Post by chriscrawford on May 6, 2016 11:46:26 GMT -8
This week certainly went better than I had expected: the lying system is in place and has passed all my simple tests of its performance. A new question has arisen: should a character confront another when the first suspects that the second has lied? This ties into Chris Conley's earlier suggestion of an "are you sure of that?" response to subtly challenge another's statement. And it falls afoul of the same objection: any such comment would interfere with the sequencing of the deal.
It might be possible to add either "are you sure?" or "You are lying!" at the end of a deal. Even that, however, runs into a sequencing problem:
A agrees to deal with B
A tells B that C has X red auragons
B tells A that D has Y green auragons
B tells A that A is lying (or) B asks A if he is sure.
Here B must be allowed to hijack the thread. The normal flow alternates between the two interlocutors; for B to insert the final sentence, B must hijack the thread. But B is the subject of the previous sentence, and the subject always reacts last to an event, so hijacking should not be possible under normal conditions. And what if A wants to accuse B of lying? He's shut out!
I could try to have the question postpone the sequence of the deal, like so:
A agrees to deal with B.
A tells B that C has X red auragons.
B asks A if he is sure.
A responds with assertion of certainty
B completes the deal.
A asks B if he is sure
B responds.
That's for the simple "are you sure?" case. For the more confrontational accusation of lying, it would look like this:
A agrees to deal with B.
A tells B that C has X red auragons.
B accuses A of lying.
A either 1) insists that he's honest; 2) hides behind uncertainty; or 3) confesses and apologizes
B has multiple options: refusing to complete the deal; muttering angrily and then completing the deal; forgiving A and then completing the deal.
I have to think these over.
It might be possible to add either "are you sure?" or "You are lying!" at the end of a deal. Even that, however, runs into a sequencing problem:
A agrees to deal with B
A tells B that C has X red auragons
B tells A that D has Y green auragons
B tells A that A is lying (or) B asks A if he is sure.
Here B must be allowed to hijack the thread. The normal flow alternates between the two interlocutors; for B to insert the final sentence, B must hijack the thread. But B is the subject of the previous sentence, and the subject always reacts last to an event, so hijacking should not be possible under normal conditions. And what if A wants to accuse B of lying? He's shut out!
I could try to have the question postpone the sequence of the deal, like so:
A agrees to deal with B.
A tells B that C has X red auragons.
B asks A if he is sure.
A responds with assertion of certainty
B completes the deal.
A asks B if he is sure
B responds.
That's for the simple "are you sure?" case. For the more confrontational accusation of lying, it would look like this:
A agrees to deal with B.
A tells B that C has X red auragons.
B accuses A of lying.
A either 1) insists that he's honest; 2) hides behind uncertainty; or 3) confesses and apologizes
B has multiple options: refusing to complete the deal; muttering angrily and then completing the deal; forgiving A and then completing the deal.
I have to think these over.