On 1/16/20 11:11 PM, Aris Merchant via agora-discussion wrote: > On Thu, Jan 16, 2020 at 7:53 PM Jason Cobb via agora-discussion > <[email protected]> wrote: > >> I like the ideas, as I've said before (although I haven't yet thoroughly >> combed through these drafts for any bugs). One thing, though: >> >> These two mechanisms seem redundant to me - an adjustment applies "all >> changes", which could include rule changes, so why have a second, >> strictly weaker alternative that only affects the interpretation of the >> rules? > Two reasons: > 1. The idea is that adjustments only apply to stuff in the officer's > domain. The only player whose domain contains rules is the Rulekeepor. > E could potentially use this power, to, e.g., make a rule change that > failed on a technicality succeed, but no other officer would have > access to it. > 2. Permanent changes to the rules tend to require a lot of vetting. > People want to make sure that the rules don't just say something > reasonable, but the best possible thing. Thus, if a permanent rule > change is involved, people are much more likely to say "no, I think it > should say this instead" and object. The idea is that the change > should be a quick measure to get things working again, with a specific > anti-scam measure to increase player confidence and make problems less > likely. The final fix proposal may take days to perfect; the patch > provides time in which that can happen. > > That said, I'm still open to suggestions. > > -Aris
Alright, that makes more sense now. Thanks! -- Jason Cobb
