On Wed, 2019-01-30 at 13:57 -0800, Kerim Aydin wrote:
> So, in the past we've played with rules text to add something like "if a
> rules violation is found to be instrumental in a win, the win fails, rules
> to the contrary notwithstanding".  But somehow we never added it - and I
> sort of remember that various wordings and processes we tried to come up
> with threatened to cause more problems then they solved.

BlogNomic has a process similar to an automatic CFJ whenever anyone
wins, and allows a sufficiently large consensus of players commenting
during the CFJ period to overturn the win regardless of whether it
technically happened (BlogNomic also allows this sort of process for
overturning the rules in regular CFJs, typically to fix brokenness, so
it's a good fit).

Agora tends to not allow people to vote on what should be considered
true, though; ratification (our equivalenet) is normally without-
objection (although you can ratify by proposal to get a lower necessary
ratio). So perhaps what we should do is, whenever someone wins, the
winner has to claim a win via a self-ratifying statement that the win
happened and was legal, and  if people disagree, they can object or
CFJ, and then we settle the truth of the victory announcement via the
usual mechanisms Agora has for determining the truth of the statement.

If we're doing some sort of anti-illegal-win mechanism, I'd also like
to see some cap on looping wins that have broken reset mechanisms; I
personally restricted myself to 2 back when I discovered this happening
(and some players restricted themselves to 1), but the amount of win
looping that's been going on more recently strikes me as needing some
sort of adjustment so that win frequencies are plausibly comparable.
(That said, I'm also upset by the number of "mass wins" in which
everyone or almost everyone won simultaneously, as there's not much
incentive to make winning difficult when that has a chance of
happening, and thus wins become somewhat cheaper.)


Reply via email to