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

[0x44 <bnomic@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

BobTHJ's revised Refresh proposal no longer repeals the device rules. 
I'm not certain my changes to the device rules need to be in a Refresh 
proposal, and may retract or revise my proposal away from BobTHJ's. 
Since he no longer repeals rule 3-12 and 3-14, I think BobTHJ's proposal 
changes the ruleset least as necessary to actually repair the gamestate 
and pull us out of the emergency.

--
0x44;



William P. Berard wrote:
> 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
>   
_______________________________________________
spoon-discuss mailing list
spoon-discuss@xxxxxxxxx
http://lists.ellipsis.cx/mailman/listinfo/spoon-discuss