Wednesday, November 30, 2005

proto-proposal to fix a couple of CFJ things, please discuss

Replace the following from law 9

Every Deity may respond to the Declaration of Victory saying whether e regards it as legal or illegal (using the FOR, AGAINST and DEFERENTIAL icons). If more than half of the Deities consider the win legal, then the poster of the Declaration is considered to have officially won the Dynasty - the Dynasty ends. If more than half consider it illegal, and if no CfJs remain pending, however, then the Hiatus ends and the current Dynasty continues.

with

Every Deity may respond to the Declaration of Victory saying whether e regards it as legal or illegal (using the FOR, AGAINST and DEFERENTIAL icons). If more than half of the Deities consider the win legal, and if no CfJs remain pending, then the poster of the Declaration is considered to have officially won the Dynasty - the Dynasty ends. If more than half consider it illegal, and if no CfJs remain pending, however, then the Hiatus ends and the current Dynasty continues.

and replace the following in law 6

CfJs continue until they reach a quorum of FOR votes, or until four days have passed.

with

CfJs continue until they reach a quorum of FOR votes, or until four days have passed, or two days have passed if there is a Hiatus.

There, this not only prevents wins from happening due to CFJs but also reduces CFJ fail limits durring the Hiatus, cuz theres nothing else going on durring a Hiatus besides the CFJs which just slow down game play…  hmm… there may need to be mroe tweeking, as this, in its current state pre and post this proposal can lead to an infinate Hiatus if someone is a bastard… some sort of CFJ ban type thing or else infinate CFJs can be made every 1.5 days…. hmm… we need a fix of sorts, consider this for now, and we’ll come up with more later

posted by Quazie at 30 Nov 2005 22:19:25 UTC Comments (11)

Comments

Rodney:

01-12-2005 01:55:35 UTC

:Proto-For:

smith:

01-12-2005 04:54:50 UTC

:PROTO-FOR: I think people who stall the Victory for no good reason will find that their Calls for Judgment will fail quickly.

Excalabur:

01-12-2005 07:25:50 UTC

is good.

Quazie:

01-12-2005 14:08:43 UTC

as far as i can tell CFJs can only fail by timeout

smith:

01-12-2005 17:19:21 UTC

oh, you’re right. Maybe abuse could be countered with a CfJ which autofailed the bad ones? Something like that. I’m not really worried about it.

Quazie:

01-12-2005 17:48:25 UTC

i’m not saying its something to worry about, but in the event of me getting mad at you for winning, i could just make a cfj every 1.5 days that would just get annoying and everyone would hate me, but i’d prove a point of sorts, which is something reallly in character of me, but thats too lengthy of an annoyance for me to partake in

Excalabur:

01-12-2005 19:06:44 UTC

We can easily call for judgment to delete the offender’s account, and do an IP ban.  It’s not that hard to impliment anti-jackass things. . . .

Cayvie:

01-12-2005 20:10:14 UTC

But being a jackass isn’t illegal.

Quazie:

01-12-2005 20:14:22 UTC

thats the thing, we need to set up an anit-jackass security device… infact that should be what its called, a new type of post that can only be made durring a hiatus, the anti-jackass security device, and it cancels all of a persons CFJs that havn’t resolved and prevents them from making any more durring that hiatus with quorum of support including the archon and the other if e exists

Hix:

01-12-2005 23:31:07 UTC

I don’t think the Hiatus-only anti-jackass device is really necessary.  CfJ’s can always be arranged to deal with Jackass; and a CfJ that provides a solution which is appropriate for the specific situation is probably better than most pre-determined answers.

As for the interaction between Hiatus and CfJ: I think that pending CfJ’s _should_ prevent DoV from resolving (either way), BUT there should be a keyword or something that someone could put in the title of a CfJ to indicate that it should not count toward extending the Hiatus.  Such a CfJ (with keyword) could be effective against someone annoyingly prolonging Hiatus if voted for, but wouldn’t slow things down if it timed out.

ChronosPhaenon:

02-12-2005 12:00:45 UTC

Another good fix would be allow CfJ’s to be failed if thei reach an against quorum (like the one currently pending).