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

["Roger Hicks" <pidgepot@xxxxxxxxx>]

On 12/14/07, Daniel Lepage <dplepage@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>
> On Dec 14, 2007, at 11:34 AM, Roger Hicks wrote:
>
> > 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.
>
Yes, although a consultation is a minimum of 4 days (the waiting
period for it to become pondered).
>
> 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.
>
There is no waiting in an illegal state. The rules make that state
legal. You can't argue with the rules. Yes, there is the possibility
for abuse by declaring perfectly normal actions to be invalid...as was
seen just prior to this latest emergency. However, with appropriate
safeguards (2 Support) in place there is no reason this has to be a
common occurrence.

> 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.
>
So we either put the game on hold for a week once every few ndays
while we wait for a consultation to be processed or we determine some
method for the game to go on during consultations. In my opinion that
latter is a far better choice.

> > 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.
>
I agree. Hence why any disputed action is illegal until judged legal.
It wouldn't work in reverse (where actions are valid until judged
invalid). Please don't confuse what I am advocating.

Hmm, actually, the old way of doing things operated much closer to
that. The only way to definitively prove to a player that their action
was invalid was to wait for it to be judged invalid. Until that point
(regardless of how ridiculous the action was) you had a rift with one
(or more) player(s) playing a game where the action was valid and the
other players in a game where it was not.

> 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.
>
It still requires someone to point it out either way. Formalizing the
mechanism to do so lessens the ambiguity.

> 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.

Yes, this is one of the bugs in the present system that needs to be addressed.

> 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.
>
There is some truth to this. Someone has to show enough concern to fix
the problem so it doesn't keep re-occurring. Of course, Oracularities
provide a rapid means of doing so without having to wait until the end
of the nweek (or possibliy the following nweek).

I think abuse of Oracularities is a non-issue as well. The only
missing safeguard is a quorum which I would not be opposed to if it
were reasonable. Actually, Oracularities have further safety over
proposals in that it is limited to one vote per player, excluding
those with the most direct interest (priest, supplicant, unbeliever).
Proposals can have skewed voting due to vote power changes (via
factions). Admittedly, this hasn't been an issue yet, but it could be
in the future.

> A definite gamestate of indefinite correctness, which IMHO is worse
> than an indefinite gamestate.
>
Again, the rules say that the gamestate is correct through
ratification of unchallenged actions. Are you arguing with the rules?
And in all seriousness....how likely is it that everyone will allow a
clearly illegal action to go unchallenged?

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