Initiative Proposal: Illegally Obtained Information Act

[DaveShack]

The following proposed initiative is placed before the people of Yasutan for discussion.

Illegally Obtained Information Act of (insert date).

1. Any information of any kind obtained by an action which is prohibited under Article E of the Constitution of Yasutan shall be termed Illegally Obtained Information.
2. Illegally Obtained Information may not be used in any form, for any purpose other than to bring a complaint against the disseminator of such information.

Shall the Illegally Obtained Information Act be ratified as law?
Yes
No
Abstain
Private Poll
3 days duration.

 

[Provolution]

I agree to this.

But it should have a clause, that game rules obtainable by normal means (such as articles, reading the game rules and so on) should not be forcibly forgotten as seen in conjunction with another persons illegal move.

For example, the river penalty would be one case, where the game rule already exist, and should not be confused with someone making a wild tentative move in turn 0. Even if this illegal move leads to a reread of the core game rules or game strategy articles on CFC.

 

[Hyronymus]

Why not combine your two points in one point, DaveShack? It doesn't loose power if you write it like this:

1. Any information of any kind obtained by an action which is prohibited under Article E of the Constitution of Yasutan shall be termed Illegally Obtained Information. Illegally Obtained Information may not be used in any form, for any purpose other than to bring a complaint against the disseminator of such information.

But maybe that's seeking nails in shallow water.

 

[Nobody]

Isnt the constitution clear enough about this already?

 

[Provolution]

At worst, this would just be a censorship clause, nothing more.

Who defines "illegally obtained information", the Patriot Act?

 

[donsig]

Article E - Playing the Save

1. No person may play the save other than a Designated Player specifically tasked to do so, or an official who is required to attempt certain actions to get information about what is possible in the game.

You do realize, don't you, DaveShack that when the DESIGNATED PLAYER does something with the save it would not fall under your proposed initiative?

If you fail to understand that we could discuss a Designated Player Act.

 

[DaveShack]

If it happens outside the scheduled play session, then it does indeed fall under the proposed initiative.

 

[DaveShack]

Isnt the constitution clear enough about this already?

Evidently not, since several people discussed information obtained illegally last term. We even had a poll based on that illegal info.

 

[donsig]

If it happens outside the scheduled play session, then it does indeed fall under the proposed initiative.

So, tell me DaveShack, given the recent judicial ruling in the Joe Harker investigation just when someting happens outside the SCHEDULED play session?

 

[DaveShack]

In this case, it's anything before Monday night.

Perhaps poor wording on my part. Outside the official play session... Admit it, you know exactly what this means, a DP (or anyone else) can't just open the save any old time, move units around, and report the results. Nor can the general public take the results of those illegal moves and try to make policy using the data. There is ample precedent for what should happen to such information, which the previous Courts have even imbedded in the judicial procedures.

Any comments on the initiative? I'd rather the people bless the actions which must be taken should this ever happen again, so I'm thinking of polling in another day or so.

 

[donsig]

Perhaps poor wording on my part. Outside the official play session... Admit it, you know exactly what this means, a DP (or anyone else) can't just open the save any old time, move units around, and report the results. Nor can the general public take the results of those illegal moves and try to make policy using the data. There is ample precedent for what should happen to such information, which the previous Courts have even imbedded in the judicial procedures.

Any comments on the initiative? I'd rather the people bless the actions which must be taken should this ever happen again, so I'm thinking of polling in another day or so.

No, DaveShack, you admit it - no matter what words you try and use it all comes to the same thing: if the designated player does it then it's real and not something we can just ignore. You're trying to push through something to rubber stamp what would be a moderator action. That is something that is not needed as long as the moderator follows forum rules.

And yes, the DP CAN open the save any old time (thanks to the term five judiciary) move units around and report the reults. That's what we call playing the save. And he can do it because he's the designated player. I used to think that if he had done so when he wasn't supposed to then he'd get into some sort of trouble with the rest of the DG community. We recently found out that's not necessarily so. A long, long time ago I used to think that if the DP made moves against legally posted instructions he (or she as the case may be) would also have gotten in trouble with the rest of us. But I learned a long, long time ago that's not true either.

You want comments on the initiative? Well, what if someone (not the DP) opens the save, plays using whatever instructions are posted and posts the results. Let's also say the moderators on duty don't see this fast enough to erase it. Does this mean we can't do what we planned to do becasue this jerk did it and posted the results? Say it's an attack we planned to make. So jerko tries it and finds it fails. If word leaks out, how do you expect us to ignore it? Even if we buck up and do the attack as planned despite knowing it will fail, surely our planning for what to do after the attack would have been affected. Once it's out you can't put the Genie back in the bottle.

In the above scenario I agree with you that it would be best if a moderator caught this before it became general knowledge and stamped it out. Unfortunately we've discovered that it won't always get stamped out. In those cases it is futile to try ignoring what happened and the best way to handle it is through discussion of the problem and a group decision on how to handle it - which will unfortunately take some time and cause a bit of a delay. The delay would be minimized it we addressed the problem in a straightforward manner.

Finally, I must once again say that regarding this initiative, if the DP does it then it is not illegal under the provision of the constitution you cited. The action may certainly be illegal under other parts of the constitution but not Article E.

 

[Nobody]

And yes, the DP CAN open the save any old time (thanks to the term five judiciary)

No he cant it has to be after giving at least 24 hours notice, and if its online it needs to have an exact time.

 

[Provolution]

No he cant it has to be after giving at least 24 hours notice, and if its online it needs to have an exact time.

Exactly, one needs to have the 24 hour notice so people can post instructions in time. This is a value chain that leads to a smooth process.

Why does all this seem so familiar?

 

[DaveShack]

You want comments on the initiative? Well, what if someone (not the DP) opens the save, plays using whatever instructions are posted and posts the results. Let's also say the moderators on duty don't see this fast enough to erase it. Does this mean we can't do what we planned to do becasue this jerk did it and posted the results? Say it's an attack we planned to make. So jerko tries it and finds it fails. If word leaks out, how do you expect us to ignore it? Even if we buck up and do the attack as planned despite knowing it will fail, surely our planning for what to do after the attack would have been affected. Once it's out you can't put the Genie back in the bottle.

I expect it to be played as instructed, all the way through the whole session unless a valid stop order is hit or until play deviates from the (pre jerk) expected results. At that point, the actual results of the real session can be used for planning what follows.

 

[Joe Harker]

So many German Longbowmen!

 

[Provolution]

In order to use a longbow, you need to practice well and pull some strings.

 

[donsig]

I expect it to be played as instructed, all the way through the whole session unless a valid stop order is hit or until play deviates from the (pre jerk) expected results. At that point, the actual results of the real session can be used for planning what follows.

OK, that sounds reasonable. But it doesn't explain why we need this initiative nor does it address what happenes when the cat gets out of the bag before a moderator can squelch it. That was the problem with the Joe Harker move. If only you had let us discuss that we would have realized much sooner that it didn't matter (battle attack odds-wise) if the move had been made or not. Once we realized that we would have all easily agreed to live by the move since one faction got their battle odds and the other avoid what they saw as a reload. We would have all been happy and there would have been no subsequent controversy. And on top of it we would have solved our problem democratically. (Go figure.)

What your proposed initiative does is institutionalize the mentality that gave us the controversy in the first place. For the good of the democracy game you should withdraw this proposal and put your efforts towards helping us all to develope a game play scheduling initiative we all like.

 

[Provolution]

I agree with Donsig here. We cannot institutionalize folly. If the discussion would have continued for a bit longer, the facts would have come out regardless. Premature polls is the very core for this problem, not the handling of discussions.

If I was not myself, I would have heavily investigated the save and found flaws in the proposed plan, even done some testing.
What I wouldn't do, would be to hijack the process with a premature poll.

Making game-rules knowledge illegal is impossible, even though the reminding of such game-rules knowledge came from an accidental breach of conduct. What was revealed was the odds, that is game rules. Nothing non-game rule related was actually discovered in that move.

 

[DaveShack]

But it doesn't explain why we need this initiative nor does it address what happenes when the cat gets out of the bag before a moderator can squelch it.

Having the rule puts it in writing that you don't post about these incidents.

What your proposed initiative does is institutionalize the mentality that gave us the controversy in the first place.

What mentality is that? That we don't discuss the results of illegal moves? If it's something else, don't forget the things you've heard privately in the recent past. My motivation is preserving a DG rule which is so basic it shouldn't have even needed to be stated.

Premature polls is the very core for this problem, not the handling of discussions.

To paraphrase the content and tone of the discussion.

Official: I'm going to do A, B, and C this turnchat
Citizen 1: I think you should also do D
Official: No there are no plans for that, trust me
Citizen 2: Really, if we don't do D it's dangerous
Official: No it really isn't.
Citizen 1,2,3,4: Explain why it isn't dangerous.
Official: All will be good.
Citizens: Huh? how is that an answer.
Official: Eventually you will understand.
Citizen 4: You got input from several people that they want D and all you do is ignore them.
Official: I'm in charge, I don't need to listen to anyone.
Citizen 4: OK then I guess you'll listen to a poll.

(*) I anticipate an argument that the italics was never said. It wasn't said, it was in the tone.

The demogame needed that poll, at that time, because that tone is never OK no matter what the subject. Even an answer of "no, and here's why" would have sufficed, but I will always respond to stonewalling in the same manner.

 

[fed1943]

While I think the proposal to be honest and fair, I also question myself about
its efficiency and way to be carried out. Just pretend:

There is a discussion if city A, with x hammers, should or not try to build an
Wounder.
I open the save, play by myself a lot of turns and post:
If you try you will succeed/If you try you will be beaten by y hammers.

You read my post. How can you ignore the information?

How can all the players, but me, to decide if yes or no go to the Wonder and
pretend/try/whatever you like, not to use the illegal information?

It looks all that can be done is to decide go on or not with the game and,
obviously, to ban the culprit.

Not all illegality can face voidness just because it is not possible.

Best regards,