On Wed, 2019-01-30 at 13:57 -0800, Kerim Aydin wrote: > So, in the past we've played with rules text to add something like "if a > rules violation is found to be instrumental in a win, the win fails, rules > to the contrary notwithstanding". But somehow we never added it - and I > sort of remember that various wordings and processes we tried to come up > with threatened to cause more problems then they solved.
BlogNomic has a process similar to an automatic CFJ whenever anyone wins, and allows a sufficiently large consensus of players commenting during the CFJ period to overturn the win regardless of whether it technically happened (BlogNomic also allows this sort of process for overturning the rules in regular CFJs, typically to fix brokenness, so it's a good fit). Agora tends to not allow people to vote on what should be considered true, though; ratification (our equivalenet) is normally without- objection (although you can ratify by proposal to get a lower necessary ratio). So perhaps what we should do is, whenever someone wins, the winner has to claim a win via a self-ratifying statement that the win happened and was legal, and if people disagree, they can object or CFJ, and then we settle the truth of the victory announcement via the usual mechanisms Agora has for determining the truth of the statement. If we're doing some sort of anti-illegal-win mechanism, I'd also like to see some cap on looping wins that have broken reset mechanisms; I personally restricted myself to 2 back when I discovered this happening (and some players restricted themselves to 1), but the amount of win looping that's been going on more recently strikes me as needing some sort of adjustment so that win frequencies are plausibly comparable. (That said, I'm also upset by the number of "mass wins" in which everyone or almost everyone won simultaneously, as there's not much incentive to make winning difficult when that has a chance of happening, and thus wins become somewhat cheaper.) -- ais523
