulings for today, rather than e.g. what some particular software does or what my rulings would be with hypothetical wordings. And I haven't checked where this conflicts with the wiki or other posts.

If there's no card to do the thing with:

* Giant: Turn your Journey token over (it starts face up). Then if it's face down, +$1. If it's face up, +$5, and each other player reveals the top card of their deck, trashes it if it costs from $3 to $6, and otherwise discards it and gains a Curse.

They gain a Curse.

* Bounty Hunter: +1 Action. Exile a card from your hand. If you didn't have a copy of it in Exile, +$3.

You don't get the +$3.

* Barbarian: +$2. Each other player trashes the top card of their deck. If it costs $3 or more they gain a cheaper card sharing a type with it; otherwise they gain a Curse.

They gain a Curse. For this and Giant, it's all about how you think "otherwise" is interpreted.

* Sorcerer: +1 Card. +1 Action. Each other player names a card, then reveals the top card of their deck. If wrong, they gain a Curse.

No Curse. With a more written-out-for-clarity "if wrong" it would just match Bounty Hunter.

* Sorceress: +1 Action. Name a card. Reveal the top card of your deck and put it into your hand. If it's the named card, each other player gains a Curse.

No Curse.

[Jeebus]

Thanks.

So it sounds like you're going with "the card is undefined so nothing happens". (Otherwise Bounty Hunter and Sorcerer would do something.)

But to me, that should actually make Giant and Barbarian do nothing too, as you were reasoning in a previous post in this thread. That's because for human players (as opposed to computers), "otherwise" means "if it doesn't cost $x". Which is like Bounty Hunter.

[AJD]

I don't think I agree with you about what the most natural reading of "otherwise" in a presupposition-failure state is.

[AJD]

(But the whole thing about presupposition failures is that they make sentences hard to interpret.)

[Jeebus]

I don't know what that is.

But the point is that for humans reading cards, these two things mean the same:
"if it costs from $3 to $6, trash it; otherwise gain a Curse"
"if it doesn't cost from $3 to $6, gain a Curse; otherwise trash it"

Or to put it another way, "if not its cost is $x" means "if its cost is not $x" in human language. (We've been through all this.)

[Jack Rudd]

Well, there are two different potential translations there: "if its cost is not $x", and "if it's not true that its cost is $x" which mean the same thing whenever the item's cost is well-defined, but which evaluate differently if it isn't.

[Jeebus]

Well, there are two different potential translations there: "if its cost is not $x", and "if it's not true that its cost is $x" which mean the same thing whenever the item's cost is well-defined, but which evaluate differently if it isn't.

That's exactly what I was referring to. When this argument was made earlier in this thread, the phrasing "if not its cost is $x" was used. You're using "if it's not true that its cost is $x", but it's the same argument. In human language, it still means the same as "if its cost is not $x".

I can demonstrate it like this: If we can't know if "its cost is not $x," then we can't know if "its cost is $x," and we can't know if "it's not true that its cost is $x."

[Donald X.]

Again a key issue for me is, to not make wordings worse in almost every case ever, just to have them be better in obscure edge cases. Aside from that, when each set gets reprinted I'll probably get a chance to tweak wordings to try to fix these things. Or to just mention the rulings in the FAQs.

Again it's not that I care which way it goes, whether you get the Curse or not in the obscure case; I just want a good wording for the card for almost every case ever, and then after that to have it be clear what happens in the obscure cases. It isn't clear and well you never see the mistakes I caught.

[Jack Rudd]

Well, there are two different potential translations there: "if its cost is not $x", and "if it's not true that its cost is $x" which mean the same thing whenever the item's cost is well-defined, but which evaluate differently if it isn't.

That's exactly what I was referring to. When this argument was made earlier in this thread, the phrasing "if not its cost is $x" was used. You're using "if it's not true that its cost is $x", but it's the same argument. In human language, it still means the same as "if its cost is not $x".

"It's not true that the king of France is bald" does not mean the same as "the king of France is not bald".

[Jeebus]

"It's not true that the king of France is bald" does not mean the same as "the king of France is not bald".

Uhm... That's a very strange claim. So "it's false that the king of France is bald" does not mean "the king of France is not bald"? Or are "false" and "not true" different? What about "untrue"?

[Awaclus]

"It's not true that the king of France is bald" does not mean the same as "the king of France is not bald".

Uhm... That's a very strange claim. So "it's false that the king of France is bald" does not mean "the king of France is not bald"? Or are "false" and "not true" different? What about "untrue"?

"The king of France is bald" and "the king of France is not bald" are both false because France is a republic.

[AJD]

This is what a presupposition failure is.

A presupposition is information that is assumed to be already shared between the speaker and listener of a sentence in order for the sentence to be appropriate to use. If the presupposed information is not shared, the sentence is infelicitous—i.e., inappropriate in that context. If the presupposed proposition is false, the sentence becomes hard to interpret and its truth value is not necessarily well-defined.

Compare:
(1) "The Mona Lisa was stolen by Carmen Sandiego."
(2) "The one who stole the Mona Lisa was Carmen Sandiego."

These two sentences are true under the same circumstances, but (2) carries a presupposition ('The Mona Lisa was stolen') that (1) doesn't. We can tell the difference by imagining a situation where the information that the Mona Lisa was stolen is not shared by both the speaker and the listener. If (1) is used in that scenario, the information is communicated smoothly; but if (2) is used in that scenario it's perceived as infelicitous:

(1a)
 "The Mona Lisa was stolen by Carmen Sandiego."
"Oh wow, that sucks, I hope they catch her."

(2a)
 "The one who stole the Mona Lisa was Carmen Sandiego."
"Wait, what? Was I supposed to know about this already?"

And in the scenario where the presupposition is false, the truth value of the sentence bearing the presupposition becomes harder to evaluate. If the Mona Lisa was not actually stolen, then The Mona Lisa was stolen by Carmen Sandiego is simply a false sentence. But if the Mona Lisa was not stolen, then The one who stole the Mona Lisa was Carmen Sandiego is certainly not true, but it's hard to say that it's false, either—it's hard to evaluate.

One thing about presuppositions is that they do not go away when a sentence is negated. Sentence (3) is the negation of sentence (2):

(3) "The one who stole the Mona Lisa was not Carmen Sandiego."

...but (3) shares with (2) the presupposition that the Mona Lisa was stolen by somebody.

[Jeebus]

That is all clear, and it's what I have been talking about from the OP in this thread.

And in the scenario where the presupposition is false, the truth value of the sentence bearing the presupposition becomes harder to evaluate. If the Mona Lisa was not actually stolen, then The Mona Lisa was stolen by Carmen Sandiego is simply a false sentence. But if the Mona Lisa was not stolen, then The one who stole the Mona Lisa was Carmen Sandiego is certainly not true, but it's hard to say that it's false, either—it's hard to evaluate.

Exactly. And I would say that it's not only hard but impossible to evaluate. This goes against what the people who oddly liked your post have been saying. They're saying that, if the Mona Lisa was not stolen, "The one who stole the Mona Lisa was Carmen Sandiego" is false.
And now I see that you agreed with Jack Rudd's post, which means you're contradicting your own post...?

I read about Russell's analysis of the King of France statement. It's just one theory, and one I don't agree with - especially in normal language.
Exactly as AJD illustrated:
"The king of France is bald."
"What? I don't think there's a king of France?"

It seems that Russell makes a weak argument, based on the WP article, since he analyzes the statement "the present King of France is bald" by making three statements, the first of which says that there is a King of France, and then concludes that the original statement must be false because there is no King of France. Essentially he's simply stating that the statement must be false because it has a false supposition.

EDIT: Yes, Russell is asserting that the statement "the present King of France is bald" contains an unspoken, hidden statement "there is presently a King of France".

EDIT2: And indeed, the theory of presuppositions is by Frege and is in opposition to Russell's theory. According to Frege, statements with false presuppositions fail to have a truth value. They're neither true nor false.

[Jeebus]

"It's not true that the king of France is bald" does not mean the same as "the king of France is not bald".

Uhm... That's a very strange claim. So "it's false that the king of France is bald" does not mean "the king of France is not bald"? Or are "false" and "not true" different? What about "untrue"?

"The king of France is bald" and "the king of France is not bald" are both false because France is a republic.

You're failing to consider that we're talking about human language. In English, if someone claims "You are short", the answers "Not true" and "I'm not" are equivalent. Meaning that "It's not true that I'm short" and "I'm not short" are equivalent.

[Awaclus]

You're failing to consider that we're talking about human language. In English, if someone claims "You are short", the answers "Not true" and "I'm not" are equivalent. Meaning that "It's not true that I'm short" and "I'm not short" are equivalent.

That's because you actually exist. "I'm either average or tall" would also be equivalent with both of those. If someone claims "God plays dice with the universe", the answers "Not true" and "God does not do that" are not equivalent, because the latter statement agrees that there is a God (at least in a metaphorical sense) and only disagrees about said God's modus operandi, while the former is what you would say if you don't agree there is a God at all.

[Jeebus]

You're failing to consider that we're talking about human language. In English, if someone claims "You are short", the answers "Not true" and "I'm not" are equivalent. Meaning that "It's not true that I'm short" and "I'm not short" are equivalent.

That's because you actually exist. "I'm either average or tall" would also be equivalent with both of those. If someone claims "God plays dice with the universe", the answers "Not true" and "God does not do that" are not equivalent, because the latter statement agrees that there is a God (at least in a metaphorical sense) and only disagrees about said God's modus operandi, while the former is what you would say if you don't agree there is a God at all.

I'm saying that "not true" and "God doesn't do that" are equivalent in normal language. The proper answer if you don't agree there's a God is rejecting the premise of the claim: "There is no God" or "I don't believe in God".
"The king is bald." -- "Not true." -- means you disagree that the king is bald.
"The king is bald." -- "There is no king." -- means you disagree with the premise.

[Awaclus]

You're failing to consider that we're talking about human language. In English, if someone claims "You are short", the answers "Not true" and "I'm not" are equivalent. Meaning that "It's not true that I'm short" and "I'm not short" are equivalent.

That's because you actually exist. "I'm either average or tall" would also be equivalent with both of those. If someone claims "God plays dice with the universe", the answers "Not true" and "God does not do that" are not equivalent, because the latter statement agrees that there is a God (at least in a metaphorical sense) and only disagrees about said God's modus operandi, while the former is what you would say if you don't agree there is a God at all.

I'm saying that "not true" and "God doesn't do that" are equivalent in normal language. The proper answer if you don't agree there's a God is rejecting the premise of the claim: "There is no God" or "I don't believe in God".
"The king is bald." -- "Not true." -- means you disagree that the king is bald.
"The king is bald." -- "There is no king." -- means you disagree with the premise.

I don't think they are equivalent, and I gathered some data by polling people on the Bayesian Conspiracy discord (over there because it's normal to poll people about random questions there). Almost half of the respondents agreed with your position that "The king is bald." -- "Not true." is not a normal usage of human language if you believe there is no king, but a slim majority agreed with me that it is normal. There was unanimous agreement that "The king is bald." -- "The king is not bald." is not a normal usage of human language if you believe there is no king though, so the average person seems to think there is a difference. Finally, with the exception of one person who disagreed that the thought experiment made sense, there was unanimous agreement that in a made up board game context, they would expect the rules to work equivalently to Barbarian handing out a curse and Sorcerer not handing it out.

[Jeebus]

I don't think they are equivalent, and I gathered some data by polling people on the Bayesian Conspiracy discord (over there because it's normal to poll people about random questions there). Almost half of the respondents agreed with your position that "The king is bald." -- "Not true." is not a normal usage of human language if you believe there is no king, but a slim majority agreed with me that it is normal. There was unanimous agreement that "The king is bald." -- "The king is not bald." is not a normal usage of human language if you believe there is no king though, so the average person seems to think there is a difference. Finally, with the exception of one person who disagreed that the thought experiment made sense, there was unanimous agreement that in a made up board game context, they would expect the rules to work equivalently to Barbarian handing out a curse and Sorcerer not handing it out.

You're saying that the average person thinks there's a difference between "It's not true that the king is bald" and "the king is not bald," but I don't think that's what your second poll shows. It shows that the half (9 out of 16) who think "not true" is a normal response, mostly (the second poll only got 13 responses) think there's a difference. But the other half doesn't. This is to be expected; the second poll didn't really show us anything that the first didn't.

This is a small sample size, and not composed of average people.

This is probably related to something I've observed many times (and I've done myself). People start analyzing some normal expression or construction in the language and come to the conclusion that it must be wrong based on etymology or logic (for example the notorious "irregardless", or "shameful" vs. "shameless"). When the question is posed like in this poll, people will start analyzing whether it's logically correct to say that the claim is not true, and just like in this thread, some will conclude that it should be, and therefore they respond "yes". Also! You're using a well-known example, so people who have read the Russell argument will bring that in.

But I admit that many players would probably intuitively think that Giant and Barbarian do curse. My point was that those cards should be logically consistent with the others, and "otherwise" should mean "if it doesn't have that cost". I do think that if you asked people to spell out what "otherwise" means (without mentioning an empty deck) that's what almost everybody would say. That's what the natural interpretation is in normal language. But when there's no card, some disconnect occurs where people make an assumption that "otherwise" probably also encompasses that situation. It's not that they think that "the card costs $x" is false (even in your poll half don't think that) - they just think "otherwise" covers all situations where they can't say yes. I would also assume that pretty much all the same people, at least if they didn't know the rules of Dominion, would think that Barbarian would curse a player who trashed an Estate. "Otherwise" just intuitively covers every "other" case.

In that sense I guess this ruling is as good as any.