Re: [s-d] [s-b] BobTHJ's Refresh Proposal

["William P. Berard" <william.berard@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

I'll have to answer quickly because I've got to make a move.

your explanation shed a new light to the second, and most recent part, 
of your proposal. I have to say I find it very interesting that I 
Interpreted it in a more dangerous way than you obviously had in mind 
when writing it. I have no bias towards anyone here, as I am new, I 
just grabbed the text and read it and tried and think of possible 
loophole, point by point..

now, with your explanations, then it all seems to make more sense, but 
bear in mind that If I interpreted it that wya, maybe it is because 
those intention were not completely transparent. the wording you use 
will ultimately become a rule if this proposal is to pass, and people 
will be arguing over its interpretation. Maybe I am the only one here, 
but I did not think that what you now explain, _ in particular_ the way 
Priest are obligated to answer consultation in accordance with the 
rules in general and the "permitted/regulated/prohibited" might need to 
be stressed out more in the actual text to prevent risks of abuse.

I am still supporting the second part, but I do not see any answer 
regarding the first comments. 0x44 has made a slightly different 
version of your proposal, and, in the state things currently are, I 
think I will vote for his, since he does not scrap the device laws. I 
still think there is a massive problem in the way you want to 
centralise playership around the powers of the registrar.

This alone would be enough to actually disqualify both your and 0x44's 
proposal for my vote. As Hose validely mentioned, the more things you 
include, the less likely you are to get unconditioned support (and the 
fact that people will come off with a slightly alternate version of 
your proposal with effectively dilute your support), so I am curious of 
knowing what you think of my Meta-Proposal idea.

Will



Le 27 nov. 07, à 06:54, Roger Hicks a écrit :

> On Nov 26, 2007 5:03 PM, William P. Berard
> <william.berard@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>>
>> NEW comment :
>>
>> How does this fit in your view of fast, oracularities-based
>> legislation? Don't you think that this rule become redundant within 
>> the
>> system you propose? you state yourself that apparently invalid actions
>> can be valid unless objected to, and if they are objected to they can
>> still be deemed valid by a priest's judgement, although people can
>> object, but we can reach a gamestate where an action in contradiction
>> with the rules can be deemed valid?
>>
> This actually is what makes the Oracularity system I proposed work.
> Priests are obligated by the rules to answer consultations in
> accordance with the rules. If "Permissible if not regulated" is added
> to the rules then the Priest is obligated to judge an action that
> attempts to change a regulated value as invalid.
>
> I'd also like to note that making actions in contradiction to the
> rules valid has been possible all along (and in truth could never
> really be made impossible). Take Primo Corporation's magical
> transformation from player into faction as an example. The rules did
> not permit this, yet due to the answer of a priest it occurred.
>
>>
>>
>> Now we are getting to the new stuff :
>>
>>
>>>
>>> Append to Rule 1-10 "Game Actions":
>>> {{
>>> Any player (as a Game Action) may declare any Game Action which has
>>> occurred within the past NDay to be Invalid, unless that Game Action
>>> was to declare another Game Action invalid, or to submit a
>>> consultation. An invalid Game Action is treated as if it never
>>> occurred. An Outsider whose Game Action has been declared invalid may
>>> submit a consultation whose text reads "XXX is valid", where XXX is
>>> the Game Action they attempted to perform. When that consultation
>>> becomes Pondered, the Player who declared that game action to be
>>> invalid loses 10 Points.
>>>
>>
>> What if the Priest Answers "NO" ? maybe if the action is confirmed to
>> be invalid, and 4ndays pass without objection, the player who did the
>> invalid action loses points?
>>
> Oops! I intended for the point loss only to occur if the priest
> answered yes. I will correct this in my next revision.
>
>>> Any Game Action which has not been declared invalid by the above
>>> within the allowed timespan is considered to be valid in every way,
>>> even if it is in contradiction to the rules.
>>> [[Note: This ensures that illegal actions can not cause the gamestate
>>> to be reversed more than one day]]
>>> }}
>>
>> Hmm, I don't like the idea of a game action being valid while in
>> contradiction to the rules. Hopefully, if such a game action was to be
>> deemed valid, the Priest would submit an Oracularity which would 
>> change
>> the rules so as to make it valid. But perhaps "Hopefully" is not
>> enough, and if a game action in contradiction to the rules is valid,
>> the priest SHOULD have to submit an Oracularity?
>>
> Consider the situation where a game action which is in contradiction
> to the rules might be declared valid. Obviously, if the game action is
> clearly against the rules then it will be quickly declared invalid.
> This provision only exists for those circumstances where a game action
> which occurred last week is suddenly found to be in contradiction to
> the rules due to a minor technicality no one noticed. This essentially
> says "since no one noticed it was invalid, let's pretend it was
> valid., and avoids the huge mess that would occur by changing an
> action that occurred a week in the past. The Cudgel/Rapier situation
> was a good example of this. True, it was easily corrected, but next
> time it might not be.
>>>
>>> Delete the section titled "Oculatiries" from Rule 2-2
>>
>> "Oracularities"... hehe, tricky one, innit? I keep getting it wrong
>> myself...
>>
> Dangit, I spelled it wrong every time....
>>
>>
>> As you mention further down in the text, this effectively enable to 
>> fix
>> the ruleset in a quick and efficient manner. Now, I think one could
>> argue that this also boils down to effectively alter the ruleset,
>> adding, removing or changing rules, with a cut/down voting system.
>> Although This would probably be a minor problem given the current pace
>> of the game, I find it dangerous.
>>
>> The problem with the claim system as it was before was the high 
>> quorum.
>> you adress this issue, below, by simply tallying without needing the
>> quorum, but the problem will remain for regular proposal vote. I agree
>> with 0x44 who pointed out on IRC that the recent change inthe
>> definition of an active player in rule 3-15 has had the side effect of
>> increasing the quorum to the point of non managability. It is not
>> completely far fetched to think that, out of all the players who post
>> in a given nWeek, half of them could not be able or willing to vote
>> during the Voting Period. If you want to go for a deep change in the
>> rules, I think you need to lower the quorum or change the active 
>> status
>> condition.
>>
> I am all for reducing quorum on regular proposals. 20-30% of active
> players seems reasonable to me, if quorum is needed at all. However, I
> didn't think it to be a big enough priority to include in the refresh
> proposal.
>>
>>
>> I quite fancy the idea of fixing gamestate quantuum conflicts quickly,
>> and I love the idea of a fast paced game, but I think, although I
>> cannot think of any better solution to the gamestate quantuum thingy
>> issue, that there is a very strong underlying danger in this system.
>> But hey, that is the fun of the game.
>>
>> This basically mean Players will be able to indirectly change rules
>> through a minimal and fast voting system. It is not completely 
>> unlekely
>> to imagine a "low tide" player frequentation situation where a couple
>> of players could do something very nasty to the ruleset.
>>
>> Not only is it dangerous internally, but it makes the game vulnerable
>> to external takeover as well.
>>
>
> I don't really see the danger. If a priest gets abusive with an
> Oracularity, it is likely that players will quickly respond with cries
> of inconsistancy. True, it could be abused if there were a sudden
> surge of apathy among most of the players. However, many other things
> could be abused as well. And, if no one is paying attention as a
> result of apathy, then would anyone really care if this was abused?
>
>> Also look at how you propose to tally votes "If there exist more 
>> Claims
>> of Inconsistency than claims of Consistency, the consultation ceases 
>> to
>> be Answered and becomes Waiting. " it means in case of egality, the
>> controversial action remains valid... Of course, the Supplicant can't
>> vote, so at least there's already an obvious vote taken off. but the
>> unbeliever cannot vote either. I suspect than when loggin a validity
>> consultation, one would target the objecting player as the unbeliever.
>> What about the priest? can he vote on the consistency? he will tend to
>> defend the consistency of his answer.
>>
> I'm not opposed to changing the voting mechanism/requirements or
> implementing a small quorum to prevent abuse. I was just borrowing off
> the existing system to get things started.
>>>
>>>
>
>>> This also neatly solves the Ocularity / stare decisis problem that 
>>> has
>>> been discussed. The only rules of the game are in the ruleset. There
>>> is no need to hunt through past consultations to find answers to what
>>> is and is not permitted. Also, Ocularities under this revision are 
>>> not
>>> proposals (although they have a similar effect) and operate under a
>>> separate set of guidelines, allowing them to be implemented more
>>> quickly, and without the extra red-tape. Finally, Ocularities (in a
>>> roundabout way) allow for more rapid changes to the B Nomic gamestate
>>> and rules as has been proposed while still ensuring a protected
>>> process.
>>>
>>
>> Without going through the example of an obviously abusive invalid
>> action, this system would allow an invalid action to be validated, and
>> a corresponding rule to be added to the ruleset as an oracularity. the
>> problem is, it then becomes very difficult to remove this rule by
>> regular voting : it is a more lenghthy process, there is a quorum to 
>> be
>> reached, etc... I suspect people will tend then to use the same system
>> to reverse the rule, deliberately violating the new rule to try and
>> reverse it through a quick vote.... I am just thinking out loud, but
>> thing about it....
>
> I suspect that having the Oracularity system as such would cause
> players to quickly claim inconsistency if any priest steps out of line
> with an Oracularity.
>>
>> To sum up, I actually quite like the idea of the new oracularity
>> system, Just for the sake of making a fast paced and interesting game,
>> and because I would like to see it in place to see how it would work
>> and how it would shift the paradigms of the game. So you've got my
>> support on that (although maybe doing something about the tallying of
>> the Claims votes, the priests being able to vote, and implementing a
>> punishment system for an action confirmed to be invalid could be 
>> good).
>>
> I'm glad you asked about a punishment system. I had one in mind that
> fits well into this. See my next revision.
>
> BobTHJ
> _______________________________________________
> spoon-discuss mailing list
> spoon-discuss@xxxxxxxxx
> http://lists.ellipsis.cx/mailman/listinfo/spoon-discuss
>

_______________________________________________
spoon-discuss mailing list
spoon-discuss@xxxxxxxxx
http://lists.ellipsis.cx/mailman/listinfo/spoon-discuss