Re: DIS: treating wins via cheating?
On Sun, 2019-02-03 at 10:36 -0800, Edward Murphy wrote: > I forget, what loophole did you use? Arrange for a non-player > confederate to register and deregister? There was a group of 3 people who first arranged for everyone else to have a Losing Condition, then we each took it in turns to give two of us Losing Conditions and not the third. I forget which specific condition we used, but it was probably being inactive (IIRC that rule still existed at the time, and if so it would have been something that could trivially be toggled on and off at no cost). -- ais523
Re: DIS: treating wins via cheating?
ais523 wrote: On Fri, 2019-02-01 at 07:59 -0800, Kerim Aydin wrote: Example: While a player is the only active first-class player not to satisfy at least one Losing Condition, e satisfies the Winning Condition of Solitude. Cleanup procedure: The same person cannot satisfy this Winning Condition again until at least one other player ceases to satisfy any Losing Condition. Note that this specific cleanup procedure was broken in a fairly simple way. That's why I have two wins by Solitude, not just one. I forget, what loophole did you use? Arrange for a non-player confederate to register and deregister?
Re: DIS: treating wins via cheating?
On 2/1/2019 8:03 AM, ais...@alumni.bham.ac.uk wrote: On Fri, 2019-02-01 at 07:59 -0800, Kerim Aydin wrote: Example: While a player is the only active first-class player not to satisfy at least one Losing Condition, e satisfies the Winning Condition of Solitude. Cleanup procedure: The same person cannot satisfy this Winning Condition again until at least one other player ceases to satisfy any Losing Condition. Note that this specific cleanup procedure was broken in a fairly simple way. That's why I have two wins by Solitude, not just one. (...) I guess that puts bounds on "pretty well" when I said it seemed to work worked pretty well :P
Re: DIS: treating wins via cheating?
On Fri, 2019-02-01 at 07:59 -0800, Kerim Aydin wrote: > Example: >While a player is the only active first-class player not to >satisfy at least one Losing Condition, e satisfies the Winning >Condition of Solitude. > >Cleanup procedure: The same person cannot satisfy this Winning >Condition again until at least one other player ceases to >satisfy any Losing Condition. Note that this specific cleanup procedure was broken in a fairly simple way. That's why I have two wins by Solitude, not just one. -- ais523
Re: DIS: treating wins via cheating?
On 1/31/2019 10:31 AM, Aris Merchant wrote: 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? Just as some food for thought, the "cleanup procedure" we had at one point seemed to work pretty well. From R2186/9, circa 2010: Each Winning Condition should (if needed) specify a cleanup procedure to prevent an arbitrary number of wins arising from essentially the same conditions. When one or more persons win the game: a) For each Winning Condition satisfied by at least one of those persons, its cleanup procedure (if any) occurs. b) Each of those persons ceases to satisfy any Winning Conditions. Example: While a player is the only active first-class player not to satisfy at least one Losing Condition, e satisfies the Winning Condition of Solitude. Cleanup procedure: The same person cannot satisfy this Winning Condition again until at least one other player ceases to satisfy any Losing Condition. Or: If this rule mentions at least six different specific colors for Ribbons, then upon a win announcement that one or more players each possess at least one Ribbon of each such color, all those players satisfy the Winning Condition of Renaissance. Cleanup procedure: For each of those players, one Ribbon of each such color in eir possession is destroyed.
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: 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
Re: DIS: treating wins via cheating?
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.) -- ais523
DIS: treating wins via cheating?
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. What do people think about making this the Herald's call (of course with feedback) - that is, make a "cheating" category on the Scroll for such things, not listing the "official" type of win, and maybe implying in the scroll that these are less desirable? This is a similar principle to one win being listed as "via ratification" (it was an attempt to win by another method that failed, but the facts accidentally self-ratified before the failure was discovered). Disadvantages I see are that it would be nigh- impossible to apply this retroactively, and it might make "cheating" a win- type that people actually try for. A third option might be a process for revoking a Champion title with some level of Consent (it can always be done by proposal of course). That might take some clean-up though, and of course the herald option or the revoke option wouldn't affect follow-on bonuses like laurels. -G.
