Thursday, June 22, 2006

Proposal: Reductio Victoria

Timed out 6-2 by Kevan, but had no effect due to the final clause.

Well, it’s still passed, just without any effect. -Elias IX

Adminned at 24 Jun 2006 09:34:44 UTC

[ A stab at editing the Victory rule back into the realms of concise and coherent language. ]

Reword Law 1.9 (Victory and Ascension) to:-

If a Monk (other than the Abbot) believes that e has achieved victory, e may Make a Post to the Blognomic weblog in the Declaration of Victory category, detailing this.

Upon doing so, the game immediately game goes into Hiatus, if it hasn’t already. During this time, the only game actions that may be taken are those covered by Laws 1.2, 1.6, 1.7 and 1.9.

Every Monk may respond to an active DoV saying whether or not e believes the poster has achieved victory (using the FOR and AGAINST icons).

The Declaration of Victory may be resolved after 24 hours, or after 12 hours if the Abbot has voted on it. Upon resolution, if a Quorum of Monks have voted on the DoV and more than half of those votes were in favour, then the DoV passes - otherwise the DoV fails, and if no other DoVs are still pending, the Hiatus ends.

When a DoV passes, all other active DoVs are failed, and a new Dynasty begins with the Monk who made the DoV as its Abbot. (That Monk may pass this role to another Monk at this point, if they wish.) The Hiatus continues until the new Abbot posts an Ascension Address to the BlogNomic weblog - this shall specify Abbot’s chosen theme for the new round, and may optionally include a proclamation that any number of Rules will be repealed, and that any keywords will be replaced with new theme-appropriate terms.

If this proposal receives two or more AGAINST votes, it shall have no effect.

Comments

Bucky:

22-06-2006 15:10:35 UTC

Some issues,

1)CfJs no longer extend Hiatus.
2)It allows a DoV to resolve twice (at 12 hours and again at 24 hours).
3)It drops the term “Passing the Mantle”
4)Law 1.7 may be interpreted as to allow normal GNDT activity during Hiatus.
5)This new version messes up the pointer in Rule 2.1.
6)This new version makes no provision for resetting GNDT stats.

How many of these are intended features, and how many are problems?

Kevan: he/him

22-06-2006 16:02:40 UTC

1) Intended. What’s the benefit of having CfJs prolonging a Hiatus? Fixing an unsporting loophole that someone’s used for a failing DoV?

2) Unintended, but this just seems like horrible semantics, to me.

3) Intended. This seems fine as a colloquialism rather than a keyword, when it’s such a simple and unreferenced one-off.

4) Intended. Law 1.7 only allows the GNDT to be changed “whenever the Ruleset permits it” (which is necessary if new players join during a Hiatus), and the ability to correct false values seems more useful than harmful.

5) Unintended, although this doesn’t have any effect.

6) Intended. All GNDT stats are generally deleted when their rules are repealed anyway; from the look of Blessings, it seems more useful to leave any persistent GNDT stats unchanged, by default.

Bucky:

22-06-2006 17:42:59 UTC

1)One of the purposes of a hiatus is to clear the air of legal disputes.  2 Dynasties ago, for example, I declared victory to allow the lice scam to pass out of the system.

2)This could cause problems after 12 hours if the Abbot is the first to vote on a DoV;  A popular DoV might fail only because the Abbot voted on it before it hit quorum.  This problem is grounds for a against .

3)fine

4)Has a broader scope than you give it credit for.  For example, it could allow a Monk to buy a book during Hiatus.

5)fine.

6)Stat reseting without clearing the rules may be desirable.

Elias IX:

22-06-2006 18:18:39 UTC

imperial Decisive, I’m not.

Hix:

22-06-2006 18:19:49 UTC

against

Kevan: he/him

23-06-2006 01:07:02 UTC

1) It is? What? What’s wrong with a simple CfJ to clear a scam? Tacking on an “any player who exploited this while the CfJ was active shall be punished in such a way” clause if things are getting too noisy.

2) This is how the current system works!

4) How? The actual book-buying is covered by other, locked rules, isn’t it?

6) Maybe, but it seems the exception rather than the rule. The Emperor can always clear the stats as the first proposal of their Dynasty.

Bucky:

23-06-2006 03:19:16 UTC

1)This should still be available as an emergency option.  Also, a new dynasty shouldn’t begin until all relevant legal issues have been dealt with.  Our current Ruleset has this problem.

2)This should be fixed Your proposal fails to do this.

4)The book buying is covered both under Law 1.7 and another rule.  As such, it would be legal.

6)It’s not so much a case of how often it’s used as whether it’s available in case it should be used.

We ought to discuss this in IRC.

Angry Grasshopper:

23-06-2006 04:12:55 UTC

Bucky, who do you honestly think believes that you issued that DoV to clear the system of the effects of one of your scams.

A much needed breath of fresh air, even with the appended clause. ;)

for

Kevan: he/him

23-06-2006 04:41:11 UTC

Looks like I missed you on IRC.

1) We’ve managed to close loopholes before without using a fake DoV to lock the game for the duration of a CfJ. But I’ve no qualms about adding this back in if people want it.

2) Yes, perhaps it should be fixed. This isn’t a reason to vote against any proposal that doesn’t fix it, though, is it?

4) Not sure where you’re coming from, on this one. The relevant sentence of Law 1.7 is that “any Monk may update any Monk’s data via the GNDT, whenever the Ruleset permits it”, so if the other rule doesn’t permit it because of Hiatus, Law 1.7 specifically defers to that.

6) Maybe. I think it’s rare enough that we don’t need a paragraph in the core ruleset about it, though. (And the current wording doesn’t make it available, it makes it compulsory, unless a rule has had the foresight to overrule it.)

Purplebeard:

23-06-2006 10:09:32 UTC

for Kevan makes good points.

Bucky:

23-06-2006 15:54:07 UTC

I would vote FOR if you made the following changes:
1)Delay the Ascension Address if the corresponding DoV is contested by CfJ.

2)Fix this! (I suggest a flat 24 hours)

and possibly:
4)Make more explicit.

Excalabur:

23-06-2006 18:10:08 UTC

for To be revised again :)

Elias IX:

23-06-2006 21:33:24 UTC

for It’s sooo clean!

/me has sparkling eyes

He will swallow up death in victory. (Isaiah 25:8)