Page 3 of 4

Re: An Ambiguity in the Blind Auction System

PostPosted: 17 Apr 2018, 18:52
by joe92
NoPunIn10Did wrote:
joe92 wrote:Personally I think that the rules we all link to from Pedros (well, his direct quote of Knemeyer) are outdated and confusing. I have wanted someone to rewrite them for a while. I cringe every time I link to that thread. It does not clarify the process very well.


Agreed. That's what I was hoping this thread would prompt: consensus on how to move forward. If there's consensus here, I'd be happy to do the first draft; after editing we'd make a permanent post of it (and link to it accordingly).

I'll make another reply here with a short proposal.

Absolutely. I'm very glad you've brought this issue up and that we might be able to write a rock solid set of rules for the bidding process once and for all.

Re: An Ambiguity in the Blind Auction System

PostPosted: 17 Apr 2018, 18:57
by NoPunIn10Did
Proposal

We keep the existing rules using interpretation B (overall order listed matters across players bids), but we draft a brand new post for them. We'll review and edit that draft before it becomes final.

A separate section below these rules will describe the modifications to the system if a GM chooses to use unique-integer bids. This is so that GMs who wish to use those don't have to copy the rules for that procedure each time.

Re: An Ambiguity in the Blind Auction System

PostPosted: 17 Apr 2018, 22:03
by asudevil
NoPunIn10Did wrote:Proposal

We keep the existing rules using interpretation B (overall order listed matters across players bids), but we draft a brand new post for them. We'll review and edit that draft before it becomes final.

A separate section below these rules will describe the modifications to the system if a GM chooses to use unique-integer bids. This is so that GMs who wish to use those don't have to copy the rules for that procedure each time.


I personally think we need to just aim more towards all unique bids...

But just give a few more points...since you need an additional 15 points to get unique bids on 5 bottom countries...

Re: An Ambiguity in the Blind Auction System

PostPosted: 17 Apr 2018, 23:55
by ColonelApricot
Have clear unambiguous rules - absolutely.

It should be up to the GM which system they use. It's up to the GM to market their game as they see fit.

Because integer-only choices are a constraint a GM might want to choose a large enough points total to achieve sufficient liquidity.

BTW I don't see the mathematics of calculating bids as being that difficult, who can't use a spreadsheet these days? In any case if there are errors the GM can smooth them out either by correspondence ("your points add up to more than 200") or by tweaking ("your points added to more than 200 so I reduced your highest bid accordingly").

.. CA

Re: An Ambiguity in the Blind Auction System

PostPosted: 18 Apr 2018, 00:07
by NoPunIn10Did
ColonelApricot wrote:Have clear unambiguous rules - absolutely.

It should be up to the GM which system they use. It's up to the GM to market their game as they see fit.


GMs already have the power to do as they see fit. The point of this exercise is to let GMs say they’re using the default auction rules (and thus not have to explain them in their house rules). In order to do that we need those rules to be clearer, and I’ve outlined a few different ways we can do that.

Re: An Ambiguity in the Blind Auction System

PostPosted: 18 Apr 2018, 00:13
by nanooktheeskimo
My usual solution to a player submitting greater than the cap is to give them a no preference bid.* GM tweaking adds GM-influence to the game in a kinda crappy way--it's similar to a GM allowing Edi to Nor as a legal order and assuming it means North Sea, it introduces GM assumption into something that the GM can't assume or decide fairly.


No preference meaning a zero bid for every country with an alphabetized rank.

Re: An Ambiguity in the Blind Auction System

PostPosted: 18 Apr 2018, 00:40
by asudevil
nanooktheeskimo wrote:

No preference meaning a zero bid for every country with an alphabetized rank.


That's different...a standard no preference is the average (20 normally) on every country in a randomized order...so no preference...still gets a higher pick than the guy who is on 1s

And we just found another inconsistency

Re: An Ambiguity in the Blind Auction System

PostPosted: 18 Apr 2018, 09:46
by Woolgie
Secondary question: do the rules allow for the following:

Player 1 bids 5 points on Country A and has it in 5th place, with two other countries on lower points.

Player 2 bids 5 points on Country A and has it in 7th; last place.

Each player has no other country selection on 5 points.

Is it a tie break or does Player 1 get Country A by virtue of the higher ranking? I suggest the rules do, and should, grant a tie a break because we are not just trying to avoid least favourites, and these two players like Country A the same amount.

Re: An Ambiguity in the Blind Auction System

PostPosted: 18 Apr 2018, 09:49
by nanooktheeskimo
Woolgie wrote:Secondary question: do the rules allow for the following:

Player 1 bids 5 points on Country A and has it in 5th place, with two other countries on lower points.

Player 2 bids 5 points on Country A and has it in 7th; last place.

Each player has no other country selection on 5 points.

Is it a tie break or does Player 1 get Country A by virtue of the higher ranking? I suggest the rules do, and should, grant a tie a break because we are not just trying to avoid least favourites, and these two players like Country A the same amount.

That should be a tie break, yeah--cause the first thing looked at is points allocated, with rank being used as a tie breaker, not as the primary determining factor.

Player 1 would end up with Country A though, because rank is the first tiebreaker, and they had it ranked higher.


asudevil wrote:
nanooktheeskimo wrote:No preference meaning a zero bid for every country with an alphabetized rank.


That's different...a standard no preference is the average (20 normally) on every country in a randomized order...so no preference...still gets a higher pick than the guy who is on 1s

And we just found another inconsistency

Equal points for every country isn't no preference, it's equal preference. No preference means no points.

Re: An Ambiguity in the Blind Auction System

PostPosted: 18 Apr 2018, 14:10
by asudevil
nanooktheeskimo wrote:
asudevil wrote:
nanooktheeskimo wrote:No preference meaning a zero bid for every country with an alphabetized rank.


That's different...a standard no preference is the average (20 normally) on every country in a randomized order...so no preference...still gets a higher pick than the guy who is on 1s

And we just found another inconsistency

Equal points for every country isn't no preference, it's equal preference. No preference means no points.


Then you do it differently than I do...and differently than Pedros did it.