Monday, February 04, 2008

Proposal: Cheater!

I believe this is enacted: “It has been open for voting for at least 48 hours, it has more than 1 valid vote, more than half of its votes are FOR, and it has not been vetoed or self-killed.” and “A vote of DEFERENTIAL is a vote of no opinion…”. Passed 1-0-1, enacted by aaronwinborn. Feel free to fix this if I was wrong about deferential votes being valid or not.

Adminned at 07 Feb 2008 11:15:32 UTC

Add a new Dynastic rule, entitled ‘Cheater!’, as follows:

Any seated player with a courage that is not “Yellow” may accuse another player of cheating by making a blog post to that effect, creating a state of open accusation. If the accused player does not then post his entire unaltered deck to a wiki post within 96 hours, his courage will be changed to “Yellow”. Otherwise, if the deck reveals that the accused player cheated in the game, then the accused player will become unseated, and his courage will be changed to “Yellow”; or if the deck vindicates that player, showing that he did not cheat, then the accusing player’s courage shall instead be changed to “Yellow”. Any of these outcomes (a time out, or the revelation of the player’s deck) will close the state of accusation.

While there is at least one open accusation, then no player may win the hand.

I set the time to 96 hours to allow a player to respond by challenging to a draw instead. We can always change the time limit of this (and/or of the draw) if we need to tweak them. Thus, if a player has not cheated, it’s probably in his best interest to just reveal his deck. If he has cheated, he can wait it out, but risk that someone will challenge him to a draw. Or he can challenge the accuser to a draw, hoping at least to unseat that player, and then still wait it out, becoming yellow, but still possibly winning the hand. Lots of strategic possibility here.

Also, it might be interesting to allow a player to post an altered deck, but allow for the possibility of a third party (Kevan?) to verify the deck for a “fee”. Not sure how to write that out though.

Comments

aaronwinborn:

02-04-2008 15:34:29 UTC

Also, the overlapping times allow for an accuser to back up his accusation with a gun. Although in such a case, we should allow him to back down from that if the accused player reveals his deck (assuming the deck is clean).

spikebrennan:

02-04-2008 16:01:27 UTC

Is there any reason that an accusation of cheating would ever occur with respect to a particular hand before the river card is revealed for that hand?

aaronwinborn:

02-04-2008 16:54:22 UTC

probably not, assuming for the proposed ‘Dealing from the Bottom’ rule. except that this ‘Cheater!’ rule doesn’t prohibit that. that’s probably a bad idea.

Darknight:

02-04-2008 22:26:02 UTC

imperial