Gaelan wrote:
If I create the contact {Gaelan SHALL publish a Tailor’s report weekly},
does this let me issue memoranda about ribbons?
Good point - we had the same issue with R2496 Rewards - will add text to
limit that to rules-defined officer's duties. (I think Aris's last
memorandum draft already limited the ability to officers, but good to be
sure).
Also, this may be a minority view, but I believe scams are part of the
game, and we shouldn’t make a habit of reverting them by default.
I agree completely. But if we acknowledge that we accept scams, we should
create a faster way to recover from them rather than waiting for "CFJ then
Proposal" which could take a whole month. In fact, I think this might make
people more willing to try scams, because there's less of a social barrier
of "I don't want to scam this because it will take a whole month to repair".
A key point is it isn't truly "by default". It's an accepted method, but
the Officer still has to announce/issue a memorandum on why it's the best
way forward.
Ørjan wrote:
Winning and patent titles can still be lost as a side effect of ratifying
a document published before they happen, when that removes a prerequisite
for their award.
Oh of course oops - not sure if it's better to stick with ratification
or come up with a true "set at time action is completed" version, both
have advantages and disadvantages. It's important to allow the scammers to
keep some benefit of their work.
Jason Cobb wrote:
Sorry, but 4 days doesn't seem like enough here. If there's a CFJ on the
scam, then even if everyone is acting LEGALLY, it could take up to two
weeks to get a judgement. During that time, the scammer would have to do
lots of stuff conditionally, which only furthers the gamestate
confusion, and/or fend off the ratification attempts, which would
require two other people to work with em, and I'd imagine people would
quickly get tired of this.
I disagree here. The whole point of this method is to converge the
gamestate faster than a CFJ. In my view, we get "more tired" when we have
to do it by proposal or wait for CFJ - we lose a lot of momentum e.g.
if we're playing a game like spaceships, hit a bug/scam, then everyone says
"no point continuing to play when there's a reset coming". It's the long
pauses that kill gameplay in my experience. If we assume that the
ratification is a convergence (the end result doesn't depend on the truth of
the CFJ) this allows "getting on with the game" faster.
The part about "two other conspirators" - well if there's that level of
resistance, you just shrug and say "I guess we have to do the Proposal route
anyway" and you don't lose much for trying the w/o 3 objection method first.
-G.
