Wednesday, April 20, 2011

Call for Judgment: Turf war

Reaches quorum at 15-0, enacted. ~lilomar

Adminned at 22 Apr 2011 06:05:57 UTC

Straight up: I think that PB’s win is legit, but I’m not sure how the glossary got into this state in the first place. I think this needs urgent attention so here we go.

Change the first bullet of rule 3.2.1, Numbers and Variables, to read as follows:

Unless otherwise specified, game variables defined to hold numeric values can hold only non-negative integers, and any action that would set those values below zero is an illegal action unless explicitly otherwise stated in the ruleset. Any situation which would require a roll of DiceX when X is zero or lower always yields a value of 0 unless stated otherwise.



20-04-2011 10:04:57 UTC

against We’ve had a lot of rules that read like “As a weekly action, any Player may decrease every Player’s A by X.” which would no longer work with this solution. Also, we occasionally have similar actions that occur automatically.

I’m not quite sure how best to solve this. Maybe we could just add explicit restrictions to spending and transferring game variables, which seem to be the only real offenders here. Actually, upon closer inspection, transferring seems to work as intended in a roundabout way (since it uses the before-after difference instead of the ‘spent’ amount), but it couldn’t hurt to impose a more robust restriction there as well.

Josh: he/him

20-04-2011 11:34:55 UTC

The problem is that we can’t have a catch-all wording that allows some actions to go below zero, auto-correct and still be legal, while causing other actions to go below zero, be illegal and get reversed.

Meaning that one case or the other will always have to be explicitly allowed by exception in the rules. And that exception will sometimes be forgotten, causing unfortunate consequences.

If the ruleset implicitly disallows results that go below zero, and forces players to add caveats to rules where those results are a desirable byproduct (as in the proposed fix), then the absence of those caveats in rules will lead to, at worst, occasional illegal actions and fix proposals.

If, however, the ruleset implicitly allows results that go below zero, but forces players to caveat proposals where that is an undesirable outcome, then the absence of those caveats lead to scams.

I think, in this instance, the ruleset should take the more conservative road.


20-04-2011 14:03:50 UTC

for I prefer Josh’s wording to Purplebeard’s, here, by quite a way.


20-04-2011 15:11:21 UTC

for Josh’s reasoning makes sense.


20-04-2011 16:16:12 UTC



20-04-2011 17:09:37 UTC



20-04-2011 18:26:31 UTC


Roujo: he/him

21-04-2011 00:45:03 UTC



21-04-2011 01:49:56 UTC



21-04-2011 02:06:27 UTC


Darknight: he/him

21-04-2011 02:11:30 UTC



21-04-2011 03:17:06 UTC



21-04-2011 11:29:11 UTC



21-04-2011 14:06:26 UTC

against Why not just set it to zero if it starts higher than 0, but it’s illegal if it starts at 0?

Josh: he/him

21-04-2011 14:12:01 UTC

@Chivalrybean - wouldn’t have prevented this scam, for instance, as the rule allowed PB to spend any amount of Baabucks to conduct any amount of transfers - meaning that he could legally batch them as one transaction.

Kevan: he/him

21-04-2011 15:19:36 UTC



21-04-2011 16:08:10 UTC

CoV for

Also: baa.


21-04-2011 18:40:11 UTC