Wednesday, August 04, 2010

Call for Judgment: Everyone could become ULTRAVIOLET due spamming?

Times out, passes 8-0 (with one unresolved DEF - DEFs do nothing on a CFJ)

Adminned at 08 Aug 2010 21:54:07 UTC

If five Citizens worked together, they could earn Perversity Points as much as they want to using Story Posts and arrows. Then, let me quote Rule 2.3.1.3 entitled “Hook and ladder”:

Cost: 2 + the numeric value of the resulting clearance (with INFARED being 0, RED being 1, etc.) Action: Raise or lower the clearance of a Citizen by one level, restore the number of Treason points the Citizen had prior to the clearance level change, and then add an additional Treason point for the Citizen’s inappropriate cutting of red tape.

So five Citizen would need “only” 20 (it‘s (2 + 2) * 5) Story Posts to become ORANGE. They could go on that way until they become INDIGO. Not that obvious, but there is even a cheaper way to do this: Decreasing Treason Points (-6 and you are a level up).  Another quotation, this time from Rule 2.3.1.1 entitled “Influence through the outfluence door”:

Cost: 1 Perversity Point. Action: Increase or decrease the Treason Points of any Citizen by 1.

Five Citizen would need 7 (or 6) * 5, so 35 (or 30) Perversity Points and Story Posts to raise one level up. Note, using this way the Citizens could become ULTRAVIOLET.

Additionally, there is another, less important bug: Forms and Perversity Power use both the arrow mechanism. Therefore, enacting a form with at least 5 Citizens gives the Proposer a PP. Well, maybe this is not a bug and was wanted. I don’t know.

To avoid such a high spam amount, do the following:

In Rule 2.1.4.1 entitled “Entertain or Die” replace “When a Proposal is Enacted or Failed, the author of that Proposal gains one Perversity Point if five of EVC’s include the ARROW icon before the Vote.” with

When a Proposal is Enacted or Failed, the author of that Proposal gains one Perversity Point if five of EVC’s (including the EVC of the High Programmer) include the ARROW icon before the Vote.

In said Rule also replace “If a Story Post ever has at least five comments authored by different Citizens” with:

If a Story Post ever has at least five comments authored by different Citizens (including the High Programmer)

The most solid and less controversial fix, I assume. In the past liliomar has arrowed up lots of Proposals, so this won‘t be a big problem I assume. I don‘t like the arrow mechanism generally (even without such scams), and would like to have something else to gain PPs, but this problem should be discussed in future Proposals. Maybe our High Programmer will give the Citizen whose “PP redefining Proposal” is enacted, a Commendation?

One charm point, if you calculate smallest amount of PP (and therefore Story Posts) needed for that combining Rule 2.3.1.3 and 2.3.1.1 assuming everyone has 0 Treason Points.

Two charm points, if you use a script for this.

Three charm points, if you manage to write a fifth reasonable Call for Judgement.

Minus one hundred charm points, if you vote for an arrow introducing Proposal again.

Comments

Keba:

08-04-2010 22:09:38 UTC

Oh, I forgot some clause which would avoid you from spamming until this CfJ has passed. Please play so fair and do not exploit a bug found by another Citizen ;)

Kyre:

08-04-2010 22:12:42 UTC

arrow  imperial

scshunt:

08-04-2010 22:20:36 UTC

imperial

Keba:

08-04-2010 23:12:11 UTC

Note that voting DEFERENTIAL on a CfJ has no other effect than stating “read this CfJ, but don‘t have decided yet”.

Ienpw III:

08-04-2010 23:57:33 UTC

for

Kevan:

08-05-2010 07:44:07 UTC

for

Purplebeard:

08-05-2010 13:28:20 UTC

for

lilomar:

08-05-2010 14:01:12 UTC

for

scshunt:

08-05-2010 19:21:06 UTC

for

flurie:

08-05-2010 20:03:28 UTC

for

ais523:

08-06-2010 16:21:03 UTC

for

Darknight:

08-08-2010 05:56:36 UTC

for