Re: Deals and obligations

[Chris Crawford <chriscrawford@wave.net>]

I have implemented the dealmaking system, and it relies on a Benefit
function that is a bit different from what I first proposed. The function is
still tied to verbs, because, as you pointed out, there are an infinity of
events from which to choose. The trick here was to put an emotional reaction
into the scrypt for the person who is evaluating the event. For example, if
Fred wishes to propose a deal to Joe, then he uses PickBestVerb with
suitable logical constraints and a Benefit function with Joe as the
benefactee. That Benefit function then looks at the CandidateVerb and asks
if there is a reaction role for the DirObject; if so, then it consults the
emotional reaction scrypt to see if there is a change in the Joy/Sadness
mood. That change constitutes the Benefit of the verb. Thus, we just insert
an AdjustJoy/Sadness call for that verb, and set its value to whatever we
want the benefit to be. The process is symmetric; Fred can also see how good
or bad his own reaction to the verb will be.

As to your point that many deals are not consummated explicity, the
Indonesians have the perfect word/concept for this: tanagadalang. It
translates roughly as "obligation", but it is more explicit than that. You
might translate it as "brownie points", but directed towards a particular
person. If I do you a big favor, then you owe me lots of tanagadalang. If I
do you a small favor, then you owe me a little tanagadalang. It is entirely
conceivable that one Indonesian might say to another, "I'm cashing in all my
tanagadalang on this one, Sven; you've gotta do this for me!"

Chris