Thursday, December 03, 2009

Proposal: Closing a loophole

Fails 2-7 Can not be enacted without a CoV. —Excalabur

Adminned at 04 Dec 2009 05:28:38 UTC

Add the following text to the bottom of Rule 1.10 Fair Play using appropriate formatting:

An Apprentice should not abuse Idling/Un-Idling to effect a change in gamestate.

This is to prevent people from Idling/Un-Idling en masse in an attempt to, for example, force partner changes in the near future.

Comments

Klisz:

12-03-2009 19:17:12 UTC

Hmm…  imperial

ais523:

12-03-2009 19:18:34 UTC

It’s possibly better to prevent this by creating a rule banning idling/unidling during certain time-sensitive areas, or by wording the rules such that idling or unidling doesn’t affect it.

NoOneImportant:

12-03-2009 19:27:09 UTC

Maybe it’s not a loophole, but a feature. Should we encourage this as in the spirit of the game? The problem with that is that Admins could abuse their status by “sitting” on requests for Idle/Un-Idle in order to further their own ends.

ais523:

12-03-2009 19:43:37 UTC

There are generally enough admins that you can find one that’ll cooperate with you. (In most nomics, this sort of thing is considered a feature; BlogNomic is historically more ambivalent about such things.)

NoOneImportant:

12-03-2009 19:55:55 UTC

Maybe an alternative would be requiring Admins to Idle/Un-Idle in the order that requests are posted, and to not allow Admins to I/U-I themselves without first posting to the blog.

Qwazukee:

12-03-2009 20:47:14 UTC

against Generally, if something Game-Breaking can happen due to Idling/Unidling in a specific time period, then we just make specific Rules disallowing Idling/Unidling during that period.

Josh:

12-03-2009 21:45:38 UTC

against

Josh:

12-03-2009 21:47:01 UTC

My specific problem is with the term “abuse”, which is ill-defined, as idling / unidling is a change in the gamestate in and of itself. If you’re going to have this rule then you have to define what and what isn’t abuse, and if you’re going to do that then you might as well just rule out idling / unidling scams on an ad hoc basis.

NoOneImportant:

12-03-2009 21:50:28 UTC

My intent by leaving it somewhat vague was to make it a “I know it when I see it” sort of rule, so that if people are legitimately going idle, it shouldn’t trigger, but if someone is obviously trying to game the system, the hammer should come down. Since it would require an CfJ anyway, I see no problem with it being done that way… everyone would get a say.

spikebrennan:

12-03-2009 22:28:58 UTC

for
Sounds good to me, since “should” is not binding and “abuse” is subjective.

Bucky:

12-03-2009 23:55:48 UTC

against  I have in the past ended up idling and then unidling in a manner that subverted a proposal in the queue purely by coincidence.  The answer was to fix it via another proposal.

Excalabur:

12-04-2009 00:21:44 UTC

against

Klisz:

12-04-2009 01:53:21 UTC

@spikebrennan: Because it’s in 1.10, it isn’t binding per se, but it’s a bannable offense - worse than binding.

Wakukee:

12-04-2009 02:24:14 UTC

against This is a major element of the game. Idleing should not be restricted. If you write a rule well enough, it won’t make a difference, and if a person sees a way to win or get a distinct advantage by an idle/unidle, he should be able to do it. Note that posting 2 posts, seconds after each other “I request to be idled”, and then “I request to be unidled as soon as I am idled” has the same effect when an admin gets to it as manually doing it if you are an admin. There is no distinct advantage to be had by admins over any other player with respects to idling, and it can be an involved an interesting game mechanic in certain dynaties. I prefer to leave it to the nomic to write well made rules then BAN someone for making a stratigic action. At very most, it should be said in a dynastic rule that it cannot be done, or that idleing/unidling in a short period (say, 24 hours) has no effect for purposes of a given rule rather than ban someone for it. I repeat,  against .

Darknight:

12-04-2009 05:02:38 UTC

against