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


Reply via email to