Re: [s-d] About panics

["Geoffrey Spear" <geoffspear@xxxxxxxxx>]

On Dec 11, 2007 4:56 AM, William Berard <william.berard@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> On 12/11/07, Geoffrey Spear <geoffspear@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> > I'm panicking because anyone who feels like it can prevent anything
> > from happening in the game just by announcing that all of the actions
> > are Invalid.
>
>
> On the other hand, you just have to log a consultation to make your
> action valid again.

A Consultation can be ZOTTED, and any step in its resolution except
the action of submitting it can be declared Invalid.

> I do not think there is something fundamentally wrong with the idea in
> BobTHJ's RP : normally, the case of "invalidity spamming" was caught
> by the fact that validity consultations could then be submitted, and
> spammers punished. Now this obviously, slows down the pace of the
> game, but this should not be a major problem.
>
> The thing is that people have started trying different things,
> submitting invalid actions, or contesting the validity of actions, on
> a massive scale, to poke and probe the new ruleset, and , so to speak,
> test the water.
>
> I can see how this is freaking people out, I myself am not excluded,
> but this definitely was to be expected from such a shift in paradigm
> with BobTHJ's RP, and, if people could behave a bit in terms of poking
> a probing and fooling around just for the conceptual fun of it, and if
> there was a more streamlined process of contesting/submitting validity
> consultation/answering on validity/publicly letting now what the
> gamestate is, we would not have this panic IMHO...
>
> I think the main issue is that at the end of the day, when so many
> things happen so fast with contestations of validity, people end up
> not knowing what the gamestate is.
>
> The Ruleset we adopted from the RP was aimed at reducing the maximum
> length of so called "quantuum gamestates" to a maximum of a day.
> Instead of that, it was perceived as authorizing such gamestates and
> not-yet-completely-valid-nor-invalid actions, since the rules deal
> with them, then there is no reason we should abstain from generating
> them, is there?
>
> I think at the end of the day, that's a fair-play and sportsmanship
> issue. I don't think it was very cool from the people who logged game
> actions and contestation to test the robustness of the rules to have
> done so to such an extent (and I'm not even pointing fingers, since so
> much happened in so little time that I don't even remember who it
> was). On the otherhand, it is hard to define sportsmanship in a game
> whose very nature makes that the clever exploitation of a loophole
> will be seen as a well-deserved victory. And really, when thinking
> about it, this is just some kind of evolutionary sink-or-swim test for
> the ruleset. The robustness of the ruleset needs to be tested at some
> point.
>
> On a side note, if anyone feels like including (maybe not in a RP, but
> for a later proposal) some kind of implementation of a "Karma" or a
> reward/punishement system (on an incentive/symbolic level rather than
> really advantaging or disadventaging, e.g giving out awards and
> shame-wards every nweek) regarding fair play and blatant abuse of
> fragile rulesets, I'll definitely support this motion.
>
> --
> Will
>
> _______________________________________________
> spoon-discuss mailing list
> spoon-discuss@xxxxxxxxx
> http://lists.ellipsis.cx/mailman/listinfo/spoon-discuss
>



-- 
Geoffrey Spear
http://www.geoffreyspear.com/
_______________________________________________
spoon-discuss mailing list
spoon-discuss@xxxxxxxxx
http://lists.ellipsis.cx/mailman/listinfo/spoon-discuss