this feels a bit harsh.

I think we do need some way to speed up games. but this doesn’t solve the slow play problem if someone just does it in one game. and could catch someone unaware.

I think we should:

1) Make it so you can’t join a 4th game if you’re already in three games

2) Maybe move the turn timer down to 24 hours?

I’m also not even sure if it works

If you resign, the game is closed, but now the “they are considered to have resigned” clause no longer holds (because they are no longer a participant in 4 unclosed games). So is the game still closed? Or do we get an endless cycle?

I don’t think that’s a problem - a game once closed can’t be un-closed, and it is still the case that the game “is Closed because a Player has Resigned”, so everything will still trigger as expected.

As for harsh - not really - if you can’t finish off three games then we can assume malign intent, I think.

Why can’t closed games be un-closed?

Does the “A game is closed if” statement mean that if any of these things hold, the game gains the “closed” factor, and keeps it forever? Or that it only has the closed factor if those statements hold?

I feel like “A bear is hungry if they have less than five honey” would mean that a bear that had 4 honey but now has six would not be hungry.

overall I feel like there has gotta be a better way to solve this problem. Under this rule, a group of malicious players go “If Josh wins one more game, he hits 30 magistrelli, so we’ll each slow play one game with Josh in it in order to lock him down from being able to safely join another game”?

I think 24 hour turns + maybe some rule that speeds up pending games once we enter the finale would be good

Wouldn’t the other player then have incentive to stall if they notice someone is running out of games?

@Cluicky By what mechanism would a closed game become unclosed? Nothing in the rules says that it can.

The game closer isn’t quite “is Closed because a Player has Resigned”, it’s “has Resigned by doing one of the following”, with a list of three resign/sfida/timeout situations.

In this case I think the player will have confirmably “have Resigned” (past tense), but since it’s not by any of “the following”, the game won’t actually Close.

There’s nothing saying it can’t become unclosed either

Ah, well, since there’s nothing saying I can’t give myself a million pegs…

@Jumble The ruleset doesn’t have negative rights; you can only edit the gamestate as directed by the ruleset.

@Kevan Despite the absence of any clause in the bullet list, I neither that the following paragraph covers the clause in this rule.

(And it’s important that all of this is outside of the Tournament Rules structure.)

But again, Josh, like I pointed out its not “A game becomes closed if…” its “A game is closed if…”

To me, that means that if the condition no longer holds, the game is no longer closed. In the same way that my bear is no longer hungry if it has enough honey.

[Josh] The “If a Game is Closed because a Player has Resigned, then…” paragraph?

If someone’s Resigned by Pocket Veto, “A game is Closed [if a participant] has Resigned by doing one of the following [three things]” doesn’t react to it, so the game isn’t closed at all.

I’m dubious as to this whole argument but I’ve made an edit that will hopefully at least clarify.

hard as it would enable players to stall out people who are close to 28 from safely joining other games simply by refusing to play in any of their games

close to 30 i mean, my brain farted, but overall point remains. get into two games with Brendan and one with Jumble and they both decide “yeah lets just slow play this for the next two weeks” and suddenly you’re locked out of any chance of winning because if you join a 4th game they can simply instantly move and claim the w

Why did I get tagged there? I’m the one who has spent the entire dynasty trying to make games go faster, remember?

I accept that there are other stalling use cases but my preference is still to fix the one that is objectively strategically the best play for everyone in isolation before worrying about cabal use-cases.

I used use-cases too many times, in this case.

(Just in case.)

(Use.)

maybe if it forced a forfeit on the oldest pending game instead of the newest?