Monday, May 15, 2017

Proposal: Another Try

Reached quorum 4-2. Enacted by card.

Adminned at 17 May 2017 06:10:01 UTC

In the rule Gameplay after, “The number of games a manager’s team has played is tracked in the GNDT.” add:

If the manager of team B is the Overseer, miscalculates power, and wins the game, the Bloggsball game must be replayed (overseen by team B’s manager) and the results of the original game are invalidated. In the same scenario if team B loses, the results of the Bloggsball game stand as the results of the miscalculation. A Bloggsball game may only be repeated once with this procedure. A second miscalculation resulting in a win by team B shall result in a loss of the game by team B.

https://blognomic.com/archive/game_card_aces_and_eights_vs._matts_turbines_of_nihilism was miscalculated and future game will inevitably be as well. If the miscalculation give the advantage to the calculator (team B), the manager of team B gets one more try if they won the first iteration. If they lose the first iteration, team B eats the loss. The aforementioned game would be valid and I’d eat the loss, which would set the precedent for future miscalculations.

Comments

Cuddlebeam:

05-15-2017 14:14:02 UTC

I still don’t get how Matches that aren’t played by the definition of Matches can be formally considered to be valid Matches.

Cuddlebeam:

05-15-2017 14:46:23 UTC

This also doesn’t fix the Combo issue, and given how a lot of us need to equip stuff and/or train en masse, it’s bound to be a problem.

card:

05-15-2017 15:37:24 UTC

What happens when the manager of team A is the Overseer? This could happen when someone does the 2 weeks thing or during the Final Bowl.

Matt:

05-15-2017 21:08:55 UTC

@card, I think adjusting this proposal to generically apply to the overseer would account for your circumstances. I did not want to be too inclusive for the case where an overseer has no team in the competition.

Matt:

05-15-2017 21:23:37 UTC

Ah, wait, nm. The overseer’s team always plays.

Cuddlebeam:

05-15-2017 23:12:07 UTC

against

I find counting matches that haven’t been played according to their definition as “matches” to be ridiculous.

If its got the requirements of a match, such as the proper numbers, then it’s a match. Otherwise, it’s not a match. It’s like calling nearly-proposals that you forgot to put in the “proposal” category, proposals.

card:

05-16-2017 04:22:40 UTC

[Matt] Not on the final bowl matches

Sphinx:

05-16-2017 09:04:18 UTC

for

Publius Scribonius Scholasticus:

05-16-2017 10:05:48 UTC

against

pokes:

05-16-2017 10:50:18 UTC

for

card:

05-16-2017 15:36:33 UTC

imperial