But, then the issue is you could only close one vote at a time and transactions would interrupt it.
---- Publius Scribonius Scholasticus On Sat, May 20, 2017 at 3:13 AM, Gaelan Steele <g...@canishe.com> wrote: > 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 resolution (a vote would have been withdrawn in the past 24 hours, 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> 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 no new players register and no votes are withdrawn), and 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 Has not had any votes submitted or withdrawn in the past 24 hours 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 > > >
