Friday, March 19, 2021

Call for Judgment: Shout out to Bucky for closing my edit window [Tournament]

Failed by the enactment of the proposal “The Smouldering Cigar”, by Kevan.

Adminned at 21 Mar 2021 21:43:43 UTC

Change the text in both the rule “Tournament Rules of Giolitti” and the ruleset section “Impending Rules” that currently reads “The Dealer may, and should at their earliest convenience, make a comment on a Closed game that identifies any Players of the game that named a card in a Play, that they did not begin that Game with. This comment, known as the Fine, ends the Game.” to read as follows:

The Dealer may, and should at their earliest convenience, make a comment on a Closed game that identifies any Players of that Game who named a card in a Play despite not having that card in their Hand when the Game began; or may make a comment on a non-Closed Game that identifies any Players of that Game who have not posted a comment on its Table in the last 24 hours, when it was that Player’s turn to make a Play or respond to a Sfida. This comment, known as the Fine, ends the Game and makes it Closed if it was not Closed already.

Comments

Zack: he/him

19-03-2021 23:37:25 UTC

Why “having that card in their Hand when the Game began” rather than “having that card in their Hand at the time it was played”

Brendan: he/him

19-03-2021 23:54:26 UTC

I’m not trying to make many changes to the structure of the original text except where necessary to fit this in—that seems more like a proposal-level change.

Lulu: she/her

20-03-2021 05:28:11 UTC

for

Bucky:

20-03-2021 06:08:29 UTC

against

Josh: Observer he/they

20-03-2021 09:15:07 UTC

for

Kevan: he/him

20-03-2021 09:57:18 UTC

Either Darknight has dropped out, is distracted for exceptional reasons, or isn’t able to check the game as frequently as every 24 hours. I vote against in case it’s the third.

against

pokes:

20-03-2021 11:47:04 UTC

against I would like to reserve the right to be away for something more like 48 hours if need be.

Josh: Observer he/they

20-03-2021 12:01:47 UTC

This isn’t vastly penalising people who need to be away; it’s just meaning that they foreit one game and don’t hold up someone else’s progress. It seems very unreasonable that a person have to sit inert for 2 days plus waiting for an opponent who won’t make it, when a penalty-free way of automating forfeits can exist.

Brendan: he/him

20-03-2021 13:42:46 UTC

If you want to be away for more than 48 hours, don’t set your readiness to Yes!  Game actions should have consequences.

Zack: he/him

20-03-2021 18:03:53 UTC

for @pokes no one is forcing you to play, but if you are going to be offline for that long set your readiness to “No”

Kevan: he/him

20-03-2021 19:27:28 UTC

The implication here would seem to be that if you know you’re going to be offline for 24 hours, you should turn your Readiness off (otherwise a game might start the minute you drop offline, and be Sfida’d immediately, and then time out as a loss for you).

We’ll see what the vote says, but that feels a bit on the narrow side to me: someone who checks in around the same time every evening, plus or minus an hour, risks being timed out if they’re early one day and late the next.

Josh: Observer he/they

20-03-2021 20:06:16 UTC

I just feel like while a loss has no penalty there’s not a good reason to avoid this. If it starts costing something to lose then that’s a different matter…

Kevan: he/him

20-03-2021 20:16:29 UTC

One of your rivals gaining a Peg while you miss out on the chance to gain one is, I think, a penalty.

I’ll put this up as a proposal with a 48 hour timeout in case Darknight is genuinely AWOL at this point.

Raven1207: he/they

21-03-2021 03:49:26 UTC

for

Darknight: he/him

21-03-2021 14:47:14 UTC

against