Sunday, October 18, 2009

Proposal: Preventing Infinite Point Scams

Passes 10-5, +2 points to arth—arthexis

Adminned at 19 Oct 2009 12:39:00 UTC

Add a new sub-rule “Speed Limit” to rule “Points”:

No Player can have their score absolutely increased by more than 30 during a single day (which is defined as a 24 hour period starting at midnight UTC). If a Player’s score would be absolutely increased by more than 30 during a day, their score is instead increased by the maximum amount which doesn’t cause their score to be absolutely increased by more than 30 that day (this can be zero).

This can make a future win condition based on points work as intended, giving us a window to patch the loophole before the player goes infinite. Also note that the tracked increase is absolute, so if someone loses ten points, then they can win up to 40 that day.

Comments

Ienpw III:

10-18-2009 04:42:08 UTC

for

Bucky:

10-18-2009 04:47:02 UTC

against , because there may be legitimate rules that award, say, 40 points directly for some major accomplishment.  I also do not want to keep track of buffering several large point gains in the same day out across the next 72 hours, nor open the possibility of flushing someone else’s point gain from a proposal by crediting it to them immediately after they gain 30 points from something else.

Bucky:

10-18-2009 04:55:15 UTC

Oh, and most glaringly it prevents large point transfers.

arthexis:

10-18-2009 05:20:44 UTC

@bucky: Precisely what you explain is what this rule is designed to stop. People should win the game from persistent effort, not due to a lucky strike.

Bucky:

10-18-2009 06:01:05 UTC

@arthexis: Your rule is intended to force us to use creative accounting to get all our proposal bonuses?  Or to keep any rule from handing out 31 points at a time?  Or to make us perform large transfers over the course of several days, paying the fee again each time, to avoid throwing away points?

CoV against ->  against  against  against  against  against

Darknight:

10-18-2009 07:07:01 UTC

Gonna wait for other votes as I’d rather not base mine on the normal Bucky/Art debates lol.

arthexis:

10-18-2009 08:10:03 UTC

My two main points would be: Does anybody think we should have things that award more than 30 points at once? Do we wanna have a victory condition based o points without fearing infinite points scams?

Cuz, really if victory is not gonna depend on points, then, we are wasting our time here (in general, not just with this proposal).

Kevan:

10-18-2009 10:50:30 UTC

for It’s a tricky area, as you’re also preventing players from being too active in different strands of the game. I’d go for something a little higher than 30, but we’ll see how it goes.

Shem:

10-18-2009 11:50:22 UTC

for It guards against loopholes, and if there is ever a rule that would award more than 30 points, this rule could be changed by that proposal.

Josh:

10-18-2009 13:38:56 UTC

for

Excalabur:

10-18-2009 13:50:25 UTC

for I’m with Kevan on increasing the limit.  It’s already totally possible for someone to get 35 in one day from 2 props and a theft.

Darknight:

10-18-2009 16:07:56 UTC

for

Bucky:

10-18-2009 17:37:00 UTC

Re:the limit
The limit should be at least 100 to avoid screwing up large transfers.  I suggest 150 as the smallest multiple of 10 that is larger than the total of all gains currently in the ruleset.

In the meantime, my vote is still AGAINST, and the possibility that this proposal will pass is holding up one of my proposals.

Oze:

10-18-2009 18:57:16 UTC

for

arthexis:

10-18-2009 19:54:51 UTC

If the limit where to be upped, I’d suggest 50, because it’s a little more manageable, but still doesn’t allow players to win in a single stroke.

Klisz:

10-19-2009 00:37:03 UTC

Um…  imperial ?

Oranjer:

10-19-2009 03:23:34 UTC

for

ais523:

10-19-2009 08:17:33 UTC

against The idea is fine, the limit is too small.

Qwazukee:

10-19-2009 14:26:29 UTC

against

spikebrennan:

10-19-2009 14:43:19 UTC

for

Wooble:

10-19-2009 19:23:50 UTC

imperial

arthexis:

10-19-2009 19:37:54 UTC

@ais: Yes, the limit may be small, but that’s easily amended (by a Trivial proposal even). The fact that it deals with infinite point scams is clearly more important.

Furthermore that the limit IS small is a rather important point too, it it was high enough, it wouldn’t matter.