On 8/2/19 4:56 PM, Kerim Aydin wrote:
On Fri, Aug 2, 2019 at 2:17 PM ais...@alumni.bham.ac.uk
<ais...@alumni.bham.ac.uk> wrote:
A bug exploit could /be/ a win as intended, if the bug had been placed
there intentionally by the proposer. "Convince people to adopt a buggy
victory condition and win immediately" is one of the more common
winning techniques at BlogNomic.
Rant: This right here is the reason we almost never get around to
actually playing by the intent of many subgames. We just crash them
until we're sick of all the CFJs and then repeal. It really
discourages me from bothering to write a long sub-game - debugging in
play-mode is usually necessary, and I don't see much pride/point in
"hey, I won because there was a misplaced comma or because a certain
set of moves is fundamentally completely imbalanced, isn't that
clever." I mean it's fine on occasion but having that be the outcome
of Every. Single. Subgame. just gets tiring.
Well, I guess the test mechanism is "Tournament" - where you can put a
"judge by the intent" clause in there.
I think subgames should be pausable somehow. I think right now sometimes
people 'crash the game' because they see a thing and want to do it
before anyone else does, assuming someone else *will* if they don't.
Pointing out a problem publicly, even in a fix proposal, just makes it
more likely someone else does it.
The pausing method could vary from game to game, whether it's an Office
that doesn't get to play and can do it on eir own, or maybe a vote of a
few trusted players. Either one lets the coordination happen privately
so the game can be paused until it's fixed.
