Thursday, October 29, 2015

Call for Judgment: War Crimes

At 1-1 and over 48 hours old, cannot be enacted. Failed by Brendan.

Adminned at 02 Nov 2015 15:25:12 UTC

If an Invasion has been pending for more than 48 hours, and its Attack Strength is greater than or equal to its Defence Strength, it may be Enacted by any Admin. The Pope’s Loyalty is changed to that of the Invading Power. If an Invasion has been pending for more than 48 hours, and cannot be Enacted, it may be Failed by any Admin.

It is my opinion that the story post “Invasion by Spain” has been resolved incorrectly, as the final vote was placed >48 hours after the post was made. At 48 hours, the attack strength was 4 (Brendan) + 1 (Kevan) + 5 (Pope is not a Roman) = 10. Defense Strength: 5 (delcooper11) x 2 (Captain General of the Church) + 8 (Thrawn, per rule Invasion) = 18.

The invasion rule is subject to exploitation by alliances with an admin (i.e. “Hey Admin, don’t admin my invasion post until it’s gotten enough votes to succeed.”)

If enacted, this CjF shall change the following in rule Invasion:

If an Invasion has been pending for more than 48 hours, and its Attack Strength is greater than or equal to its Defence Strength, it may be Enacted by any Admin. The Pope’s Loyalty is changed to that of the Invading Power. If an Invasion has been pending for more than 48 hours, and cannot be Enacted, it may be Failed by any Admin.

to read:

If an Invasion has been pending for more than 48 hours, and its Attack Strength is greater than or equal to its Defence Strength, the invasion has succeeded and shall be enacted by an any Admin. The Pope’s Loyalty is changed to that of the Invading Power. If an Invasion has been pending for more than 48 hours, and its Defence strength is greater than its Attack Strength, the invasion has failed and it shall be Failed by any Admin.

 

EDIT: clarify location of rule to change.

Comments

Kevan:

10-29-2015 19:14:58 UTC

If I’m reading this right, you’re not suggesting that the gamestate be updated to reflect a different outcome, just that this be fixed for future Invasions? I agree it’s an unfair bias against non-admins.

delcooper11:

10-29-2015 23:27:43 UTC

You are correct, I’m not suggesting that the gamestate be updated to reflect a different outcome, since I think a strict reading of the existing rules allowed the invasion to be resolved as it was. I realize now that instead of saying that I believe it was resolved incorrectly, I should have said that I believe it was resolved unfairly.

Kevan:

10-30-2015 13:27:27 UTC

Not sure this fixes it: an admin would be told that they “shall” (“are required to”) process an attack that they maybe don’t feel like processing right now, but legally they could still ignore it.

against

Would be interesting to try out a rule where if a player was required to do something, then they explicitly couldn’t take any other game actions until they had. Although it might make it too easy for us to stumble into illegal gamestates.