Sunday, March 19, 2017

Proposal: Non-invasive scamming

Self Killed. failed by card
Self-killing changes the status of the proposal when the author votes against, regardless of later changes to their votes. So even though the author has been idled it still retains the status of self killed.

Adminned at 21 Mar 2017 00:19:40 UTC

Add a section called “Non-invasive scamming.”

Within it, add:

An Organ may propose a CfJ where they detail a series of actions they could hypothetically perform (for the purpose of this procedure, that series of actions may also be known as the “Scam”), along any justifications and defense in favor of why that series of actions would work, as well as the effects such a series of actions would cause. Those effects, for the purpose of this procedure, are the “Scam’s Effects”. Then, that CfJ’s proposed gamestate or ruleset change would be the Scam’s Effects - so if the CfJ succeeds, the Scam has been deemed to be correct, and the Scam’s Effects can be carried out.

Attempting to perform a Scam (or a similar series of actions) revealed via such a CfJ while it is still Pending can be considered to be against Fair Play, as this CfJ’s purpose is to allow for an Organ to perform a scam in a courteous way, not a public announcement for everyone to be able to steal that Organ’s scam idea. Note that this only applies while that CfJ is Pending.


Upturning the game every time I want to pull a large scam is annoying. Currently, scams can only be deemed correct or incorrect a posteriori, which would mean that if the scam involves nuking everything, I would need to nuke everything and then wait for someone to CfJ against that (if at all, but with scams it nearly always happens), to deem that eccentricity legally correct or incorrect.

And that’s annoying for everyone lol.

So with this, I would only need to detail how the scam would be done, not necessarily potentially nuke everything and wait for a possible CfJ to judge it, in order to perform it. It’s a QoL proposal.



03-19-2017 20:44:36 UTC

I find it odd that you’d want to make it a CfJ, which can stay up for 2+ days if you don’t reach quorum with it. I don’t think that basically adding what is basically a new form under the CfJ heading is a good idea. You could simply have made it a new form and define how votes work on it and so on.


03-19-2017 20:46:51 UTC

Ok, changing it to a new form.

Oracular rufio:

03-19-2017 20:54:25 UTC

against If you want to be less annoying, don’t do things that are liable to force the admins to have to revert gamestate.  It’s pretty simple.  The whole point of scams is that they are not officially sanctioned by the rules, anyway.


03-19-2017 20:56:30 UTC

...I couldn’t finish my edits. I guess this version stands.


03-19-2017 21:02:40 UTC



03-19-2017 21:21:53 UTC



03-19-2017 21:59:25 UTC



03-19-2017 22:04:06 UTC

Oh well.  against


03-20-2017 22:42:06 UTC

Is this proposal already self-killed? Or does that not work because Cuddlebeam is idle now?

Kevan: HE/HIM

03-20-2017 23:31:55 UTC

Idle players aren’t counted as players for the purposes of “Votable Matters” or “Special Proposal Voting”, so no, Cuddlebeam’s comment is not a vote and this proposal has not been self-killed.


03-20-2017 23:45:02 UTC

That’s what I was assuming, thanks for clearing it up.


03-20-2017 23:48:57 UTC

Although, Cuddlebeam did cast a vote, which changed this proposals status to self-killed, even though Cuddlebeam does not have a vote anymore now, am I missing something about undoing idle votes?


03-20-2017 23:55:06 UTC

” A non-Organ never has a Vote, even if they were an Organ previously and had cast a valid Vote.”


03-21-2017 00:03:47 UTC

Yeah, but the self-killed status isn’t set at the time of failing it, but

“When an Organ casts a vote AGAINST their own Proposal (which is not in the form of a DEFERENTIAL vote), this renders the Proposal Self-Killed, even if the author later changes their Vote.”


“The oldest pending Proposal may be failed by any Admin, if any of the following are true:
It has been Vetoed or Self-Killed.”

Arguably, Cuddlebeam has self-killed this proposal in the past, so it can be failed regardless of whether Cuddlebeam currently has a vote or not.


03-21-2017 00:15:17 UTC

Hm, I guess since the status change happens at the time of vote, rendering the vote invalid retroactively doesn’t do anything to said status.