Suggestion:20070530 Add HTML Comment: Timestamp and Signature
|
Closed |
| This suggestion has finished voting and has been moved to Peer Reviewed. |
20070530 Add HTML Comment: Timestamp and Signature
Seb_Wiers Imagine 01:35, 30 May 2007 (BST)
Suggestion type
general improvement
Suggestion scope
everybody, but it would have no direct effect on game play
Suggestion description
Introduction: The idea here may seem a bit esoteric to some, but is truely simple to implement, and I will explain its purpose later. Suffice to say this builds on the PRed Cell Phone Whiz - what that suggestion allows as an in-game tool, this one would let anybody do via metagaming in a forum or via email.
Suggestion: At the very top of the code block for every page UrbanDead.com creates / serves up, there should be two comments, like this:
<!-- 1055d3e698d289f2af8663725127bd4b --> <!-- 01:33, 30 May 2007 (BST) -->
The first comment would be a digital signature of the all the following HTML code, including the second comment. The second comment would be a simple time stamp, and need not be in the format shown.
Purpose: I'll admit to being a little selfish here; this would make the I/Witness tool I'm working on both more useful and easier to program.
However, that is by no means its only use. Firefox extensions and other scripts could easily extract the time stamp to create a "clock", which is a feature many players have asked for. (Indeed, the time stamp comment could as easily and effectively be added as a viewable piece of plain text.) The digital signature would be less widely useful, but could be used to verify PK reports and so on when needed. (A firefox extension or a tool like I/Witness could be set up do this automatically, but it also allows people to do it by hand if they so desire.)
Voting Section
| Voting Rules |
Votes must be numbered, justified, signed, and timestamped.
Votes that do not conform to the above may be struck by any user. |
| The only valid votes are Keep, Kill, Spam or Dupe. If you wish to abstain from voting, do not vote. |
Keep Votes
- Keep Nice, I like it. A dǝǝɥs oʇ ɯɐds: sʎɐʍ1ɐ! 01:49, 30 May 2007 (BST)
- Keep Timestamps would be a GOOD thing. --Uncle Bill 04:52, 30 May 2007 (BST)
- Keep - good --Duke GarlandTLCD SSZ 07:51, 30 May 2007 (BST)
- Keep Got my vote--Seventythree 10:28, 30 May 2007 (BST)
- keep Innocent little change, if it helps some then I'm all for. - BzAli 13:24, 30 May 2007 (BST)
- Keep - Wouldn't hurt. --Sonofagun18 06:23, 31 May 2007 (BST)
- You got my vote. --•▬ ▬••▬ • •••• •▬ ▬•▬• ▬•▬ #nerftemplatedsigs 13:35, 31 May 2007 (BST)
- Keep - I like it. *Pokes Kevan* we havn't had an update for a while, oh benevolent one... --Ducis DuxSlothTalk 14:15, 31 May 2007 (BST)
Kill Votes
- Kill - Just makes it easier for people to change the way the game works. Besides, I'm pretty sure that, if you dig into the code, you'll find that there is an indicator of when the page was loaded (client-side code in an firefox browser). There would have to be for "reload every x seconds/minutes/hours" options to work. --Saluton 02:17, 30 May 2007 (BST)
Spam/Dupe Votes
- Spam - Sorry. Can you take a look at this affair?. To make things so much against the spirit of the game as these simplier to make, not even mentioning the legitimization that comes with such an addition to the game, isn't a dessirable thing to do at all. I want to be insecure, scared and doubtful of every bit of information I didn't gather myself or heard from someone I trust, like anyone would in a zombie apocalypse... --Matthew Fahrenheit YRC☺T☺+1 02:08, 2 June 2007 (BST)
- I looked into that affair in depth when I first heard about it, and again in recent times. As far as I can tell, the majority of the upset was that DEM's scouting tools were an unfair advantage, not because they represented an sort of meta-gaming that goes against the games spirit (as shown by Kevan's open acceptance of those tools, and of potentially similar ones like I/Witness) but because they were tools others did not (for whatever reason) have an equal balance to.
However, I do appreciate your point about the potential for informational uncertainty and duplicity being valuable aspects of the game. Anybody (like myself) working on meta-game communication tools probably tends to see "spoofing" as a problem to be avoided- if it really starts spamming up your system, you end up with to low a signal-to-noise rate, and all your effort is wasted. But in the end, maybe the individual viewer really should be the filter that decides what is a spoof, and what isn't- assuming they have SOME basis to make that judgement by, such as knowing for sure that if "Player X" makes a post, its really info (good or bad) from "Player X".
BTW, if you have any thoughts more directly related to I/Witness, feel free to leave them on the talk page. I also requested that the afore-mentioned Coalition for Fair Tactics do the same. It seems unfair to wait until AFTER a project is implemented to bitch about its results, when those working on the project request your input previous to the work, so I'm guessing there's either no concern over there, or nobody paying attention. --Seb_Wiers Imagine 20:27, 3 June 2007 (BST)
- I looked into that affair in depth when I first heard about it, and again in recent times. As far as I can tell, the majority of the upset was that DEM's scouting tools were an unfair advantage, not because they represented an sort of meta-gaming that goes against the games spirit (as shown by Kevan's open acceptance of those tools, and of potentially similar ones like I/Witness) but because they were tools others did not (for whatever reason) have an equal balance to.
