Thursday, March 25, 2021

Proposal: Indepegnence

Fewer than a quorum not voting against. Failed 1 vote to 5 by Kevan.

Adminned at 26 Mar 2021 15:13:13 UTC

Reword the paragraph beginning “Each Player has a number of pegs, which is publicly tracked and which defaults to 30” in the rule “Tournament Rules of Giolitti” as follows:

When a Game ends, its Campione’s peg is moved up a number of times equal to the game’s stakes, and any non-Campione Players of that Game have their pegs moved down once.

Reword the paragraph beginning “Each Player has a Magistrelli score” in the rule “The Magistrelli System” as follows:

Each Player has a Magistrelli score, which is an integer that defaults to 10. Every time a Player’s peg is moved up they gain 1 Magistrelli, unless their opponent had a higher Magistrelli than them at the start of the game, in which case they gain half of the difference between their own Magistrelli and that of their opponent at the start of the Game, rounded up. Every time a Player’s peg is moved down, their Magistrelli score is reduced by 1, unless their opponent had a Magistrelli score at least four points higher than them at the start of the Game.

If the phrase “five pegs are transferred from the challengee to the challenger” exists in the Ruleset, replace it with the following:

the challengee’s peg is moved up five times, and the challenger’s peg is moved down five times, as if these actions happened at the end of a Game in which their starting Magistrelli scores were the same as their Magistrelli scores when the Dealer responds.

I swear this was a two-sentence proposal when I started it.

Comments

Clucky: he/him

25-03-2021 16:17:50 UTC

But then there isn’t much incentive not to Sfida if you’re the underdog, because there are no real negative costs to you for raising the stakes.

Brendan: he/him

25-03-2021 16:21:16 UTC

Edited because that’s a fair point, though I don’t think you’ll agree with this one either.

Josh: he/they

25-03-2021 16:30:10 UTC

So this just makes pegs into an orphan variable?

An Orphan Variable is a dynastic gamestate variable which has neither a location in which it’s tracked, nor a reasonable manner in which it can be determined from other gamestate variables, specified in the Ruleset.

A Player may not take any dynastic actions that are contingent on the specific value of an Orphan Variable.

Brendan: he/him

25-03-2021 16:31:43 UTC

No, I don’t think it makes pegs a variable at all. It defines “gaining a peg” and “losing a peg” as things that can happen at the end of a game, and then those things are taken into account when adjusting Magistrelli scores.

Josh: he/they

25-03-2021 16:41:31 UTC

Mm, interesting argument. Not one that I think I can buy; gaining or losing x implies that there must be a store of x, somewhere; “gain” and lose” are expressly defined in that way in Numbers and Variables, even if the term ‘variable’ itself doesn’t seem to be keyworded…

I dunno. This feels like one of those distinctions between a programmer and a non-programmer, where the discipline has given the user a completely different perspective on how transactionality works. But I don’t think I could vote in favour of it…

Josh: he/they

25-03-2021 16:46:04 UTC

Although that said I think a trivial wording change would make it less ambiguous to me. Something like “at the end of the game the dealer most up-peg the winner, by… and down-peg the loser, by…” would work uncomplicatedly for me

Brendan: he/him

25-03-2021 17:10:16 UTC

I don’t think that wording change is trivial at all, but I’ll try.

Josh: he/they

25-03-2021 17:32:20 UTC

I’m sorry I made your proposal gross and long but I like it now!

Josh: he/they

25-03-2021 18:44:43 UTC

for

Kevan: he/him

25-03-2021 18:53:52 UTC

imperial

pokes:

25-03-2021 19:25:14 UTC

against

Clucky: he/him

25-03-2021 19:26:53 UTC

against as other players have now gotten to get Kevan to let them fire off multiple games in one day, but would get the advantage that if those games complete before this passes they don’t lose anything from those games even if they lose them so its only a net benefit.

Brendan: he/him

25-03-2021 21:34:25 UTC

Yes, imagine how awful it would be if some players got more chances to play than others, without having a rule in place that cost them pegs if they lost. That would be terribly unfair.

Clucky: he/him

26-03-2021 02:15:52 UTC

You got to play in just as many games as Raven and Darknight did under the old rules you don’t see either of them complaining.

lemon: she/her

26-03-2021 14:11:27 UTC

against

Josh: he/they

26-03-2021 14:25:54 UTC

Flipping to against in favour of making pegs meaningful in Wits and Wagers