Tuesday, June 19, 2012

Proposal: More cleanup

Timed out 5 votes to 7. Failed by Kevan.

Adminned at 21 Jun 2012 12:58:24 UTC

Remove the line “When a DoV is failed, if it has a number of AGAINST Votes that exceed Quorum, the Time Buddha who posted it cannot make another DoV until after 120 hours (5 days) have passed since the time their DoV was failed.” from “Victory and Ascension”

In the rule “Idle Time Buddhas” replace

An Admin may render a Time Buddha Idle if that Time Buddha has asked to become Idle in an entry or comment from the past four days, or if that Time Buddha has not posted an entry or comment in the last seven days. In the latter case, the Admin must announce the idling in a blog post. Admins may render themselves Idle at any time. An Admin may Unidle a Time Buddha if that Time Buddha has asked to become Unidle in an entry or comment from the past four days, and Idle Admins may Unidle themselves at any time, unless the Time Buddha who would be Unidled asked to become (or rendered themselves) Idle within the previous four days, and within the current dynasty.

with

An Admin may render a Time Buddha Idle if that Time Buddha has asked to become Idle in an entry or comment from the past four days and has not requested to become Unidle more recently than they last requested to become Idle, or if that Time Buddha has not posted an entry or comment in the last seven days. In the latter case, the Admin must announce the idling in a blog post. Admins may render themselves Idle at any time. An Admin may Unidle a Time Buddha if that Time Buddha has asked to become Unidle in an entry or comment from the past four days and has not requested to become Idle more recently than they last requested to become Unidle, and Idle Admins may Unidle themselves at any time. A Time Buddha may not be Unidled if they asked to become (or rendered themselves) Idle within the previous four days, and within the current dynasty.

First change if we really want to keep it there, we need to at least make it so you can’t fail non-pending DoVs. Otherwise I can fail Josh’s DoV every five days and prevent him from ever winning. But I think the rule is kinda dumb to begin with. I know in the past we’ve had problems with spamming DoVs, so the goal is to make people more wary about just throwing up a random DoV, but ultimately it leads to situations where just because you disagree with someone on the rules you suddenly ruined your chance of winning.

Second change prevents people from being idled if they asked to idle, then rejoined at the start of the next dynasty.

Comments

Kevan: he/him

19-06-2012 20:21:59 UTC

against Ruining your chance of winning by disagreeing on rules is par for the course in Nomic - it seems good to give an incentive to really double-check your working before freezing the game for everyone for 48 hours.

Second point is a good one. Could just change “entry or comment from the past four days” to “entry or comment from the past four days and in the current dynasty”, to use fewer words.

Josh: he/they

19-06-2012 21:24:55 UTC

against

redtara: they/them

19-06-2012 21:47:49 UTC

for

BobTHJ:

19-06-2012 21:54:39 UTC

for

Klisz:

19-06-2012 21:58:38 UTC

imperial

omd:

19-06-2012 21:59:48 UTC

against

Clucky: he/him

19-06-2012 23:23:52 UTC

@Kevan but often it isn’t about ‘double checking’ its about “is my interpretation of the rules correct here”

It creates a scenario where the game can be delayed *longer* because a player won’t want to vote against their own DoV, even if its going to fail, out of hopes it doesn’t hit quorum but instead fails out after 48 hours

moonroof:

20-06-2012 00:24:05 UTC

for

omd:

20-06-2012 01:27:33 UTC

CoV imperial

Bucky:

20-06-2012 01:46:38 UTC

against

scshunt:

20-06-2012 05:48:16 UTC

against because it adds a lot of complexity without covering every case (an admin could be in a hurry and request an idle, then unidle themselves and could still be idled again by another admin).

quirck: he/him

20-06-2012 09:22:55 UTC

against

Clucky: he/him

20-06-2012 18:21:32 UTC

I thought admins also had to announce they were unidling? You certainly don’t want an admin quietly unidling, changing something, and then no one even noticing they were there…

Kevan: he/him

20-06-2012 19:18:57 UTC

Idling mechanics bounced from an Agora player’s suggested “everything has to have a full blog post” and back again. Your concern sounds more like a problem with active admins being able to “quietly change” something without anyone noticing, though, really.

Henri:

20-06-2012 23:43:38 UTC

for

Kevan: he/him

21-06-2012 09:23:09 UTC

[Clucky] And it’s a factor, but the flip side of “is my interpretation of the rules correct here?” victories is that without a limit on DoVs, if you spot a ludicrous but faintly plausible interpretation of a rule, it’s tempting to just throw a DoV out there in case people buy it - the only cost is the social one of wasting everyone’s time.