Thursday, July 11, 2019

Proposal: [Core] Must, aka, Should not too long delay

Fewer than a quorum not voting against. Failed 1-4 by Kevan.

Adminned at 13 Jul 2019 17:26:31 UTC

In Fair Play, change
“A Wizard should not deliberately and unreasonably prolong the performance of a game action once they have started it.”
to

A Wizard should not deliberately and unreasonably prolong the performance of a game action once they have started it, nor similarly prolong the non-performance of a game action which is required of them by the rules.

“...a proposal or CfJ may be made to reprimand or punish the perpetrator…”

Comments

TyGuy6:

07-11-2019 23:56:00 UTC

I was considering adding a parenthesis for clarity:

(as in ‘must,’ or ‘shall,’ and directed toward them in particular)

but I felt it would be unnecessary and overprescriptive.

Cuddlebeam:

07-12-2019 04:51:09 UTC

I much prefer mechanical limitations rather than resorting to Fair Play, because its subjective. I agree with the idea though, but not the execution.

against

Farsight:

07-12-2019 10:20:20 UTC

imperial

Kevan:

07-12-2019 10:38:56 UTC

“A Wizard should not deliberately and unreasonably [...] prolong the non-performance of a game action which is required of them” takes us back to the currently rejected Compulsory mechanic that if you’re required to do something, you shouldn’t do anything else until you’ve done that. (If the duel rule says that a duelist “must submit a plan”, are you “deliberately and unreasonably prolonging non-performance” if you choose to vote on some proposals first?)

TyGuy6:

07-12-2019 12:10:24 UTC

Putting it under Fair Play instead of a more objective mechanic gives us two things:

—in the general case, the must and should clauses, etc., can be judged using common sense, and therefore scam judgment becomes less about the letter and more about intention. Deterring scams in such general cases is what Fair Play is all about.

—in specific rules, like when duelists “must submit a plan”, you can just add a specific consequence IF AND WHEN you want one. Thus, new rule proposals with must or should clauses (which are a very common phenomenon in most games) don’t have to be perfect, they just have to have some clarity.

TyGuy6:

07-12-2019 12:15:23 UTC

*must or shall clauses, not must or should

TyGuy6:

07-12-2019 12:26:46 UTC

So judges can go about their business, so long as they get around to their (voluntarily offered and accepted) obligations reasonably soon. And duelists get the usual 48 hr deadline for plan submissions. And new rules generally work as intended, unless poorly written, and then they get scammed as usual, but not as often on must/shall technicalities.

Kevan:

07-12-2019 14:13:53 UTC

Would judges be allowed to take other game actions instead of their obligations, though?

We’d accept a judge not feeling like judging just yet and stepping away from their computer to get some sleep or eat an ice cream, but would we accept them not feeling like judging right now and taking other game actions instead?

Kevan:

07-12-2019 15:43:44 UTC

against Tending to against, as I think a “must” rule with undefined consequences it is a bad rule that needs rewriting, rather than something that the Core Rules should be normalising.

derrick:

07-12-2019 16:33:33 UTC

against

TyGuy6:

07-12-2019 20:27:41 UTC

Fair enough.