Jonathan Van Matre on 13 Feb 2002 20:04:01 -0000

[Date Prev] [Date Next] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next] [Date Index] [Thread Index]

RE: spoon-discuss: Predictions of Doom and Gloom

Apart from the 1 nweek, 2 nweek time difference, I see no major difference between the bug fixing proposal alone and the same proposal with Uncle Psychosis's rule 129 mod.  

In either event, if the admin makes a mistake, someone must notice it and call attention to it within a set amount of time.

In either event, if no one notices, said mistake becomes irreversible if not noticed within that timeframe.

In either event, the Admin is free to report whatever incorrect information about the game state e likes -- for example, that a Gremlin is "flaming".  And we are free to either say "That's OK", or challenge what has been said.

However, in either event there are limits on that power, because Rule 10 requires the Admin to abide by all the rules.  So the Admin is barred from misrepresenting the game state in an illegal fashion.  E can assign bogus attributes to Gremlins (or call the gamestate blue), but e can't break the rules by, for example, resetting everyone's score to zero in a situation that doesn't require it.  This works despite Rule 129 claiming precedence over Rule 10, because Rule 10 has higher Chutzpah.  Even if the precedence doesn't work, if the admin is regularly breaking the rules, we'll all just quit playing because a rigged game is no fun, so it's in eir best interest not to do so.

Therefore, this is the precise difference between the situation with / without Uncle Psychosis's mod to Rule 129:

You either get 1 nweek or 2 nweeks to complain.

That's it.

Anyone care to demonstrate something I've missed?


> -----Original Message-----
> From: Dan [mailto:wald7330@xxxxxxxxxxxx]
> Sent: Wednesday, February 13, 2002 12:58 PM
> To: spoon-discuss@xxxxxxxxx
> Subject: spoon-discuss: Predictions of Doom and Gloom
> > > I completely agree.  I have been suspiscious of this 
> thing from the
> > > start, and I have fought valiantly to keep it from coming 
> to pass.  
> > We are > heading for a crash now. 
> > Again, how? I've yet to see a single coherent example of 
> how rule 129
> > (as opposed to some bizarre misinterpretation thereof) will cause
> > problems. Even Chicken Little had *some* evidence.
> How's this for starters:  if the Administrator makes an 
> arithmetical error
> and gives a player 5 extra points and nobody catches it then 
> the simplest
> way to make it consistant would be to add a rule which allows the
> administrator to give players points at will.  And that's not a gross
> misinterpretation of the rule.  We wouldn't know until 20 
> days later when
> someone pointed it out as part of a scam that the point system was
> entirely broken.  And that's a relatively minor thing.  What 
> happens if
> the Admin misnumbers one of the rules?  *shudder*
> My problem with it is not that it gives to the Admin the power to
> summarily overrule player actions.  The problem is that it 
> makes it too
> easy for the game state to get accidentally shagged in 
> game-breaking ways,
> and that we won't find out for 20 days.
> There that's a specific case in which the new rule 129 could 
> be abused.
> And it could be happening already for all I know.  we are 
> heading for a
> crash as soon as we get back from the pause.
> Also (although this is fixable) it should use ndays not days. 
>  Because if
> the clock is stopped for 20 days there is no way we can keep the admin
> from saying whatever e likes about the game state.
> Dan