Re: Deals and obligations

["Todd Gemmell" <todd@coyotegrits.com>]

Chris,

have you boiled this down to a more simple deal making equation like you did
in balance of power??

-T


> 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
>