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

["Jamie Dallaire" <bad.leprechaun@xxxxxxxxx>]

Nice. I think this addresses most of the problems. A few comments below.

On Dec 11, 2007 2:05 AM, Roger Hicks <pidgepot@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:

> The objective of this refresh proposal is to quickly remedy the
> problems with my previous RP. Honestly, a few minor tweaks is all that
> is required. This is not an official submission, merely a draft.
>
> Refresh Proposal (Draft)
> {
>
> [[Issue: panic buttons & emergency state unknown?
> Fix: allow synonyms for activation of panic buttons, validate past
> attempts to press/depress, and therefore validate the commonly assumed
> gamestate.]]
> Amend rule 0 by inserting after the fifth paragraph:
> {{
> Synonyms for the above actions have the same effect as taking those
> actions as long as the declared action is unambiguous in meaning


Should we simply state in the rules that the action must specify the new
state, on or off, of the panic button? e.g. I hit my panic button, turning
it on. This would prevent any useless arguments about whether the word Hit
acts as a toggle or simply as a button presser, for example.


>
> }}
> The above amendment to rule 0 has a retroactive effect, causing all
> unambiguous declarations of a player's individual panic button state
> changes within the past month to be valid when in compliance with
> other aspects of rule 0.


This might not be necessary and a little long to track. All the panic
buttons are set to off when we leave the emergency anyway. Perhaps it might
be better to validate the gamestate at a certain point (I'd suggest the
start of nweek 135) that we go back to, as certain other proto-RPs have been
doing (Murphy and Wooble, IIRC). Could also specify in addition that the
current emergency did indeed happen, regardless of what anyone may say about
panic buttons...


>
>
> [[Issue: controlling the game through invalidating other player's actions.
> Solution: require 2 support for an invalidation. Protect all aspects
> of the Consultation system from spontaneous invalidation.]]
> Amend rule 1-10 by replacing the paragraph beginning with:
> {{
> Any player (as a Game Action) may declare any Game Action which has
> occurred within the past NDay to be Invalid
> }}
> with the following:
> {{
> As a Game Action with 2 Support, any Player may declare any Game
> Action which has occurred within the past NDay to be Invalid, unless
> that Game Action is one of the following:


Can the phrase "within the past nday" be cleared up? It's not something that
is well defined under clock or duration rule, and maybe it can be replaced
by "since the start of the previous nday" or something to that effect (if
that is the intention behind the original sentence).


>
> * Declaring another action invalid
> * Submitting a consultation
> * The Oracle assigning a Waiting Consultation to a Priest
> * A Priest answering a Waiting Consultation to which they have been
> assigned and not removed (and possibly submitting an Oracularity)
> * The Oracle Zotting a consultation
> * Any player making a claim of consistency or inconsistency on a
> consultation when permitted to do so by the rules.


Way to go. Perhaps we need to protect usurpation of ministries, at the very
least the ministry of questions, as well. Otherwise I can declare the
taking/usurping of the MoQ by another player invalid, thus invalidating by
proxy all the zotting, assigning, answering, oracularities, etc. that
happened while under that player's judgment. But I can't figure out right
now if that would lead to a situation where I could say something like "I
usurp the MoQ regardless of any objections that may be forthcoming"...


>
>
> An action which has been declared invalid is treated as if it never
> occurred. An Outsider whose Game Action has been declared invalid may
> submit a consultation about the validity of that action. When that
> consultation becomes Pondered, if the priest determines that action is
> indeed valid, the Player who declared it invalid, and each Player who
> supported that declaration loses 10 points. However, if the priest
> finds that the action was indeed invalid, the actor loses 10 Points.


Good, I quite like the removal of the funky consultation wording
requirement.

Should we also add a time limit on submitting such consultations, starting
from when they were declared invalid? Otherwise we could technically end up
with a consultation submitted 2 nweeks after a declaration of invalidity,
leading to one HELL of an oracularity... But then that might be outside the
scope of your RP ;-)


>
> }}
> [[Issue: Spamming consultations regarding clearly invalid actions
> Solution: point penalty (see above). Impose limits on consultation
> submission (outside the scope of this refresh proposal)]]


So should you lose points only if your consultation fails or also if its
zotted? Cause if I want to punish a spammer and I'm MoQ, I'd quicker ZOT
than bother assigning and whatnot.


>
>
> [[Issue: Arbitrary zotting of consultations by the Oracle (judicial
> activism)
> Solution: 2 Support required for zotting (outside the scope of this
> refresh proposal)]]


Should that REALLY be outside the scope of the RP? I know you want to keep
changes to a minimum and I appreciate that, but I think this issue is one of
hte main problems that caused this emergency and that could cause another.
Essentially, if this RP passes and I am the first to grab the MoQ, I can go
about declaring any other player's actions to be invalid as much as I
please, and simply ZOT any and all consultations regarding the matter. I
also have even more power than under the current rules, as pretty much
everything I do is protected from declarations of invalidity (except for
taking the ministry in the first place... which leads back to that vicious
circle thingy...).

And on that note, I'm even leary of requiring only 2 or 3 support for things
like this, especially until we can conclusively establish that AFO and
Agora's Child are not players and cannot become players :-D

Maybe ZOTTING could be declared consistent vs inconsistent rather than
relying on the support mechanism? Although that might significantly lengthen
the period of pseudo-quantum flux which I know goes entirely against your
original intention. We could just keep the consistent-inconsistent
declaration period as short as the support period. Or alternately require
support without more than X objections (X > 1 so it's not just the
supplicant...).


>
> }
>
> Comments gladly accepted.
>

Gladly given.


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


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