Tuesday, July 05, 2011

Proposal: Victory Conditions

Vetoed - coppro

Adminned at 05 Jul 2011 13:43:20 UTC

Add a new dynastic rule to the Ruleset. Call it “Victory” and give it the following text:

Gladiators are deemed to have won a victory if they have gained a total of 100 frags, as tracked in the GNDT. No admin may falsify the records of the GNDT, thereby increasing their number of frags. Frags recorded in the GNDT may only be gained through the means outlined in Dynastic Rules 2.5 - Death and Scorekeeping.

I know that this looks simple, but I think I’ve tied off loopholes. Please explain any major errors I’ve made, as I’m new to this thing.



05-07-2011 16:45:56 UTC

against .  Second sentence is redundant.  We may have a ‘100 frags’ win condition later, but I think it’s a little early for a win condition.  Also, winning a victory isn’t necessarily the same as achieving it.

Kevan: HE/HIM

05-07-2011 16:52:07 UTC

against Eh, if you win a victory, you’ve achieved it. “Gained” is problematic, though - if I get 50 Frags, then lose them all, then get 50 more, I’ve met the win condition.


05-07-2011 16:52:15 UTC

against There’s a scam here (and I wonder if it’s deliberate). The GNDT is not the gamestate, so saying “have 100 frags” would be safe and unscammable. What you’re doing, though, is to tie it to the GNDT display of the gamestate, rather than the gamestate itself, and then ban only admins - rather than Gladiators in general, or people in general - from falsifying the record. So as far as I could tell, I could just make a false change to gain 100 Frags in the GNDT display and claim victory (I’m not an admin), with the last sentence powerless to help because it controls the gamestate frag, not the GNDT display.

The proposed rule could be worded much more simply and unscammably as “A Gladiator with at least 100 frags achieves victory.” The core rules will take care of shutting down any illegal-GNDT-update scams from there (changing the value in the GNDT would not change the actual number of frags, and an incorrect change could just be reverted).


05-07-2011 16:55:21 UTC

veto due to ais523’s reasoning.

Prince Anduril:

05-07-2011 16:59:19 UTC

Fair point about the second sentence, hadn’t fully understood the gamestate rules. As far as winning and achieving goes, I think it’s fair to say that since win is defined as to be “successful or victorious in (a contest or conflict)” by Google, it is synonymous with ‘achieve’.


05-07-2011 17:34:00 UTC

prince: The wording is very redundant and, as was pointed out, buggy.  A better way to say it would be “The first Gladiator to have 100 frags achieves victory.”  That wording already takes care of the gamestate/GNDT representation problem and is a lot simpler.