On Thu, Jan 16, 2020 at 7:53 PM Jason Cobb via agora-discussion <agora-discussion@agoranomic.org> wrote:
> I like the ideas, as I've said before (although I haven't yet thoroughly > combed through these drafts for any bugs). One thing, though: > > These two mechanisms seem redundant to me - an adjustment applies "all > changes", which could include rule changes, so why have a second, > strictly weaker alternative that only affects the interpretation of the > rules? Two reasons: 1. The idea is that adjustments only apply to stuff in the officer's domain. The only player whose domain contains rules is the Rulekeepor. E could potentially use this power, to, e.g., make a rule change that failed on a technicality succeed, but no other officer would have access to it. 2. Permanent changes to the rules tend to require a lot of vetting. People want to make sure that the rules don't just say something reasonable, but the best possible thing. Thus, if a permanent rule change is involved, people are much more likely to say "no, I think it should say this instead" and object. The idea is that the change should be a quick measure to get things working again, with a specific anti-scam measure to increase player confidence and make problems less likely. The final fix proposal may take days to perfect; the patch provides time in which that can happen. That said, I'm still open to suggestions. -Aris
