Tuesday, February 28, 2017

Proposal: Make ‘em say ARGH

Timed out 2 votes to 4 over Hiatus. Failed by Kevan.

Adminned at 06 Mar 2017 11:06:27 UTC

In the rule Symptoms change:

A Villager exhibiting Eternal Torment should, in every blog comment they make

to

Visible. A Villager exhibiting Eternal Torment must, in every blog comment they make

Comments

pokes:

02-28-2017 22:03:26 UTC

The silence from some of our more Eternally Tormented villagers has been deafening.  for

card:

02-28-2017 22:19:12 UTC

for

Kevan:

02-28-2017 22:26:44 UTC

against If they forget, it makes their vote illegal. And if we don’t notice a vote being illegal, it’s a mess.

card:

02-28-2017 22:54:21 UTC

So turning the “must” into a “should” would make it less of a hassle?

It could also be revised so that making comments on votable matters with votes in them exempt.

pokes:

03-01-2017 01:04:55 UTC

Kevan: I don’t understand why that’s the case. The Ruleset doesn’t seem to give explicit teeth to “must”. Is it judicial precedent?

Matt:

03-01-2017 01:39:48 UTC

pokes: “Shall: is required to” seems to be sufficient teeth.
Kevan: The same goes with most other MUST rules, “if we forget…mess”. This proposal at least makes the symptom’s effects less optional.

Cuddlebeam:

03-01-2017 02:02:12 UTC

against

Why isn’t the ‘must’ for Cough or Confusion as well?

Matt:

03-01-2017 02:15:07 UTC

Cuddlebeam: They needn’t ARGH.

pokes:

03-01-2017 02:24:58 UTC

The part I’m wondering about is, if someone doesn’t do something they’re required to, where’s the boundary of what actions that invalidates? Their vote nearest in proximity is invalid? All actions they took that day are invalid? Are they no longer a Villager from that point forward?

There’s probably some rule interpretation or CfJ precedent I’m missing.

Matt:

03-01-2017 02:35:08 UTC

I assume it would be contextual. In this case, a Villager with Eternal Torment must contains a string with each comment. If not, the comment is illegal and retracted as if it never happened. I think the latter is the main point: there aren’t ramifications for NOT doing it other than reverting the gamestate (and adding any subsequent additions) when an illegal action occurs.

Viv:

03-01-2017 09:11:31 UTC

Argh

Kevan:

03-01-2017 10:34:01 UTC

“Must” is just plain English.

The boundary of invalidation isn’t clear, I can’t think of a precedent offhand. I’d say that combining “cast one Vote on a Votable Matter by making a comment” with “must say ARGH in every comment” would mean that an arghless vote comment simply wasn’t a comment (and so wasn’t a vote), just as an attempted proposal without a category isn’t a proposal.

(Also, I’m not sure this proposal does anything, because dead Villagers speak through the Spectral Actions rule instead of the Symptoms rule, and Spectral Actions remains a “should”.)

derrick:

03-01-2017 17:00:17 UTC

against *cough*. I know I’m one of the big offenders here. I think the “should” is sufficient. I really don’t want the game to descend into a mess of “Gotchas!” It isn’t fun, and it isn’t good game design.

card:

03-01-2017 21:43:20 UTC

against