|
Post by Slartucker on Feb 10, 2010 18:36:44 GMT -5
Peanut gallery here: while I again like the rule in generla, I just want to point out that the whole "spell had no effect" clause of the rule is atrociously open to differing interpretations. MikeEB and company seem to have helped to suss out some of the problems, but it's still an argument waiting to happen.
|
|
|
Post by ourjake on Feb 19, 2010 11:53:18 GMT -5
man lots-o-points getting exchanged everywhere. still, gotta love a para line
|
|
|
Post by mikeEB on Mar 10, 2010 3:20:53 GMT -5
Speaking of rule issues, a serious scoring problem came up during the Black Rose's selection process for future league rules. In particular, the rule we were discussing would encourage breaking itself under the current (global scoring) rules; however, the issue has been present but undetected with a few past rules.
Namely, there's no penalty for blatantly violating the rule on the last turn of the game. The normal procedure is for the rulebreaker to surrender immediately after violating the rule, without any effect on the game score beyond losing. However, if the violation occurs on the last turn of the game, the rule-breaker could end up drawing or even winning.
For example, suppose that during the February 2009 league, one player got hit by Psychosis (naming Fear) when they had DFFD on one hand and their opponent was at 5, and completed and landed the bolt despite being supposedly Feared. Under the current rules, they would win the game; I feel this is very much against the spirit of the rules and should be corrected.
More subtly, any new gesture-affecting mindspell that ends in a P, awards points for being used and is enforced via surrender is vulnerable to simultaneous violation and surrender, if the surrendering player gets hit the previous turn.
I propose we add a clause to the rules specifically to handle this: If a player violates the league rule on the final turn of the game, their opponent may re-select the violator's gestures on the final turn to any value permitted by the league rule (and declare their choices in the results thread). If they opt to do so, violator targets nobody with both hands on the final turn and then the game ends in favor of the player who did not violate the rule (even if the new gestures would cause the game not to end).
|
|
|
Post by spez on Mar 10, 2010 10:11:07 GMT -5
As I see it, when you violate the rule and it is agreed that you should forfeit this match, the match actually ends the turn you "violated" the rules, whatever happens afterward is completely ignored (may it be points lost or won, people killed or not), the game ends and those rounds are not mentioned in the score counting thread on the forum.
If we "select" hands for the loser, we could force the loser to do gestures not permitted by the current rules, thus giving even more points to the winner, which makes no sense really.
I don't know if that's what was done in previous matches, since the winner could have acquired points on the turn his opponent surrendered, but I think this is how it should be done.
|
|
|
Post by BioLogIn on Mar 12, 2010 8:31:46 GMT -5
Standings updated.
As for rules question MikeEB asked, I suppose I'm supposed to make an "official ruling" on that? Oh well... I will.
|
|
|
Post by xade on Mar 13, 2010 20:54:10 GMT -5
As I see it, when you violate the rule and it is agreed that you should forfeit this match, the match actually ends the turn you "violated" the rules, whatever happens afterward is completely ignored (may it be points lost or won, people killed or not), the game ends and those rounds are not mentioned in the score counting thread on the forum. If we "select" hands for the loser, we could force the loser to do gestures not permitted by the current rules, thus giving even more points to the winner, which makes no sense really. I don't know if that's what was done in previous matches, since the winner could have acquired points on the turn his opponent surrendered, but I think this is how it should be done. I always assumed it worked this was as well Spez.
|
|
|
Post by Slartucker on Mar 19, 2010 0:03:46 GMT -5
MikeEB makes a good point. The wording of the rules in that part is my doing, I believe, and it came from a time when I wanted to ensure the league would be friendly first and foremost. Since that isn't an issue, and rules clarity HAS become a major issue, I'd recommend making it even more black and white: if any player violates the rule, points, deaths and surrenders from the turn of violation on are all ignored, and instead that player is treated as having surrendered. If two players violate it at the same time, apply the above formula to both of them for a mutual surrender. This is as Spez put it as well, but make it clear that this is a rule and not an optional thing -- you can't be nice and give your opponent a break anymore.
|
|
|
Post by BioLogIn on Mar 24, 2010 3:31:11 GMT -5
|
|
|
Post by hermit on Mar 25, 2010 9:12:04 GMT -5
Looking forward to next month. Making rounds take two months seems to be good. It gives a good breather and makes me eager to start the next round.
|
|
|
Post by freesoul on Mar 25, 2010 22:28:25 GMT -5
sorry for the unreported games.... got a little busy these last two months... i'll get them posted.
|
|
|
Post by toyotami on Mar 26, 2010 2:30:23 GMT -5
Sorry, ourjake and i started a Friendly by mistake. Also, i mistakenly got poisoned in that friendly.
|
|
|
Post by BioLogIn on Mar 26, 2010 4:01:17 GMT -5
toyoIs it this one: games.ravenblack.net/warlocks?num=74692 ? Well, anyway, Hour of Mist is here. I'll tally finished games later today; Toyo - Jake game is unfinished and thus ignored for league purposes. Unofficially - it is clear that The Isle is the High Clan and Toyotami is the Champion. Cheers =) The Isle is welcome to provide me with a new rule via PM.
|
|
|
Post by hermit on Mar 27, 2010 8:48:50 GMT -5
being a friendly match isn't a problem, as I recall. As long as both sides agree.
Speaking of which: who'd like to make their league matches against me friendlies this month? I'm throwing down the gauntlet.
|
|