Tuesday, June 13, 2006

Proposal: A Better Better Wording

Reaches quorum at 11-0.
-Purplebeard

Adminned at 15 Jun 2006 02:20:20 UTC

In 1.7, ‘Gamestate Tracking’, replace the line:

If no other Monk has commented on it, an official post may be altered or removed; otherwise this can only be done as allowed by the Ruleset.

with

If no Monk has commented on it, an official post may be altered or removed; otherwise this can only be done as allowed by the Ruleset.

Tightining up some language, closing a purported loophole.

 

Comments

Thelonious:

13-06-2006 15:55:32 UTC

Cunning indeed.

Currently, a monk could…

1. Make a proposal that was likely to time out or wait for somebody else to make a proposal that was likely to time out.  This is the BLOCKER.

2. Make an innocous looking proposal but with a deliberate mis-wording.  This is the CON.

3. Vote against the CON, marking it as S-K’d and pointing out the bad wording.

4. Re-propose (just to make the story look real).  This is the DUMMY.

5. In all likelihood, nobody would bother to comment on the original.

6. Wait until the BLOCKER and the CON has timed out but hasn’t been admin’d yet.

7. Modify the CON (allowed because no OTHER monk has commented on it yet) to give emself victory.

8. Admin the BLOCKER and the CON and make a DoV.

Of course, this is only really open to admins because otherwise the person who came to admin the CON would probably vote against it first and it would fail 1-1.

All the same, I wish I’d spotted it myself!

for

Bucky:

13-06-2006 15:57:50 UTC

for

Will propose further ammendments to this rule when I have the slot.

Thelonious:

13-06-2006 15:58:37 UTC

I would give AG Blessings for this but since he said it was a “purported loophole” it sounds like somebody else pointed it out so no Blessings this time.

If the person who spotted it would like to own up, I’ll propose Blessings for them.

Bucky:

13-06-2006 15:58:46 UTC

Of course, Thelonious’ version of the scam wouldn’t work because you can’t change a Self-Kill vote.

Hix:

13-06-2006 16:05:27 UTC

for

Thelonious:

13-06-2006 16:11:02 UTC

Good point Bucky - although if the vote was considered to be an “offical post” then you’d be allowed to change that too under the same rule.

There must be other fairly similar ruses too.

Rodney:

13-06-2006 16:12:19 UTC

for If we are going to try and fix every possible loophole this dynasty, why not replace the monestary with a legal firm, and have the laywer dynasty.

Thelonious:

13-06-2006 16:14:01 UTC

Perhaps if victory is acheived through a loophole, the victor will choose your lawyer theme for the next dynasty.

Angry Grasshopper:

13-06-2006 16:32:15 UTC

*zing!*

TAE:

13-06-2006 18:35:38 UTC

for
Oh please don’t.  I’m not sure I could take the lawyer dynasty… =)

Excalabur:

13-06-2006 20:17:30 UTC

for

Excalabur:

13-06-2006 20:24:10 UTC

for

“Thou shalt not suffer a witch to live” Exodus 22:18

Purplebeard:

13-06-2006 20:53:31 UTC

for

Alcazar:

13-06-2006 21:05:46 UTC

for

Greth:

13-06-2006 22:54:23 UTC

for What a hastily reached quorum!

Isolde:

14-06-2006 01:17:48 UTC

for