Merging multiple new experiment features (classes, advantaged pay, clean aborts)

[kodacapo]

Three new features, mostly driven by experiments where Fish is invoked from, and returns to, a subject provider such as Gorilla.

(1) The "Class" feature allows subjects to be associated with one of several classes (female/male, progressive/conservative, poor/average/rich, etc). Subjects' class associations are displayed using class-specific emojis. The "Class" feature is implemented using URL params and microworld settings. See the "EXPLAIN" button on the Microworld definition page.

(2) The "Advantage" feature allows experimenters to assign different payments to classes. The "Advantage" feature is implemented using URL params and microworld settings. See the "EXPLAIN" button on the Microworld definition page.

(3) The "Clean Abort" feature uses timeouts to ask the user whether to continue reading the instructions when they first connect to Fish, or continue to wait for additional fishers to join before a Fish simulation can start. The experimenter has full control over the number, the durations and the displayed messages of timeouts, and the URL to where aborting subjects are directed. The "Clean Abort" feature is implemented using microworld settings. See the "EXPLAIN" button in the Microworld definition page.

[jorgearanda]

Would it be possible to get translations for these?

[jorgearanda]

If I understand correctly, this formula wouldn't account for fishing costs on the hypothetical side. If I spent $5 departing to sea, casting for fish, etc., that's reflected in the money that I have, but not in hypotheticalMoney.

The way to get around that is to only get the difference of fish values without considering the fishing costs (which are the same for both classes). Something like:

function computeProfitGap(fisher) {
    var diff = getEffectiveFishValue(fisher) - getOtherClassFishValue(fisher);
    return (fisher.totalFishCaught * diff).toFixed(2);
}

[kodacapo]

Of course. Don’t know how that happened; I got translations for all the other new ones. - - -   /-/ a n sDr. Johannes A. ***@***.*** Jul 5, 2026, at 01:01, Jorge Aranda ***@***.***> wrote: @jorgearanda commented on this pull request. In public/js/localization.js:

@@ -257,6 +257,134 @@ fr['info_overall'] = 'En tout';

pt['info_overall'] = 'Total'; ko['info_overall'] = '총'; +en['info_payGap'] = 'Pay Gap'; +cn['info_payGap'] = 'Pay Gap'; +ct['info_payGap'] = 'Pay Gap'; +de['info_payGap'] = 'Pay Gap'; +es['info_payGap'] = 'Pay Gap'; +fr['info_payGap'] = 'Pay Gap'; +pt['info_payGap'] = 'Pay Gap'; +ko['info_payGap'] = 'Pay Gap'; Would it be possible to get translations for these? —Reply to this email directly, view it on GitHub, or unsubscribe.You are receiving this because you authored the thread.Message ID: ***@***.***>

[kodacapo]

Good point!Your fix sounds very reasonable. But there is a more general question here. Does an advantaged fisher only benefit wrt fish value, or also wrt fishing costs?Becca and Richardt have not used fishing costs in their experiments so that never came up in the discussions around advantage. I wonder if a percentage P would be more general (value+P%,costs-P%)?Either that or more url parameters.  I’ll confer with Becca and Richardt; what’s your thinking about this?- - -   /-/ a n sDr. Johannes A. ***@***.*** Jul 5, 2026, at 01:04, Jorge Aranda ***@***.***> wrote: @jorgearanda commented on this pull request. In public/js/fish.js:

+// Get the fish value used by the "other class" of fisher (with or without advantage).

+function getOtherClassFishValue(currentFisher) { + if (!ocean.fisherAdvantageEnabled) return ocean.fishValue; + var currentHasAdvantage = currentFisher.params && currentFisher.params.fHasAdvantage; + if (currentHasAdvantage) { + return ocean.fishValue; + } else { + return ocean.fishValue + (ocean.fishValuePayGap || 0); + } +} + +// Compute profit gap: actual money minus hypothetical money with other class's fish value +function computeProfitGap(fisher) { + var otherFishValue = getOtherClassFishValue(fisher); + var hypotheticalMoney = fisher.totalFishCaught * otherFishValue; + return (fisher.money - hypotheticalMoney).toFixed(2); If I understand correctly, this formula wouldn't account for fishing costs on the hypothetical side. If I spent $5 departing to sea, casting for fish, etc., that's reflected in the money that I have, but not in hypotheticalMoney. The way to get around that is to only get the difference of fish values without considering the fishing costs (which are the same for both classes). Something like: function computeProfitGap(fisher) { var diff = getEffectiveFishValue(fisher) - getOtherClassFishValue(fisher); return (fisher.totalFishCaught * diff).toFixed(2); } —Reply to this email directly, view it on GitHub, or unsubscribe.You are receiving this because you authored the thread.Message ID: ***@***.***>

[jorgearanda]

Good point!Your fix sounds very reasonable. But there is a more general question here. Does an advantaged fisher only benefit wrt fish value, or also wrt fishing costs?

Yes, that would be the key question. As it is set up, they would only benefit from fish values—if fish costs are different, that would also need to be set up in the microworld settings. I'm interested in learning what Rebecca and Richardt have to say.

[kodacapo]

Becca and Richardt do not need any cost reductions in the system. They have already defined their next experiments, and are publishing based on the definitions, so they don’t care if anything gets added wrt costs, as long as nothing changes wrt fish value pay gaps. But I agree with your observation that experiment designers with advantaged fishers should have the ability to define costs reductions also, so I’m now in the middle of implementing those, in parallel to the pay gap stuff. Here’s the final plan: Updated plan ⎿ /plan to preview ⏺ User approved Claude's plan ⎿ Plan saved to: ~/.claude/plans/lazy-giggling-salamander.md · /plan to edit Add cost-reduction parameters to Fisher Advantage Context The "Fisher Advantage" section in the microworld config page (views/microworld.pug) already lets experimenters give advantaged fishers a higher fish value via "Fish value pay gap" (fishValuePayGap). The user wants three more advantage parameters, mirroring the three cost fields in the "Economics" section: - Cost to attempt to fish (costCast) - Cost to set sail (costDeparture) - Cost per second at sea (costSecond) Each gets a paired "cost reduction" value: the amount by which that cost is reduced for advantaged fishers. This follows the same shape as the existing pay-gap field (a checkbox-gated section, a model field, a form input, server-side logic in fisher.js, and client-side display in fish.js). Design decision (confirmed with user): a cost reduction may not exceed its corresponding base cost. This is validated on the config form, the same way fishValuePayGap is validated today — it blocks saving with an error message rather than silently clamping at runtime. Implementation 1. Data model — src/models/microworld-model.js Add three Number fields to params, next to fishValuePayGap: costCastReduction: Number, costDepartureReduction: Number, costSecondReduction: Number, 2. Form — views/microworld.pug In the "Fisher Advantage" section (~line 311-345), add three new .row.fisher-advantage-option.hide blocks right after the existing "Fish value pay gap" row (~line 321-326), following the exact same markup pattern (label + tooltip <a> + .col-md-6 numeric input, .to-disable class, min='0', step='0.01', value='0.00'): - #cost-cast-reduction — label "Cost to attempt to fish reduction", tooltip "Reduction in the cost to attempt to fish for advantaged fishers" - #cost-departure-reduction — label "Cost to set sail reduction", tooltip "Reduction in the cost to set sail for advantaged fishers" - #cost-second-reduction — label "Cost per second at sea reduction", tooltip "Reduction in the cost per second at sea for advantaged fishers" 3. Client admin JS — public/js/microworld.js - Tooltip init: add .tooltip() calls for the 3 new tooltip anchors near line 62-64. - Validation (inside the existing if ($('#enable-fisher-advantage').prop('checked')) block, ~line 361-374, alongside the pay-gap check): for each of the three, validate the reduction is a non-negative number and does not exceed the corresponding base cost (cost-cast, cost-departure, cost-second), e.g. "The cost to attempt to fish reduction cannot exceed the cost to attempt to fish." - Save (~line 469-490): add mw.costCastReduction = $('#cost-cast-reduction').val(); and the other two. - Load (~line 643-647, 669-671): add $('#cost-cast-reduction').val(mw.params.costCastReduction || 0); and the other two. 4. Server engine logic — src/engine/fisher.js Add a small helper to replace the inline advantage check already duplicated at line 190-191: this.hasAdvantage = function () { return this.ocean.microworld.params.fisherAdvantageEnabled && this.params && this.params.fHasAdvantage; }; Use it at the three cost sites — since the form guarantees reduction ≤ base cost, no runtime clamping is needed, just a straight subtraction: - goToSea (line 179-183): reduce costDeparture by costDepartureReduction when advantaged. - tryToFish (line 185-201): reduce costCast by costCastReduction when advantaged (also simplify the existing pay-gap check to use hasAdvantage()). - runBot (line 208-209): reduce costSecond by costSecondReduction when advantaged. Pattern for each: var cost = baseCost - (this.hasAdvantage() ? (reductionParam || 0) : 0); 5. Client game display — public/js/fish.js updateCosts() (line 359-393) already computes an advantage-adjusted displayFishValue. Apply the same pattern to the three cost lines: when ocean.fisherAdvantageEnabled && pParams.fHasAdvantage, subtract the corresponding reduction before displaying costDeparture/costCast/costSecond. 6. Documentation modal — views/explain-fisher-advantage.pug Add three dt/dd entries under "Parameters" (after the existing "Fish value pay gap" entry) describing the new cost-reduction fields and the "cannot exceed the base cost" validation rule. 7. Tests - src/engine/fisher.test.js: add cases for goToSea/tryToFish/runBot verifying an advantaged fisher pays the reduced cost, and a non-advantaged fisher (or advantage disabled) pays the full cost. - public/js/fish.test.js: extend the existing updateCosts() tests (around line 969-1009) with advantage-adjusted cost cases, mirroring the existing fishValuePayGap display tests. - public/js/microworld.test.js (if it covers form validation) or manual check: confirm saving is blocked when a reduction exceeds its base cost. No new localization strings are needed — the microworld config page and its labels (like the existing cost labels) are English-only/unlocalized, unlike the participant-facing info_* keys in localization.js. Verification - Kill the dev server before testing (per project convention — tests bind port 8080). - npm test — confirm 0 failures, including new fisher.test.js/fish.test.js cases. - Manual check: npm run dev, create/edit a microworld with fisher advantage enabled, set base costs and reductions (try one exceeding its base cost to confirm the validation error), join the game as an advantaged fisher (&fhasadvantage) and a regular one, confirm displayed and actually-deducted costs differ correctly. Thanks, - - - /-/ a n s

…

On Jul 6, 2026, at 01:18, Jorge Aranda ***@***.***> wrote: jorgearanda left a comment (jorgearanda/fish#263) <#263 (comment)> Good point!Your fix sounds very reasonable. But there is a more general question here. Does an advantaged fisher only benefit wrt fish value, or also wrt fishing costs? Yes, that would be the key question. As it is set up, they would only benefit from fish values—if fish costs are different, that would also need to be set up in the microworld settings. I'm interested in learning what Rebecca and Richardt have to say. — Reply to this email directly, view it on GitHub <#263?email_source=notifications&email_token=ABRJ7CKIZMW3NNLT3DWRXO35DMZCHA5CNFSNUABFM5UWIORPF5TWS5BNNB2WEL2JONZXKZKDN5WW2ZLOOQXTIOBYHEZTINJQG42KM4TFMFZW63VGMF2XI2DPOKSWK5TFNZ2KYZTPN52GK4S7MNWGSY3L#issuecomment-4889345074>, or unsubscribe <https://github.com/notifications/unsubscribe-auth/ABRJ7CJMPGJCQG25QGYO4ZL5DMZCHAVCNFSNUABDKJSXA33TNF2G64TZHMZDEMJYHEZTOO2JONZXKZJ3GQ2TSOJTGE4TMMZWUF3AE>. You are receiving this because you authored the thread.