Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[Voltaire]

What do you suggest? I think changing turns is something that should have to be announced rather than happen automatically. That way there is no ambiguity regarding whose turn it currently is and when a turn started/ended. What kind of abuse or mistakes could occur?

Well, imagine a future dust-up between two players. Player A is furious at Player B for some reason. About six minutes into Player B's turn, Player A ends Player B's turn. And so on. It's so easy to abuse this.

I do agree that mandatory actions are a bad idea now. I also support keeping the 72 timeout, of course.

I would suggest that the conclusion of a vote is when a turn changes hands. If the outcome of the vote is challenged, pause the game (similar to my idea that any vote should pause the game until the voting is over) while that is resolved. Get the outcome right, next turn. Anything else anyone wants to do, they should do prior to the end of voting (so probably before issuing a final proposal) so they don't get caught off-guard.

This is more or less what I was trying to do with 323.

Any issues with that?

[Voltaire]

323 doesn't make sense anyway: "A player's turn ends when they have taken all required actions during their turn." indicates that a turn should end as soon as the player makes a proposal.

Actually, they'll have to pick a color if it's their first turn since 314 passed. Maybe other stuff.

Yeah, it's flawed, we need something more comprehensive. But we have to watch out for it, since if we change 201 323 will trump the new rule. Kirian's "suspend rules" will probably come in handy because we could suspend "only 1 rule change" and repeal 323 at the same time.

[Voltaire]

323 doesn't make sense anyway: "A player's turn ends when they have taken all required actions during their turn." indicates that a turn should end as soon as the player makes a proposal.

Actually, no, the rule doesn't say that because of 308:

One turn consists of proposing one rule-change and having it voted on.

[Jimmmmm]

What do you suggest? I think changing turns is something that should have to be announced rather than happen automatically. That way there is no ambiguity regarding whose turn it currently is and when a turn started/ended. What kind of abuse or mistakes could occur?

Well, imagine a future dust-up between two players. Player A is furious at Player B for some reason. About six minutes into Player B's turn, Player A ends Player B's turn. And so on. It's so easy to abuse this.

That's why I said that only the current player can end the turn until either 72 hours have passed without a proposal or the vote has resolved.

I also think it will be really helpful to have to announce the next turn so everyone knows whose turn it is.

Also, for the record, my last proposal was more than 72 hours after my turn started. That was when we still thought 316 was in effect. Nobody noticed. I guess the main point was to differentiate between turns that are going somewhere and turns that aren't. If a player is discussing a proposal, maybe we think they deserve to go past the 72 hour deadline.

[Voltaire]

That's why I said that only the current player can end the turn until either 72 hours have passed without a proposal or the vote has resolved.

I also think it will be really helpful to have to announce the next turn so everyone knows whose turn it is.

I completely misread your proposal then. It sounds fine.

[Grujah]

hoooooooooooooooooy boy I do not like that idea at all. It's open to massive amounts of abuse/mistakes.

I would be fine with a rule that says the current player may end their turn at any point (prior to voting) if they wish.

Be sure to watch out for 323 as it talks about how turns change hands.

We'll see what florrat wants to do.

It needs to address overrulling too. And manually ending can lead to ending them in very weird places.

[florrat]

(skip to below the horizontal line for my rule proposal)

Ok, so I've read the explosion of new posts. First of all: Sorry for my dick move. I agree that what I did was worse than what Watno did up to that point, even though neither of us broke any rules.

I wholeheartedly agree with Voltaire's to-do list (linked for you convenience), especially point 3. The main points of my invocation of the judgement were
(1) showing that Watno cannot do whatever he wants
(2) showing that the judgement system can be exploited
(3) getting people to discuss whether my move was more or less acceptable then what Watno did

I think an amendment to rule 319 (invocation of judgement-rule) saying that "A judge cannot rule anything when it contradicts something which the rules clearly and explicitly state" would solve this problem for the most part. Sure, any player could say that something is not clear when it is in fact completely clear, but then people can at least (semi) objectively say that you've broken the rules when you do.

Also, Kirian, could you update the OP by deleting Watno and Geolib from the players?


I choose color (0,200,200)

Okay, but about my rule proposal, I agree we need to do something about rule 201. My draft proposal

Proposal 327: Amend rule 201 to say the following. Players take turns in player order. Turns may not be skipped or passed, and parts of turns may not be omitted, except when another rule specifically allows this.

Hardly any change, but I think that rules 308+316+323 handle the way when turns end pretty well.

I'm not sure how I feel about explicitly saying that the next turn begins. Does that really solve ambiguities in practice? I'm afraid not, because when someone says that XXX's turn has ended, it might still be ambiguous whether he is allowed to say that or not. But I'm willing to add that to my rule, if people think that's a good idea.

About mandatory actions during a turn: we already have two of them: proposing rules + voting and choosing a color (but that one is almost over). I see nothing wrong with more "mandatory" actions, although they must all be overruled by the turn timer (and they might need a penalty for not executing them).

[Voltaire]

This is better than what we have, so I'd vote for it, but I think there is merit in Jimmmm's suggestion (end your own turn either when the vote is finished, or within the first 72 hours, or anyone can end the turn after 72 hours (but not during a vote)). We're running into ambiguity anyway, and I think "declaring" will make things clearer. Not perfect, but clearer. Are there any unknown downsides we're not seeing with it?

[Jimmmmm]

Yeah this is in, "better than what we have, but we could do much better" territory.

[florrat]

Okay, I have the following issues with Jimmmmm's suggestion. If someone has suggestions how to handle with some or all of these issues, I'll probably in favor of Jimmmmm's idea.
(1) I have to make a new rule which overrules 201, 316, 319 and 323. I can amend one, but I probably have to explicitly state that my new rule overrules the others (and which will let the other rules have no effect). This is not a big problem, but it's still a bit clunky.
(2) I probably have to merge the rules 201, 316 and 323 into one. This means there will be one long rule, while I prefer multiple short rules (as long as they work together as intended).
(3) This:

And manually ending can lead to ending them in very weird places.

What if someone ends his turn during invocation of judgement?
What if someone ends his turn during overruling a judge?
What if someone wants to invoke judgement to say that moving to the next turn was not allowed?

Rule 319 (and 323) (partially) cover these cases, and if my new rule overrules 319, I probably need to specify how it works in my new rule, which means more words.

I would feel bad by proposing a rule in the "better than what we have, but we could do much better"-territory, but please demonstrate how a rule could do much better.

---

Also, I think we forgot about this statement when declaring that it was my turn (I am not going to invoke judgement to say we should, and hopefully nobody else will do this as well).

When Judgment has been invoked, the next player may not begin his or her turn without the consent of a majority of the other players.

---

Finally: I could see use of the following future rule.

A player may propose up to three rule-changes in a single turn if all but one of the rule-changes are minor amendments. These rule-changes will be voted on together and will either be all approved or all rejected. The number of votes required for approval will be the minimum required for a single proposed rule-change. This rule takes precedence over any rule allowing only one rule-change per turn.

The exact meaning of "minor" is not specified, but it is intended for situations where you want to add or amend a rule, and want to change the wording of 1 or 2 other rules to fit the new rule (but without changing too much in the other rules).

[Jimmmmm]

What if someone ends his turn during invocation of judgement?
What if someone ends his turn during overruling a judge?
What if someone wants to invoke judgement to say that moving to the next turn was not allowed?

Forbid it.

[Jimmmmm]

(2) I probably have to merge the rules 201, 316 and 323 into one. This means there will be one long rule, while I prefer multiple short rules (as long as they work together as intended).

The problem with multiple short rules is that it takes ages to fix things and they often don't work together as intended, since they are made by multiple different people. I think you should make a really good rule instead of 201 and then the next person should repeal 316 and 323.

[florrat]

What if someone wants to invoke judgement to say that moving to the next turn was not allowed?

Forbid it.

Really? There will be cases in which it is not clear whether we can or cannot move to the next phase, or when it's barely allowed (for example, 3 minutes after a judges has ruled in a specific way), and if we cannot revoke that, this might be seriously abuse-able.

My current viewpoint is: I think it's a good idea to have the explicit turn-change, but I'm not sure how to incorporate it in the current rules.

The problem with multiple short rules is that it takes ages to fix things and they often don't work together as intended, since they are made by multiple different people. I think you should make a really good rule instead of 201 and then the next person should repeal 316 and 323.

Good points.

[Jimmmmm]

Of course, you could propose suspending the "only one rule-change per turn" rule and then just go to Town on fixing everything that needs to be fixed.

[Jimmmmm]

Okay, so we need a very well defined set of actions that are permissible for the purposes of turns, voting, judgments etc. Any other actions, for example transferring money, map-related actions etc should work around these. My suggestions:

-If the active player has not done so this turn, they may make a proposal.
-If there is any disagreement about the way the rules should be interpreted and applied in the present situation, and judgment is not currently being resolved, any player who has not previously done so on the current turn may invoke judgment. When they do so, they must explicitly state how they believe the rules should be applied in the current situation. There is then a set time during which any other player/s may propose a counter application. Once the time for doing so has passed, players then vote on the proposed applications, and the one with the most votes after a set time is the one which takes effect for that particular turn.
-At any time that a judgment is not currently being resolved, the active player may end their turn.
-After 72 hours (excluding any time spent resolving judgments) without a proposal, or after the proposed rule-change has been resolved, any player may end the turn.

TL;DR the main actions you can do are proposing a rule-change, invoking judgment, voting on the relevant thing (either a rule-change or judgment) or ending the turn at a proper time. Any other actions you can take should work around these and either assume that the turn can be ended at any time or specifically and effectively prohibit the turn from ending while something is being resolved.

Any problems, or anything I've missed?

[Jack Rudd]

I'm probably going to propose something substantive rather than procedural on my turn (that is to say, a proposal that does something with regard to gameplay, rather than trying to set up a good ruleset).

[Jimmmmm]

I'm probably going to propose something substantive rather than procedural on my turn (that is to say, a proposal that does something with regard to gameplay, rather than trying to set up a good ruleset).

Best thing you can do then is to help us sort everything out before your turn starts.

[Jimmmmm]

At this point florrat, just propose something. We need to get this game moving again.

[Jack Rudd]

I'd vote for draft proposal 327 as it stands, but feel free to try to improve it.

[Kirian]

Of course, you could propose suspending the "only one rule-change per turn" rule and then just go to Town on fixing everything that needs to be fixed.

That of course is the entire reason I put that rule in.  Put together a list of things that aren't going to be controversial, and we can change a bunch of things at once.

[Jimmmmm]

Ha, I just noticed I capitalised Town.

[Voltaire]

Also, I think we forgot about this statement when declaring that it was my turn (I am not going to invoke judgement to say we should, and hopefully nobody else will do this as well).

When Judgment has been invoked, the next player may not begin his or her turn without the consent of a majority of the other players.

No, we remembered it, it was overriden by something. Don't feel like going back and checking, but I'm certain it was considered.

[Voltaire]

Of course, you could propose suspending the "only one rule-change per turn" rule and then just go to Town on fixing everything that needs to be fixed.

That's what I think is the best course of action, and I'd vote for that suspension.

[Jack Rudd]

So would I. (We need 8 votes in favour, yesno?)

[Voltaire]

So would I. (We need 8 votes in favour, yesno?)

Correct.