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

[Daniel Lepage <dplepage@xxxxxxxxx>]

On Dec 14, 2007, at 11:34 AM, Roger Hicks wrote:

> 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?

*In theory* it could take only one day. In theory, a Consultation  
could also take only one day - if all the right people are online at  
once, a Consultation could go through in under ten minutes.

Realistically, neither will likely happen in one day. However, the  
Emergency has the advantage of stopping Game time, so it happens in  
one nday, at least.

> 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).

Waiting in an undeterminable state is bad, but waiting in an illegal  
state is worse. Your system simply chooses an answer to the  
Consultation and behaves as though it were true, with the result that  
when the Consultation comes in, we may find that the last seven days  
worth of actions were completely illegal. I would prefer an indefinite  
gamestate to an illegal one.

If the issue really does "paralyze" the game, then we should have an  
Emergency, because that stops game time, and obviously game time can't  
keep going if a consultation is paralyzing it.

In fact, one could make a good case that every Consultation should  
stop game time until it's decided. The only reason not to is that  
there are so many frivolous Consultations.

> 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.

Allowing players to perform illegal actions until the actions'  
legality is officially judged is not a reasonable solution to this  
problem.

> 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.

If an action is clearly in contradiction with the rules, somebody will  
note this on -discuss and we'll ignore the action. We don't need a  
formal mechanism requiring players to make more posts confirming this.

Moreover, there's no such thing as an "illegal Game Action". If it's  
not a legal action, it doesn't happen, so you can't target it with an  
Invalidation. Your system only allows players to Invalidate otherwise- 
valid actions.

> 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 .

Oracularities are a convoluted system equivalent in power to  
proposals, except without as many safeguards against abuse. We could  
get exactly the same effect if players would bother to propose fixing  
ambiguities in the rules.

> 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.

A definite gamestate of indefinite correctness, which IMHO is worse  
than an indefinite gamestate.

-- 
Wonko

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