Having a sole winner doesn't solve the problem imo, you could just make that one of the team players selected at random achieve a win (which is quicker than the 2-proposal one and if done, it's too fast for anything slower to work).
On Wed, Sep 2, 2020 at 5:07 PM nix via agora-discussion < agora-discussion@agoranomic.org> wrote: > On 9/2/20 9:51 AM, Gaelan Steele via agora-discussion wrote: > > > > OK, so here's what's going on: I received a proposal along the lines of > "these players get 100 points. They all win." I won't reveal the names or > number of these players for obvious reasons, but, at the point when it > happened, it was exactly enough players to pass a proposal… as long as > Cuddlebeam's NttPF registration didn't count. To be honest, I'm pretty > disappointed—it's a very early and unsatisfying end, *and* it relies on > someone accidentally sending a message NttPF, which IMO is rather > unsportsmanlike. I have several options in front of me, and I'd like some > advice on where to go. > > > > 1) I could end the game, declaring these players as winners and giving > up on the tournament. This is the most "technically correct" option, but > also the most disappointing for me and other people that actually wanted to > try playing this. But perhaps the fact that this was the first proposal is > a pretty good indication that the idea wasn't that workable in the first > place. > > 2) I could do that, then start another free tournament. If I did so, I'd > probably add a rule that exactly one player could win—I think the ability > to declare multiple winners makes a bit of a mess of the incentives in a > nomic like this. This has the advantage of giving the players their > (somewhat) deserved win, but gives us another opportunity at actually > playing this. The disadvantage is that it might cheapen both the tournament > victory and (through the proliferation of free tournaments) Agoran wins as > a whole. > > 3) As above, but with an entirely unofficial tournament, played on DIS > or on another forum entirely. > > 4) Find some way to wiggle out of the win, probably by ruling that > CuddleBeam's registration succeeded. I have fairly large latitude over the > adjudication of the rules, but even so, this might be a bit of a stretch; I > think the two options would be to rule that "public" means something other > than what it means in an Agoran context, or to use my ability to > arbitrarily reconcile errors made in adjudication (I already recorded > Cuddlebeam as a player upon eir first registration) to "ratify" the fact > that Cuddlebeam registered. In some way, this feels like the "fairest" > option (again, I strongly look down upon abuses of NttPF messages), but it > is also a fairly significant judicial intervention. > > > > Thoughts? > > > > Gaelan > > > > FWIW we would've just included 1 or 2 more players if we needed to. This > was pitched as a cut-throat conspiratorial game, so it feels more > unsportsmanlike to bend the rules to prevent a win than to take > advantage of an issue in the ruleset to win immediately... I think > giving the conspirators the win and restarting with a patched ruleset > makes more sense. > > We debated several ways to do this last night, and I think the following > changes would make a much more robust game: > > * A 24/48h delay before turns can begin, which means enough players can > join to make this less likely. > > * Only one person can win, as an immutable rule. This would mean the > cabal would have to pass 2 separate proposals sequentially to win > together (a transmutation and then a change like ours), which ups the > difficulty of coordination quite a lot. > > * Possibly delaying voting until the rule is numbered. This doesn't do > much besides signal to other players that *something* is happening, > which may encourage them to try to figure it out and counteract faster. > > -- > nix > Prime Minister, Webmastor > >
