My goal with the 24 hour requirement was that any timing scams would require changing votes, thus resetting the 24 hour timer. As the rule is written now, the “Reward and Delay” scam could not occur by early resolution (a vote would have been withdrawn in the past 24 hours, resetting the timer). Maybe “has not had any gamestate-changing action performed which could change the outcome of the vote in the last 24 hours?” (That assumes things like votes are considered gamestate. Are they? They aren’t recorded in anyone’s report.)
We could also potentially require an announcement at the beginning of the 24 hour period, and maybe even allow explicitly cancelling the early resolution (without changing their vote). > On May 20, 2017, at 12:00 AM, Owen Jacobson <o...@grimoire.ca> wrote: > > > On May 20, 2017, at 2:50 AM, Gaelan Steele <g...@canishe.com > <mailto:g...@canishe.com>> wrote: > >> Perhaps I’m impatient, but 7 days is an awfully long time to wait when most >> players vote within a day or two of the decision being announced. I protose >> this: >> >> Create a rule named “Early Resolution” with power 3.1: >> If an Agoran decision: >> 1. Has enough votes such that the result of the decision could not be >> changed by additional votes by players who had not yet voted (assuming that >> no new players register and no votes are withdrawn), and >> 2. Has not had any votes submitted or withdrawn in the past 24 hours >> Then any player may cause its voting period to end by announcement. > > If you thought timing scams were a problem before… I’m not sure which is a > bigger problem for the health of the game in the long run: a flood of > messages at a time predictable up to a week in advance, or a single message > that both prevents anyone from subsequently changing eir vote without warning > and locks in whatever scam appears earlier in the same message. > > I like the idea, though, and I think it’s broadly a good improvement. I’d be > tempted to change at least one of two things: > > 1. Restrict it to the Assessor, or to the Assessor with the Promotor’s > consent or something, and > 2. to end with Agoran consent, so that players who may have already cast > votes have some warning that they may not get the chance to change them. > > Three days (the time period for that consent condition) is shorter than > seven, at least. > > Separately, is it worth reworking the various clauses of Dependent Actions > along the same lines? Being able to resolve “with Agoran consent” quickly, if > more than half the players affirm or reject the decision, would be nice. > > -o >
smime.p7s
Description: S/MIME cryptographic signature
