Monday, March 22, 2021

Proposal: Less lumpy

Reached quorum and enacted, 6-0. Josh

Adminned at 23 Mar 2021 20:29:33 UTC

Edit the Table of any ongong Game to include a link to the most recent edit to the Ruleset, as shown on the Ruleset’s edit history page in the wiiki. Repeal the rule Rule Updates. Replace “Tournament Rules of Giolitti” (and its subrules) with a copy of the Impending Rules (and its subrules), but with the “Impending Rules” renamed to “Tournament Rules of Giolitti” in that copy. Remove the string ” (Impending)” from the names of all subrules of Tournament Rules of Giolitti. Repeal the rule Impending Rules and all of its subrules.

If the proposal Standardised Start was not enacted, change the first paragraph of the rule Tournament Rules of Giolitti to read as per the blockquote directly below; otherwise, change the first paragraph, the bullet list and the subsequent paragraph to read as per the following:

At any point, the Dealer may select two Players, known as the Game’s Participants, at secretly random from those whose Readiness is set to “Yes”, and start a Game between them by performing the following atomic action (a reference to a Participant means only a Player who is a Participant of the game in question):

* Set each Participants’ Readiness to “No”
* Secretly randomly determine one of the Participants as the Starting Player for the game
* Generate a secretly random Hand of seven Cards for each Participant (as if both those sets of Cards had been taken from the same shuffled version of the Deck)
* Privately inform both Participants of their Hand
* Identify the most recent edit to the ruleset in the wiki page’s edit log; this edit is the Environment for that game.
* Make a post to the blog announcing the start of the game, which must in its subject declare the Participants the game is between, and must in its contents declare the starting player and must include a link to the Environment. This post is known as the game’s Table.

That Game is then considered to be Active, and remains Active until it Ends. It is played under the rules listed in the Tournament Rules of Giolitti rules held in that Game’s Environment; where there is a conflict between the version of the Tournament Rules of Giolitti found in the Ruleset and that found in a Game’s Environment then the text in the Environment takes precedence.

If the proposal here: https://blognomic.com/archive/ispettore_for_all passes, then replace the final step in the atomic action above with the following

* Designate the last two cards generated for each Participants’ hand for that game to be their Eyes
* Make a post to the blog announcing the start of the game, which must in its subject declare the Participants the game is between, and must in its contents declare the starting player, what each Participants Eyes are, and contain a link to the Environment. This post is known as the game’s Table.

Comments

Lulu: she/her

22-03-2021 15:21:37 UTC

for

Kevan: he/him

22-03-2021 15:57:40 UTC

This is Josh’s take on a Slack conversation about changing the game pace from “several games start at once under the same rules, and we wait for them all to finish before updating the Giolitti rules” to “games start at any time, and under whatever Giolitti rules existed at the time”, for those who didn’t see it.

Pros:

* Some people get to play more games
* Dynasty has more activity
* Ruleset looks less weird

Cons:

* Some people get to play fewer games
* Slightly harder to determine whether a rival’s game is being played correctly
* Can’t easily make hotfixes to live games (Josh suggests on Slack that if a game is broken it should be abandoned instead of fixed)
* Brings back good old tactical timing (if a proposal would affect your playing style or situation, try to delay enactment until after your next game has started, etc)
* Makes “the most recent edit to the ruleset in the wiki page’s edit log” into rule text even if that edit was unrelated and illegal (although starting a game is a Dealer action)

I’m not convinced, when the main pro is also a con for others, and when it’s unclear how I should handle two alert players wanting to play ten consecutive games against each other in an hour while everyone else is locked into slower games.

imperial

Josh: Observer he/they

22-03-2021 16:23:07 UTC

I’m up for some mechanical controls on how far ahead players can get in a game count.

Raven1207: he/they

22-03-2021 22:13:49 UTC

imperial

Zack: he/him

23-03-2021 01:09:54 UTC

I’m having a hard time investing myself in this theme, can someone idle me for this round?

Lulu: she/her

23-03-2021 02:08:09 UTC

But this theme is great :(

Lulu: she/her

23-03-2021 02:13:27 UTC

You have been idled.  Quorum is now 5.

pokes:

23-03-2021 17:16:15 UTC

against The cons Kevan lists are more compelling. And I do think that the social pressure from everyone else waiting for the next lump is possibly keeping games moving faster than they would.

Josh: Observer he/they

23-03-2021 17:52:41 UTC

@pokes evidence would suggest otherwise!

It only takes one slow game to slow down the entire train.

pokes:

23-03-2021 19:19:35 UTC

for CoV now that I proposed losing pegs for losing, making playing as fast as possible not always the best play. You’d better pass it everyone! Don’t make a fool out of pokes!