Re: DIS: Re: BUS: bring back judicial protections
This is definitely "largely the same purpose". The original rule was 3 paragraphs, the new rule is the 2nd paragraph of the old rule verbatim (except for changes in officer names). The missing paragraphs were the added process (for the same purpose) that seemed unneeded. I'll fix the title thing though. On Thu, Jan 31, 2019 at 1:55 PM Gaelan Steele wrote: > Not just that—at the time there was a rule that reenacted rules had to > have “largely the same purpose” or something. > > Gaelan > > > On Jan 31, 2019, at 12:51 PM, Reuben Staley > wrote: > > > > I'm pretty sure that me trying to do both at the same time is why we had > to > > converge the gamestate when PAoaM was broken. > > > > -- > > Trigon > > > > On Thu, Jan 31, 2019, 13:44 Ørjan Johansen > > >> On Wed, 30 Jan 2019, Kerim Aydin wrote: > >> > >>> Re-enact Rule 2246 (name at repeal: Submitting a CFJ to the Justiciar), > >>> at Power-2, with the title "Submitting a CFJ to the Referee", and the > >>> following text: > >> > >> I don't think you can change the title without a separate rule change, > >> although the reenactment provision doesn't actually mention titles at > all. > >> > >> Greetings, > >> Ørjan. > >> > >
Re: DIS: treating wins via cheating?
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 > 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 >
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: bring back judicial protections
On Thu, 31 Jan 2019, Gaelan Steele wrote: Not just that—at the time there was a rule that reenacted rules had to have “largely the same purpose” or something. Yeah, that was changed to a SHOULD in the current version. Greetings, Ørjan.
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: bring back judicial protections
Not just that—at the time there was a rule that reenacted rules had to have “largely the same purpose” or something. Gaelan > On Jan 31, 2019, at 12:51 PM, Reuben Staley wrote: > > I'm pretty sure that me trying to do both at the same time is why we had to > converge the gamestate when PAoaM was broken. > > -- > Trigon > > On Thu, Jan 31, 2019, 13:44 Ørjan Johansen >> On Wed, 30 Jan 2019, Kerim Aydin wrote: >> >>> Re-enact Rule 2246 (name at repeal: Submitting a CFJ to the Justiciar), >>> at Power-2, with the title "Submitting a CFJ to the Referee", and the >>> following text: >> >> I don't think you can change the title without a separate rule change, >> although the reenactment provision doesn't actually mention titles at all. >> >> Greetings, >> Ørjan. >> smime.p7s Description: S/MIME cryptographic signature
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: bring back judicial protections
I'm pretty sure that me trying to do both at the same time is why we had to converge the gamestate when PAoaM was broken. -- Trigon On Thu, Jan 31, 2019, 13:44 Ørjan Johansen On Wed, 30 Jan 2019, Kerim Aydin wrote: > > > Re-enact Rule 2246 (name at repeal: Submitting a CFJ to the Justiciar), > > at Power-2, with the title "Submitting a CFJ to the Referee", and the > > following text: > > I don't think you can change the title without a separate rule change, > although the reenactment provision doesn't actually mention titles at all. > > Greetings, > Ørjan. >
DIS: Re: BUS: bring back judicial protections
On Wed, 30 Jan 2019, Kerim Aydin wrote: Re-enact Rule 2246 (name at repeal: Submitting a CFJ to the Justiciar), at Power-2, with the title "Submitting a CFJ to the Referee", and the following text: I don't think you can change the title without a separate rule change, although the reenactment provision doesn't actually mention titles at all. Greetings, Ørjan.
Re: DIS: treating wins via cheating?
On Wed, Jan 30, 2019 at 2:11 PM 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
