Monday, August 02, 2021

Proposal: Thomas’s Turn To Shine

Failed by Take Two!—Clucky

Adminned at 07 Aug 2021 03:37:40 UTC

Add a new dynastic rule called “Turns”

Each General has a publicly tracked Last Turn, which is a UTC date and time which is by default 0:00 on August 1st 2021.

A General is considered to be Pulled Back if the difference between their Last Turn and the current time is greater than 3 days (72 hours). Otherwise they are considered to be Engaged.

The Weight is a publicly tracked integer value equal to the number of Engaged Generals, divided in half, rounded down.

A General is Ready if either one of the following is true: They are Pulled Back; or it has been at least 12 hours since they last look a Turn Action and the number of Engaged Generals whose Last Turn is chronologically before the General attempting to perform the action is less than or equal to The Weight. Leaders are always considered to be Ready.

A Turn Action is a special kind of Action that can only be performed by a Ready General or Leader. Immediately after a General performs a Turn Action, their Last Turn is set to the current UTC date and time.

Unless otherwise restricted, Leaders and Generals may perform Turn Actions at any time.

in “Units” after replace “that action can be performed on its behalf by that Unit’s Commander” add ” as a Turn Action”

Idea for how to do turns that allow the players as a whole to dictate the pace of the game a bit. Idea is to give us turns, but makes it so its always half the playerbase turn to go at any time.

Comments

ais523:

02-08-2021 23:54:58 UTC

The word “active” is already used in some contexts in the rules (e.g. when referring to the list of “currently active players” in the sidebar).

I don’t think this redefinition of it breaks things, but it would probably reduce confusion to use a different word.

Additionally, The Weight probably shouldn’t be “publicly tracked”, because it isn’t a variable (it’s a value derived from other variables). In particular, the number of Active Generals can change by itself due to the passage of time, and there’s no obligation on anyone to update the tracking accordingly. It’s more the sort of thing that Chiiika’s proposal names “Optional Information”.

Kevan: Drone he/him

03-08-2021 11:48:38 UTC

imperial

Jason: he/him

03-08-2021 13:33:01 UTC

imperial

Darknight: he/him

03-08-2021 13:42:37 UTC

imperial

ais523:

03-08-2021 20:24:02 UTC

against Clucky’s voting on my simplification of this proposal made me wonder whether there’s a scam in this one, and I think I found it: if you wait for 72 hours with no actions, you can then perform as many actions as you want all at once (because your Last Turn gets set “immediately after” your action, not during it, so if you do multiple actions in the same update you can fit additional actions in in between without violating the rules on doing multiple actions simultaneously).

Trapdoorspyder:

03-08-2021 20:33:46 UTC

against yup, that’s a scam there

Clucky: he/him

03-08-2021 20:35:53 UTC

lol now ais is intentionally ignoring the rules that say you can only perform a single action at once

makes it clear his proposal is actually the one with the scam

ais523:

03-08-2021 20:44:19 UTC

I’m not; the “immediately after” part seems like it’s designed to dodge those rules, by implying that the Last Turn update is not part of the action itself and thus that doing something in between doesn’t violate the “two actions at once” rule.

Even if it wasn’t intended to do that, I can see someone reasonably arguing that it does in fact do that, and if someone attempted the scam, I’m not sure whether a CFJ upholding it, or a CFJ reverting it, would pass or fail (which is ultimately what would determine if the scam is actually valid or not).

Clucky: he/him

03-08-2021 20:50:20 UTC

Fairly sure the word immediately means immediately, not “really soon, after I do something else first”

Anyone who tried to argue differently in a CfJ would be laughed at

ais523:

03-08-2021 21:04:17 UTC

Anyway, your arguments on my proposal imply that this one should be voted down: it allows a conspiracy of half the players (which you seem to think is likely to occur?) to force other players (including the Leaders) to act precisely every 12 hours to avoid losing their actions.

lemonfanta should be privileged here, given that the concept of the dynasty is meant to be everyone vs. her, and I don’t think she can be online every 12 hours (she’s been offline for longer than that a the moment).

I guess another way to put it is: if you’re allowing the median player to dictate the pace of the game, but with a cap, why is the cap set at a value of 12 hours specifically (which is much, much too short; not everyone can check BlogNomic both as soon as they wake up, and in the evening before going to bed)? It should either be something that scales on the actions of other players (e.g. Emperor discretion), or considerably longer in order to ensure that everyone has a chance to act. You’ve been arguing on my proposal that allowing a situation equivalent to this one, but uncapped, is very problematic because it could lead to actions going too quickly – but in that case, your proposal also leads to actions going too quickly, because the cap is too short. (For what it’s worth, I believe that the cap is unlikely to be hit in practice.)

Clucky: he/him

03-08-2021 21:08:27 UTC

please can it with the bad faith arguments all they are doing is getting people more and more annoyed / on the brink of leaving

ais523:

03-08-2021 21:18:54 UTC

My arguments aren’t meant in bad faith; they’re a genuine attempt to analyse your proposal and my proposal (which have very few differences in most situations; I agree that the limit on how often Leaders can act is a major difference, although there’s nothing preventing us giving the Leaders Leader-specific actions that aren’t Turn Actions if we think that’s a good idea).

They’re intended to make your proposal fail – because you’ve made me suspicious of your motivations behind it – but not particularly to make my proposal succeed (I wouldn’t mind if it gets voted down in favour of some other sort of action system, because this one is quite experimental).

Clucky: he/him

03-08-2021 23:13:12 UTC

against

the more I think about it, supply is already probably going to govern a lot of what units can do. might be better to simply lean into that as a means of measuring how fast people can go rather than imposing additional restrictions before we test if the current ones even work.