On Wed, Jan 30, 2019 at 2:11 PM ais...@alumni.bham.ac.uk <ais...@alumni.bham.ac.uk> wrote: > > 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.)
I'd like to work on this. With regard to looping wins, I think we should give some people some sort of additional prize, probably in the form of a patent title, for proving that they *could* win an infinite (or finite but very large) number of times. What about Infinite Jestor/Jester? -Aris
