Monday, September 03, 2007

Proposal: Time Thaw

Passed 5-3 after 48 hours, Enacted by aaronwinborn.

Adminned at 05 Sep 2007 04:35:33 UTC

[ More deletionism. The core-ruleset “Time Freeze” mechanic was added by five players back in April - it allows a Hiatus to be triggered as part of a CfJ. This doesn’t seem common or useful enough to take up four paragraphs of core ruleset, and the ability to lock the game (and still declare victory during that lock) seems like a very powerful tool to give scammers access to.

The original rationale seems to be that people were posting DoVs to prolong Hiatus enough for an important CfJ to pass, but a CfJ can just do the usual “if anyone exploited this loophole while the CfJ was resolving, they shall be punished in the following manner”. Or another CfJ or proposal can mop up afterwards, if someone’s pulled off a bitterly unpopular against-spirit DoV.

Have I missed something? ]

Remove the final four paragraphs of Rule 1.6 (“Calls for Judgment”), and replace “no other DoVs or Time Freezes are still pending” with “no other DoVs are still pending”.

Comments

Josh:

09-03-2007 10:50:15 UTC

for

aaronwinborn:

09-03-2007 11:09:51 UTC

imperial I haven’t been in a (real) situation of a time freeze, nor in a situation that warranted it. Thus, I trust the wisdom of other more experienced Kaiju Gods.

Kevan:

09-03-2007 11:37:27 UTC

I’ve been playing since 2003 and don’t remember any situations that would have been helped by a Time Freeze. (I can remember at least one case where the ability to freeze the gamestate at will and declare victory during that would have been useful for a scam, though.)

Hix:

09-03-2007 13:54:22 UTC

The situation for which I think the Time Freezes could be very useful is not for loopholes that need plugging, but when there is a massive schism as to the exact nature of the Gamestate.  Everyone will want to continue playing under the assumption that he is correct, which would lead to a horrible mess to untangle either way the CfJ resolved.

In this situation, it is almost essential to be able to call “Time out!”, and Hiatus via DoV is of questionable legality if the poster doesn’t believe he has achieved victory.

Admittedly, massive schisms don’t happen very frequently.

Kevan:

09-03-2007 14:06:09 UTC

I’d have thought that would have been just as easy to deal with using a CfJ that opened with “Time out! Any changes made to the GNDT between now and this CfJ passing shall be undone.” - it’d even be acceptable to post a CfJ that only did this, and a second CfJ to try to resolve whatever the actual issue was.

Amnistar:

09-03-2007 15:00:01 UTC

against
Because the point of the Time Freeze was to allow people to pause the game without falsely declaring victory.

The problem with putting a clause in the CfJ is that they only take of the CfJ passses

Josh:

09-03-2007 15:03:59 UTC

The CfJ would only not pass if a majority of players voted against it, and if half the players vote against it then it’s not a proper scam. Freezing time to ensure that you get the result you then want is probably not sufficiently in the spirit of the game to justify a core rule.

Clucky:

09-03-2007 16:10:56 UTC

There were a couple of situations before I made that post in which someone created a DoV, there was debate over the legitness of the victory, and another person created a DoV to prolong the hiatus while the debate was resolved via a CfJ. If there was a way around this via cleaver CfJ wording, it wasn’t being used. The time freeze proposal was designed to allow the same game freezing mechanic without abusing the concept of a DoV.

Josh:

09-03-2007 16:15:12 UTC

Gosh.

Once upon a time, CfJs prolonged the hiatus automatically. When did that get written out, and why?

Kevan:

09-03-2007 16:30:16 UTC

It looks like that was me, actually, after making really sure that people weren’t against it. (That proposal failed because of my carefulness clause, but I reproposed it verbatim a while later and it passed.)

It looks like my usual “CfJs can be used to threaten punishment for continuing to exploit a loophole” argument, anyway.

Kevan:

09-03-2007 16:31:46 UTC

Sorry, broken URL. The proposal I’m talking about was here. It was reproposed and passed unanimously two days later.

Darknight:

09-03-2007 19:02:43 UTC

imperial

snowballinhell7001:

09-03-2007 21:09:31 UTC

against

banana:

09-04-2007 16:03:03 UTC

imperial

Brendan:

09-04-2007 23:38:33 UTC

for

aaronwinborn:

09-05-2007 03:14:56 UTC

against changing my vote—looks like there might be enough of a precedence of using it, and though it has a potential of abuse (as does any other rule), the benefit seems worthwhile.

maybe it just needs some rewriting, rather than a complete repeal.