Re: [s-d] [s-b] My RP: Set everything.

["Roger Hicks" <pidgepot@xxxxxxxxx>]

On 12/14/07, Daniel Lepage <dplepage@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> When this arises, you have to take some time no matter what. It's
> unreasonable to expect any player to check his/her email more than
> once a day, and even that's a stretch sometimes. This means that no
> matter how you set it up, formally asserting the validity of an action
> will take at least four days:
>   * The action is taken
>   * Up to 24 hours later the Minister refutes the action
>   * Up to 24 hours later the actor CFJs it
>   * Up to 24 hours later the Oracle assigns the CFJ
>   * Up to 24 hours later the Judge rules
>
> And if it's a very serious question, that has to be answered before
> the game can go on, then you declare a State of Emergency and speed an
> RP through. This is precisely why my version of section 0 has short-
> circuiting - In the event that something stupid stops the game, we
> should all be able to simultaneously hit our panic buttons and vote
> for somebody's Finalized RP, so that the emergency starts and stops
> virtually instantaneously. The whole thing could happen in under a day
> if enough people are online at the right times.
>
So resolving a minor ambiguity takes a minimum of 4 days, but
resolving a game-stopping state of emergency takes only one?

I agree with your comments regarding consultations. Consultations
should not be made unless the validity of an action is actually in
question. However, the problem here lies with players calling for
Consultations when they shouldn't. Neither your system nor mine
addresses that.

The invalidity system I set up with the last RP really has nothing to
do with the nature or duration of consultations. It's purpose was to
maintain a defined gamestate during them. Sure, ambiguities need to be
solved by consultation, and I agree that it takes time...not only for
the judicial system to process it through, but for players to make
comments and arguments for and against their positions. However, the
problem arises when the gamestate is undetermined during this time
window. Spending 4-7 days in a quantum state waiting for an answered
consultation to become pondered is problematic. It either paralyzes
the game (because everyone is unsure what actions will be valid) or in
the most recent case leads to an undeterminable gamestate (because
everyone goes ahead and takes actions that may have questionable
validity without waiting for the answer).

Under the invalidity system implemented in the last emergency (if the
bugs are removed) the gamestate can always be determined to within one
day of present. Ambiguity can be resolved through consultations &
oracularities while still maintaining a definite gamestate through the
entire process. When the consultation and corresponding oracularity
become pondered, no one has to go back and sort through the mess of
actions within the last week to determine which of those actions were
legal and which were not.

The calling of frivolous consultations is a problem, and I fully agree
on this issue. Players should exercise prudence in selecting when to
call a consultation. Let's look at each of the consultation categories
you mention above as they relate to both the old system (prior to the
first emergency) and the new system (put into place by Billy
Pilgrim/my refresh proposal):

1) Consultations about mistakes.
OLD: As long as everyone agreed that the action was clearly not legal,
there wasn't any issue here. The caller of the consultation shouldn't
have submitted it because the rules are clear. However, if even one
player believed that the action might possibly be legal, then there
was no clear way to determine it's validity except through a
consultation.
NEW: These type of consultations should never arise. If an action is
clearly in contradiction with the rules, it will quickly be declared
invalid. The actor can then call a consultation only if they truly
believe the action is indeed valid.

2) Consultations answered by the rules
OLD: These typically didn't pose much of a problem since players
usually formed a consensus on this long before the consultation was
pondered.
NEW: Not much change. Players can still call these types of
consultations even though they are unnecessary. This issue really has
to do more with the experience level of the playerbase and less with
the rules. New Players who don't have a firm grasp of the rules (or of
Nomic in general) are typically the ones who submit these
consultations.

3) Redundant Consultations
OLD: This was a flaw in the old ruleset. On contested topics where
opinion was split (such as new player registration) the result of a
consultation often corresponded to the personal opinion of the priest.
The easiest way to overturn the precedent of a previous consultation
was to call a new one with essentially the same subject matter in
hopes that a more favorable priest might be assigned. Consider the
Primo Corp incident as an example. Primo registered and was declared
to be a player in the first round of consultations. However, the
players who were opposed to this continued to submit similar
consultations until they found a priest who would agree with them and
remove Primo's playerhood.
NEW: Strengthening Oracularities and removing stare decisis was an
attempt at lessening the above problem. The decision of the priest
would be written into the rules via Oracularity thereby creating a
clear boundry for future consultations. Players seemed to pay little
attention to the results of past consultations (which are supposed to
guide gameplay), probably because their results are not clearly stated
and organized with the rules. With an Oracularity, the results of a
consultation are placed directly into the ruleset, making it far more
contradictory (in the minds of players) for a future priest of a
similar consultation to override them .

4) Stupid Consultations
OLD: In all fairness, there weren't many of these. However at that
point B had a fairly mature (experience-wise) player base.
NEW: This is unchanged. Newer players tend to call these types of
consultations because to them it is new. To more experienced players
who have seen it done many times before, it is boring. I expect to see
a drop in these types of consultations as the flood of new players
become more experienced.

5) Genuine Consultations
This wasn't on your list, but was implied. These are the types of
consultations we want. Consultations that address actions that are
clearly ambiguous.
OLD: As stated above, these left the gamestate in a state of confusion
for about a week (4 days to have it assigned and answered, plus
another 3 days before it become pondered). This worked marginally well
when activity was low, and the playerbase was experienced enough to
wait for the answer before trying further questionable actions. With
the influx of new players and the corresponding rise in activity, it
quickly fell apart.
NEW: I already described this above, but the new system (if the bugs
are corrected) maintains a definite gamestate to within a day.

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