I look forwards to a scam about earning Infinite Jester an infinite amount
of times.

On Thu, 31 Jan 2019 at 19:31, Aris Merchant <
thoughtsoflifeandligh...@gmail.com> wrote:

> 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

Reply via email to