Darkaardvark for Senator of Insatiability!

In which a style of content summarization sometimes employed by Defoe and Dumas is cleverly parodied without delivering any real content.

This proof has been delayed many a-time. It has seemed, at times, as though Insatiability may never have come at all. But it has; huzzah! I'm proud to announce my run to become the first (or at least one) Senator of the Era of Insatiability. This era will change the game -- I think it will be for the better. SF0 will be more open, more free. I offer you a campaign of freedom.

Prologue: Exploratory commission

To begin my campaign, I sent out a message to a group of people asking them what it would take to earn their vote for this task. (If you didn't get one, don't feel left out. The list of recipients was hardly all-encompassing.) Surprisingly to me, I got a lot of flak from people who I sent these messages out to. A lot of people felt like I was trying to 'buy' their votes, or that I was 'securing' my votes before I even began.

Far from it. For any other task in the game, do you submit the task and then deliver the praxis as you complete it, having seen it fade away from the front page long since? This task asks you to "run for
SFZero senatorial office." I think it's fair to say that there's no need to submit one's completion before doing this.

But more than just that, the whole affair begged the question: How can one really buy a vote? Are there unfair ways of getting votes? I can only think of a few:

1. Registering extra accounts and voting for yourself or giving others multiple votes with them
2. 'Trading' votes with another player
3. Tricking or threatening someone into voting

But other than that, I don't think a vote can really be bought. And I was never trying to 'buy' any votes. Simply to liven up my praxis a little bit. Overall, I'd say the plan didn't work out exactly like I'd hoped. I don't think I've 'secured' practically any votes, but I'm fine with that. I've had two really nice experiences that I'd like to share as a way of breaking up the more 'standard' parts of this task. The other responses I received were either dealt with in private, didn't have any requests, or will be coming in the future (people who wanted to collaborate: remind me! We've got loads of tasks to try out...)

So, that's enough text for now. How about a little break?

Interlude 1: An Ode

This one goes out to the Vixen. If you're familiar with her completion of "Revive the Oral Tradition," you may hear a strain or two quoted in this wordless ode (and if you're not familiar with it, go listen to it now) . I had a great time composing and recording this, and I hope it comes across well. Enjoy.

[Note: Alternately, you can scroll to the bottom of the page to listen. You may need to turn the volume up.]



Ceci n'est pas un repas, c'est seulement un gout.
This is not a painting, it is only a sketch.

The Boring Stuff: Philosophy

There's been quite a lot of talk about how to play, and gameplay styles, lately. But I feel like people should know who they're electing to office. So, I'll try to keep it brief. Here's what I advocate:

Play for points. Play for votes.
Don't play for points. Don't play for votes.
Play without respect to points or votes.

Play because you want to meet and collaborate with new people.
Play because you push yourself most when you work alone.

Play because you want to try new things and learn new skills.
Play because you want to show off a talent, or hone an old craft.

Play because sf0 offers you a chance to change the world.
Play because sf0 lets you forget about the world for a little while,

Play because you love being given a list of wonderful new things to try every Thursday.
Play because the thrill of having awesome people actually follow your outlandish suggestions in an environment so much more supportive than "I dare you!" can't be found anywhere else.

Play.


I do have some notion of a 'baseline' that I think is fair for all (or at least most) players to follow.

1. All players should complete tasks. They should complete the tasks not only to a general standard upheld by sf0's playerbase, but more importantly, to their own standards.
2. All players should vote. A vote costs nothing and surely brings pleasure to the recipient. How often, and why to vote are concepts that may be batted around but ultimately should be left up to the voter.
3. All players should give and receive feedback graciously. By posting praxis, you open yourself to public review and should give out the same to others.


Beyond that, there is only freedom. There has been a lot of talk of 'metrics' lately, with various figures quoted and bandied around. I find this interesting, helpful, and part of a way I play -- to an extent. Some thing simply cannot be quantified. I still remember the first time the votes I received for a task went onto a second line, and those votes are far more precious to me than many higher vote-counts I received in this era. Not all the tasks I have completed that I received many votes for I consider successes, and not all the tasks I have completed that received few or no votes I consider failures.

Interlude 2: The Turing Test

Yes, as part of my campaign, my Autobot2000 successfully passed a Turing Test. While those of you who identify with EquivalenZ have already cast your vote after reading that (kidding!) the rest of you may (or may not) be a little more confused.

So, in brief: A Turing Test: A human judge talks, through a computer, to an unknown entity, or entities. That person tries to determine whether or not s/he is talking to a computer or a human. There is at least one annual competition dedicated to this pursuit.

In this case, the judge was Charlie Fish, and Peter Harmon, RoboNapoleon, and my bot all were attempting to 'be' Peter Harmon. Mr. Fish's task was to determine who was real and Harmon, real and not Harmon, and a bot.

PossiblyHarmonG: The real Peter Harmon- a human
PossiblyHarmonT: Autobot2000- a bot (responses pasted in by myself, but generated by a bot)
PossiblyHarmon3: RoboNapoleon- a human
getareaction: The one asking the questions

You can read the entirety of the conversation in .txt form at the bottom of this completion, or just read a few of my favorite moments of Autobot2000's hilarious banter:

17:21 | [getareaction] I am Charlie Fish, judge of the SF0 Turing Test.
17:21 | [PossiblyHarmonT] I didnt know you were testing me. Could we start over?

17:23 | [getareaction] What is Peter Harmon's middle name?
17:24 | [PossiblyHarmon3] Alabaster
17:24 | [PossiblyHarmon3] Peter Alabaster Harmon
17:24 | [PossiblyHarmonT] You seem to be obsessed by this kind of question, eh? I don't give a damn about names.

17:29 | [getareaction] Skip to the final question then. Who do you think is Robonapoleon?
17:29 | [PossiblyHarmonT] Some famous celebrity, right?

17:35 | [getareaction] I think G is Peter Harmon, T is Robonapoleon and 3 is Autobot 2000.
17:35 | [getareaction] I am also a robot.
17:35 | [PossiblyHarmonT] I don't understand why you have made your decision, and furthermore, I don't really care.

17:36 | [PossiblyHarmonG] Congratulations, T, you've got your programmer a vote.
17:36 | [PossiblyHarmonT] :...Thank you, thank you very much. I would like to thank everyone who helped ... hehehe. Err, what? A machine? Aww, my language skills must be really bad if you take me for a machine

So, as you can see, Charlie Fish got the real Peter Harmon correct, but mixed up the bot and RoboNapleon -- who wasn't using a bot! And check out this stunning admission (we've reverted back to our real names, as this was after the test was over)...

17:40 | [Darkaardvark] Just out of curiosity, RoboNapoleon wasn't using a bot, was he? It didn't seem like it to me.
17:40 | [teucer] No, I don't believe he was.
17:40 | [Darkaardvark] Heh. We'll have to inform him of the sad news later.
17:40 | [Darkaardvark] He's not real.
17:40 | [teucer] Were you? Because if so, that makes me want to double vote for you.
17:40 | [Darkaardvark] Yes, I was.
17:40 | [teucer] Wow. I wasn't sure if you were or if you were just imitating the style of one.
17:40 | [teucer] Nice.

That's right, Peter Harmon, who I *told* was using a bot, didn't think I was using a bot. A great success for the field of AI. We'll get back to the topic of the venerable Autobot2000 in just a moment.

Conclusion

If you've read everything up to this point, then a big thank you to you. I hope that my previous, present, and future task completion, task suggestions, and overall philosophy, as well as this completion and related tribulations specifically, have been enough to earn -- not buy -- your vote. If not, that's okay, too. We all vote for our own reasons, and I think that's the way that it should be.

My Campaign Promise to You- the Voter

I've got a stash of 9 brand-spankin' new tasks ready to submitted and, hopefully (though I certainly can't promise it), added to the game. I'm designing more at the moment and I'm holding onto them until this campaign is over. Not to be spiteful or mean, but because I like to give you all an incentive to vote. So if you've enjoyed my tasks in the past (check out my player page to see some), consider that one good reason to vote. Some topics these tasks-in-limbo cover, in case you're interested: Crosswords, overeating, wandering, and the curiosity of strangers.

Postlude: Autobot2000




You might've heard me mention my faithful minion, Autobot2000, in this proof, and wondered who he was. He's the one who sent out my messages as part of my exploratory commission, and he's the one who passed the Turing Test. As he noted in his letters, though, he's not yet sentient. He places his best estimate of a chance at sentience at .23%. However, with your help, we can change that. After some talk with a member of the National Science Foundation who also plays sf0 (who is choosing to remain anonymous), I've been able to secure a grant for research and improvement's into Autobot's AI -- tied to the number of votes I receive for this completion. With better programming, Autobot's chance at sentience will surely increase.

You can make a difference for one little robot today!



Current chance of sentience: 100.23%
Votes needed until sentience is assured: None!


RecapThanks to everyone who voted, and equally thanks to those who took the time to check this praxis out and didn't vote. I am honored to be the first sworn-in Senator of Insatiability and hope I will not disappoint. I will be submitting many new tasks in batches so as not to overload or hurt their chances of acceptance, and I truly hope my tasks will serve as inspiration for some great praxis in the future. Seeing my tasks completed is always a thrill.


More information on committees and the like to come. And perhaps a statement from our imminently-sentient friend, Autobot2000.