Saturday, December 14, 2019

Proposal: [Core] Coronation pardon

Self-killed. Failed by Kevan.

Adminned at 16 Dec 2019 09:13:15 UTC

In the rule 1.7 (“Victory and Ascension”), in the sentence “If a DoV is failed and it had at least one AGAINST vote, the Adventurer who posted it cannot make another DoV until after 120 hours (5 days) have passed since the time their DoV was failed”, after “cannot make another DoV” insert “in the current Dynasty”.

As I’ve previously noted, the prohibition on Declaring Victory within five days extends into the next dynasty. It doesn’t seem to be intentional, considering how unlikely it would be for anyone to claim victory in such an early stage of a dynasty. However, if this situation were to occur, the impediment in question would apply only to those whose DoV in the previous dynasty was contested and failed; this seems unfair, and the patch I suggest here would seem to be a simple enough fix.

(And yes, I don’t have any ideas for dynastic proposals just yet. Waiting for the dust to settle…)


Kevan: he/him

15-12-2019 00:11:44 UTC

I think it’s left open across dynasties to ensure that cheap speculative DoVs are always discouraged, even when a dynasty is drawing to a close. If I can see you’re about to win or that the game clock is about to run down with me losing, that shouldn’t give me carte blanche to fire off some terrible 1%-plausible scam on the off chance.


The Duke of Waltham: he/him

15-12-2019 00:21:46 UTC

Even a single Against vote is a good indication of a bad DoV, then… Taken at face value, I suppose this means the players are generally fair-minded when it comes to assessing DoVs.


15-12-2019 10:48:43 UTC

I believe its fair to give a blank slate to people for DoVs when its a new dynasty. for

If the carryover is intended to punish people for something, I don’t believe that punishment is remotely close to being reliable because an overwhelming majority of dynasties don’t have victory conditions/DoVs in its first week anyways.

Kevan: he/him

15-12-2019 13:58:00 UTC

[Duke] Yes, I think that’s a given, although maybe the single-AGAINST is a bit narrow. I assume it’s only there to cover situations where multiple DoVs are up at once, and the enactment of one fails the others: in which case a DoV with one yet-to-be-convinced AGAINST vote might still have passed, in isolation.

[Cuddlebeam] Is that belief just a subset of you believing that speculative “this probably won’t work but pause the game everyone, I want to try it” scammers should be given a blank slate for DoVs at all times, though?

The Duke of Waltham: he/him

15-12-2019 14:31:22 UTC

Hmm… I hadn’t really considered this, but the only apparent way for a DoV to be Failed without any AGAINST votes is that another DoV must have been Enacted instead. Otherwise the 5-day rule would simply mention failed DoVs, and specifying this detail would be unnecessary.

(In fact, that could be the most fitting reason why a 48-hour-old proposal is said to have “timed out”: it passes even with zero comments, on the strength of its author’s implicit vote.)

In any case, if the safeguard seems appropriate for within a dynasty, even for a moderately contentious DoV, it is marginal from the perspective of another dynasty (which seems to be what Cuddlebeam wrote above). Wouldn’t it make sense to punish frivolous DoVs more harshly, and have a higher threshold for that?

The Duke of Waltham: he/him

15-12-2019 14:33:45 UTC

(Ah, scratch that. A Votable Matter needs to have more than 1 valid Vote cast on it to be Popular.

I hate that I can’t edit comments.)

The Duke of Waltham: he/him

15-12-2019 14:37:28 UTC

(Which means there is a second way for a DoV to fail without AGAINST votes: an abnormal lack of interest in it, namely 48 hours with zero votes other than the would-be victor. I cannot imagine this ever happening… Right?)


15-12-2019 14:56:12 UTC

@Kevan: I agree with that there should be some measure against it, I just don’t believe that having the week penalty pass into a new dynasty is a good enough measure to consider seriously.

Kevan: he/him

15-12-2019 14:57:05 UTC

I guess there could be a situation where players were somehow barred from voting on a DoV, but it’s very unlikely.

From the “within a dynasty” viewpoint, this proposal is saying that the closer a frivolous DoV is made to the end of the dynasty, the less we mind. Is that the case?

In practice the disincentive usually remains because the scammer won’t know exactly when a dynasty will end, and what might look like a safe final-hour scam could backfire if the game lasted another week. But in something like the Boss Fight dynasty we all knew when the final scoring would happen - anyone with a sketchy scam up their sleeve would have had nothing to lose (beyond social disapproval) by firing it off before the final Monster’s final attack.

The Duke of Waltham: he/him

15-12-2019 15:18:10 UTC

I get that you want the rule to send a message… Practically though, I am only proposing to formalise what already happens: the perpetrator of a last-minute scam doesn’t really expect to lose out by being barred from declaring DoV in the first few days of a new dynasty.

Then again, this also goes the other way: my own proposal was made for mostly symbolic reasons, exactly because of how unlikely it is to have an actual effect on gameplay.

So let’s discuss this a little more. imperial

Can we find a meaningful way to punish nuisance DoVs? Say, if a DoV is failed and had Quorum votes AGAINST or the Emperor voted AGAINST, the author cannot make another DoV for a month? Would that be too harsh?

The Duke of Waltham: he/him

15-12-2019 15:20:31 UTC

(I didn’t want to self-kill just yet, but this DEF doesn’t change anything without TyGuy voting, right?)

The Duke of Waltham: he/him

16-12-2019 08:18:46 UTC

All right; putting this on the back-burner to avoid holding up the queue. against