[FRIAM] "chilling effect"

[uǝlƃ ☤>$]

OK. Well, as Nick pointed out recently, the Constitution (just for example) was *intentionally* gamed ... even before it was written. So even before the game is defined, the "unintentional" side effects are already being considered as primary effects. So, what *seems* epi to one player isn't seen as epi to another player. In fact, if I can trick you into either not seeing some effect, say, for hundreds of years, then I'm likely to win the game.

The point being that the qualifier "epi", if applied to the actual thing in the world like a law or a stone, implies something much deeper (and I argue fictitious) than "epi" as applied to, say, a single player's understanding of the rules of some game.

Since chilling effect has such a long history and has been explicitly designed for, it's not "epi" if attributed to the things, themselves. But they could be considered tricks effectively played on various opponents.

In a totalitarian "closed world" game, it's sensible to attribute "epi" to parts of that game, bugs that become features. But in an open world game, there is no epi. There are no bugs. They're all features from day one even if some particular player is ignorant of them.


On 11/11/21 9:43 AM, Steve Smith wrote:
> I saw it as "epi" in the sense that it started out NOT as part of the legal system and emerged as a technique which eventually got formalized.   Perhaps you are accurate that this transition moved it from epi to first-class, but I see it as having emergent/epi origins?
> 
> I didn't decode Jon's URL far enough to determine if he cut/pasted it in the middle of an edit attempt or not...  I *do* often, myself read the "talk" pages of a wikipedia page when I'm curious about whether certain controversial issues have been discussed about the page.

-- 
"Better to be slapped with the truth than kissed with a lie."
☤>$ uǝlƃ