Friday, April 23, 2010

Declaration of Victory: Blatant dynastic/core rule interaction scamming

passes 6-5 (note that bucky’s vote is invalid and Roujo’s DEF is as well)

Adminned at 25 Apr 2010 18:49:58 UTC

Per the rule “Victory”, I have achieved victory.

Multiple technicalities here: a story post with “dance” in its title is a Dance, even if disguised as something else; Dances are official posts; the only restriction on altering official posts are that they have no comments (“If no Colonist has commented on it, an official post may be altered or removed by its author; otherwise this can only be done as allowed by the Ruleset.”); Dances are created open, and that one requested (and provided a mechanism for) voting, so it was open for voting (“After a dance has been called, the dance is considered to be open”); and a proposal that was open for voting for 48 hours times out, even if it wasn’t a proposal for all that time (just as long as it was open for voting for all that time). Thanks Ienpw for providing the second FOR vote that it required, and for adminning it.

Comments

ais523:

04-23-2010 23:10:12 UTC

Explicit author for

Ienpw III:

04-23-2010 23:12:02 UTC

Holding vote pending pondering.

Klisz:

04-23-2010 23:12:24 UTC

for Well done! I’d like the mantle, please, if you don’t mind.

Ienpw III:

04-23-2010 23:13:33 UTC

(Me too, while we’re nominating selves).

Ienpw III:

04-23-2010 23:14:01 UTC

Pondered. for

ais523:

04-23-2010 23:14:26 UTC

@Darth: I’ve been thinking about passing the mantle; can you give a good argument as to why I should give it to you in particular? (Ienpw III should ideally get first chance at it, unless there’s a huge backlash against giving him in particular the mantle, due to actually helping with the scam; but I’m willing to consider all options.)

Klisz:

04-23-2010 23:14:54 UTC

@Ienpw: You still owe me a mantle from back when I scammed to help you win ais’s first dynasty, remember?

Roujo:

04-23-2010 23:15:04 UTC

for

I’d like to add the following: ZOMG! =P

Klisz:

04-23-2010 23:17:51 UTC

@ais: See my message to Ienpw; when he won, he had agreed to pass me the mantle but ended up not doing it.

And as for other reasoning, I will do any theme you want. Any theme at all. (Though one from the following list I’d particularly like:)
Tally:
* Calvin & Hobbes
* Super Smash Bros.
* Katamari
* Spyro the Dragon (original Insomniac trilogy, not modern games)

Klisz:

04-23-2010 23:53:50 UTC

I have a way to settle this.

I challenge Ienpw III to a game of NetHack for the crown.

We shall play on the public server at telnet://alt.nethack.org ; my username is DarthCliche. We shall #name our initial weapon “Anthonybane” to show that we are BlogNomic players. Only the earliest of these games counts. Whoever has the higher score when they die gets the mantle.

Does ais523 accept this idea?

Ienpw III:

04-23-2010 23:57:33 UTC

I don’t play nethack…

Klisz:

04-24-2010 00:03:32 UTC

It’s NetHack, not nethack. And you once said you did…

Ienpw III:

04-24-2010 00:23:35 UTC

I have played nethack a total of 5 times in my life.

Klisz:

04-24-2010 00:25:06 UTC

No, you’ve played nethack a total of 5 times in your life.

Klisz:

04-24-2010 00:25:35 UTC

...oops. You’ve played No, you’ve played NetHack a total of 5 times in your life.

Tiberias:

04-24-2010 00:44:57 UTC

for

Wakukee:

04-24-2010 02:31:49 UTC

You’re kidding, right? This makes is so wrong for so many reasons. Reasons which I’ve composed into a convinient list for your reading pleasure.

1) The IRC is not official gamestate, so any “voting” that takes place in it is official. Thus the proposal was not “open for voting”.
2) Saying that a proposal was “open for voting” for 48 hours despite the fact that it was not always a proposal is like saying that a person has been contageous for all of his life, even though he has not always had a deadly disease. And then canceling his insurance because of this “preexisting condition”. Even still, the post was “open for voring” by your terms for 48 hours, but the proposal was NOT. The proposal was only open for voting for a short amount of time.
3) “Only one dance may be open at a time”. Thus, your dance was illegal, as there was a dance open when you stated yours.
4) It’s “Dance”, not “dance”. Your proposal had “dance” in its title. (Yeah, I know. Weak argument, but still.)
5) A “secret ruleset” code of honor: “7) Scams based on the core ruleset are strongly discouraged except in cases of emergency.” This dynasty is going fine, its hardly an emergency. So basically, you CAN do this scam, but its really unnecessery and frowned upon. By me, at least.

If you see any more glaring holes in this weak DOV, please go ahead and post them in a revised list.

So, in conclusion, idle against.

Wakukee:

04-24-2010 02:32:22 UTC

Oh yeah, and also from the “secret ruleset”:
“3) Actions based on an interpretation of the Ruleset not obvious from a casual reading may be illegal even if strictly permitted by the Ruleset.”

Klisz:

04-24-2010 02:36:45 UTC

1 doesn’t apply as it wasn’t in IRC, and 5 does not apply as the secret ruleset is no more binding then the Emperor Ienpw ruleset. 4 probably means that some DoV way back before a rule-change was illegal and the entire history of BlogNomic has changed. I don’t think there was another dance going. 2, however, holds some water, but I’m sick of this dynasty and I have a chance to get the mantle, so my vote remains for .

Ienpw III:

04-24-2010 02:41:03 UTC

The “secret rules” are guidelines and general conventions. They can be worked around or cast aside at will.

Wakukee:

04-24-2010 02:42:14 UTC

“The Hokey-Kokey is getting rather boring at this point; do people have any other ideas for dances they’d like to do? We probably need to plan such dances in advance; come onto IRC and vote for which sort of dance you’d like , and I’ll try to come up with a plan in comments to this post.”
I’ve put the “voting method” which he proposed in bold. It WAS, in fact, in the IRC, and thus not gamestate.

Oh, and http://blognomic.com/archive/moose_1s_belly_dance/ was the dance open at the time.

As for 4, history does not have any implication on today in that fashon., and I never claimed that the secret ruleset was binding. just that breaking it is usually “deush-baggy”.

Klisz:

04-24-2010 03:11:11 UTC

ais523 Hokey-Kokeyed with Ornithopter, Roujo and Put, though. Also, the post itself was still open for voting, even if not in the comments.

Wakukee:

04-24-2010 03:26:16 UTC

No, it wasn’t! You couldn’t vote on the post at all, you could vote on something unrelated in the IRC, which isn’t even gamestate. AT the same time, the proposal wasn’t open for voting for ANY real amount of time, even if the post was (which it wasn’t)! I’m really shocked that such a thin and flawed attempt wouldn’t be shot down the second it was posted. This is somthing that just shouldn’t pass. It’s not even close to a legitamate victory.

Klisz:

04-24-2010 03:33:23 UTC

Wak, the proposal IS the post. So, if the post is open for voting, so is the proposal. Q.E.D. Also, by your logic, no posts are open for voting because you don’t vote in the post, you vote in the comments, which, by the way, are not gamestate.

Ienpw III:

04-24-2010 04:52:39 UTC

Minor point: it’s the rule ais523’s scam - not the rule Victory - that allows you to win.

Igthorn:

04-24-2010 06:43:21 UTC

for

Bucky:

04-24-2010 06:51:43 UTC

Idle against .  “open” as a dance does not mean “open for voting”.  Since a voting icon on a dance is never defined as a vote (only voting icons on Proposals and CfJs are defined as votes, but the DoV rule implicitly defines votes), the proposal was not “open for voting” for 48 hours even though it was an open dance.

Bucky:

04-24-2010 07:00:49 UTC

addendum: the fact that there was voting going on while it was an open dance doesn’t matter because the “open” had nothing to do with the “voting”.

Put:

04-24-2010 07:11:43 UTC

Wait what, where did the rule “ais523’s scam” come from?

Josh:

04-24-2010 07:33:58 UTC

I’m surprised that this is attracting so many for votes.

against

Purplebeard:

04-24-2010 08:19:22 UTC

Rule 1.4 says that you can only vote on pending proposals. As ‘Vote’ is a keyword, this supersedes the normal meaning of the word, so you can’t vote on official posts, the IRC or anywhere else other than a pending proposal. Your post was not a pending proposal, therefore it was not open for voting for 48 hours.

Also, Darth Cliche, wanting to end the dynasty is a terrible reason for voting in favour. If you want to end it now, make a proposal.

I will refrain from voting for the moment so that the discussion can continue, but I will most certainly vote against.

Purplebeard:

04-24-2010 08:24:00 UTC

(of course, CfJ’s and DoV’s can also be voted on, but that’s it.)

Qwazukee:

04-24-2010 08:53:26 UTC

against  against  against  Fail

“A Colonist should not deliberately exploit bugs or unexpected behaviours in the software running the game (ExpressionEngine, MediaWiki or the GNDT).”

I believe that is the rule we added to prevent posts from being in more than one category? I kept making CfJs that were also Proposals or something like that, so we added this rule to disallow posts under multiple categories.

The post in question is both a Story Post and a Proposal. This is a bannable offense.

Also, there was already a dance open, so yours was illegal.

Also, as has already been pointed out, your use of the term Vote is incorrect here.

We probably should change the rule you tried to exploit just to tighten it up a little bit more, though. Pretty well done, but it’s still a fail.

If everyone is sick of this dynasty, then we can vote for a winner in a legitimate way, rather than a failed scam.

Qwazukee:

04-24-2010 08:57:13 UTC

Aaaaand my vote just made this way more likely to pass. Please, I urge those who voted for this to CoV because it is just wrong.

Put:

04-24-2010 12:52:12 UTC

against

Roujo:

04-24-2010 13:54:04 UTC

imperial I’m not sure what to think anymore… =P

Put:

04-24-2010 14:00:56 UTC

I thought DEF doesn’t exist for DoVs?

Ienpw III:

04-24-2010 14:13:33 UTC

It doesn’t. Roujo’s vote is still FOR.

Bucky:

04-24-2010 14:36:08 UTC

“The post in question is both a Story Post and a Proposal. This is a bannable offense.”

The Glossary definition of Story Post has nothing to do with the post’s EE category.  The rules themselves allow a proposal to also be a Story Post.  I thought there was something in there to prevent this, but I can’t find it in the current ruleset.

Klisz:

04-24-2010 15:01:07 UTC

CoV against

SeerPenguin:

04-24-2010 15:14:10 UTC

against The actual proposal wasn’t open for 48 hours… It was a post, then it changed to a proposal (Which I see as I fine, currently), but the proposal wasn’t open for 48 hours and therefore shouldn’t pass. This is fail.

Ienpw III:

04-24-2010 15:18:17 UTC

The Dance was open. The Dance was, apparently, the post. The post (which had been open), and therefore the Dance, transformed into a proposal, which had therefore been open for the last 48 hours.

Klisz:

04-24-2010 15:22:44 UTC

Actually, never mind.  for

Bucky:

04-24-2010 15:37:59 UTC

“The Dance was open. The Dance was, apparently, the post. The post (which had been open), and therefore the Dance, transformed into a proposal, which had therefore been open for the last 48 hours. “

But not open for voting, as required by the proposal rules.

Qwazukee:

04-24-2010 15:39:03 UTC

From the Glossary:

“Story Post
A Story Post is an Official Post that is not a member of any specific category of Official Posts mentioned or defined in a Core Rule (excluding Official Post).”

By definition, Story Posts cannot be any other kinds of posts, and thus cannot be Proposals.

Consider carefully; do we really want people exploiting bugs in EE to make posts multiple things? Or declaring something passed when it wasn’t open for voting for any length of time at all?

Ienpw III:

04-24-2010 15:42:57 UTC

This wasn’t exploiting a bug. Selecting multiple categories is intentionally allowed.

This is blogging software, after all.

SeerPenguin:

04-24-2010 15:43:23 UTC

From Rule 1.5 Enactment:

The oldest pending Proposal may be enacted by any Admin (and the Ruleset and/or Gamestate updated to include the specified effects of that Proposal) if either of the following is true:-
It has a number of FOR votes that exceed or equal Quorum, has been open for voting for at least 12 hours, and has not been vetoed or self-killed.
It has been open for voting for at least 48 hours, it has more than 1 valid vote, more than half of its votes are FOR, and it has not been vetoed or self-killed.

So, based on that “The oldest pending [url=http://blognomic.com/wiki/index.php?title=Ruleset#Proposals]Proposal[url] may be enacted by any Admin (and the Ruleset and/or Gamestate updated to include the specified effects of that Proposal) if it has been open for voting for at least 48 hours, it has more than 1 valid vote, more than half of its votes are FOR, and it has not been vetoed or self-killed.”

The post was open for 48 hours, I don’t argue that, but the Proposal was not, and 1.5 clearly states that the Proposal must be open for 48 hours.  The post was not a Proposal for 48 hours when it supposedly “timed out” and therefore should not pass.

Ienpw III:

04-24-2010 15:46:29 UTC

<Darth Cliche> Wak, the proposal IS the post. So, if the post is open for voting, so is the proposal.

Qwazukee:

04-24-2010 15:46:42 UTC

Ienpw: Just read the definition of Story Post, then. A Story Post is defined as an official post that is not another kind of official post. A Proposal is a different kind of official post.

Are you following the logic here?

Ienpw III:

04-24-2010 15:52:26 UTC

Yeah. It transformed from one type of post to another type of post. It is undeniably the same post.

Qwazukee:

04-24-2010 15:54:24 UTC

http://blognomic.com/archive/which_dance_should_we_do_next/

Check it out. It’s still a Story Post. And a Proposal. That is a problem.

Ienpw III:

04-24-2010 16:05:18 UTC

Except it is no longer a story post as defined by the rules.

Klisz:

04-24-2010 16:10:01 UTC

From the glossary:
Story Post
  A Story Post is an Official Post that is not a member of any specific category of Official Posts mentioned or defined in a Core Rule (excluding Official Post).

Because it was a proposal, it was not a story post.

Ienpw III:

04-24-2010 16:18:44 UTC

*a story post any longer.

Josh:

04-24-2010 16:31:50 UTC

So then by the same logic, before it became a Proposal (i.e. when it was a story post) it couldn’t have been a proposal. There fore it wasn’t, as a proposal, open for voting for 48 hours.

You can’t slice it both ways.

Qwazukee:

04-24-2010 16:49:24 UTC

In fact, what it means is that you can’t change it from a Story Post to a Proposal.

Ienpw III:

04-24-2010 17:13:50 UTC

Qwaz: it doesn’t mean that at all.

Klisz:

04-24-2010 17:24:09 UTC

Nothing says you can’t change a post from one type to another.

Purplebeard:

04-24-2010 17:29:27 UTC

Even if the change was legal, the post was not open for VOTING until it became a proposal, so it was illegally adminned.

Josh:

04-24-2010 17:29:55 UTC

Sure. The problem being that doing so doesn’t imply that the post was the second type all long.

Ienpw III:

04-24-2010 17:32:12 UTC

Seerpenguin says “The post was open for 48 hours, I don’t argue that, but the Proposal was not, and 1.5 clearly states that the Proposal must be open for 48 hours.  The post was not a Proposal for 48 hours when it supposedly “timed out” and therefore should not pass. “

The critics of this scam are being contradictory.

Josh:

04-24-2010 17:33:45 UTC

It’s not up to us to be cohesive, it’s up to you to convince us.

ais523:

04-24-2010 17:39:36 UTC

@Qwaz: “I believe that is the rule we added to prevent posts from being in more than one category? I kept making CfJs that were also Proposals or something like that, so we added this rule to disallow posts under multiple categories.” No, that rule was there to, say, prevent people adding JavaScript to a proposal to stop it appearing in the sidebar or blog (which is entirely possible IIRC, although I’ve never tried), or that sort of thing. (Besides, as pointed out already, a post even in the category “story post” stops being a story post as soon as it becomes a proposal; the only reason I left that category there was to make it clearer what had happened, in the interests of fair play.

@Josh: I see no reason why something that isn’t a proposal can’t be open for voting (in the ordinary-language sense); BlogNomic only defines voting in the context of pending proposals, and thus leaves it undefined (with the normal English meaning) in other proposals. (Even if you incorrectly wanted to use the BlogNomic definition there, anyone could have written a FOR, AGAINST, DEFERENTIAL or VETO voting icon on the post in question; but nobody did.)

Ienpw III:

04-24-2010 17:40:00 UTC

That’s not what I’m pointing out. What I’m saying is that there are extreme ambiguities in the core rules. They need to be entirely rewritten.

ais523:

04-24-2010 17:42:55 UTC

@Wak: it isn’t a core rules scam, it crucially relies on dynastic rules definitions to work. (Admittedly, it’s a bit suspicious that the core rules are so susceptible to this sort of thing.)

Josh:

04-24-2010 17:50:02 UTC

@ais: A non-proposal can be open for voting, but in order to be timed out it has to have been open for voting as a proposal for 48 hours.

Let’s play a thought experiment with this precedent. You can change any post without a comment into a proposal, cast one vote on it, time it out and pass it, yes? In that case, what’s the stop me - after this DoV has been enacted - from going back to the very first post that I can find without a comment, making it a proposal, then arguing that all subsequent proposals are illegal because they weren’t enacted in chronological order - as an older pending proposal now exists, even if it wasn’t a proposal at the time?

By any common-sense reading of the ruleset, a proposal has to have been open for voting as a proposal for 48 hours in order to be adminned, regardless of when the actual post was posted. If it’s not a proposal then, yes, it’s physically possible to vote for it, but that’s not the point. The point is that it has to be open for voting and in the proposal category, for 48 hours, in order to time out. I simply don’t see any other sensible way of reading the ruleset.

Purplebeard:

04-24-2010 18:10:05 UTC

against

ais523:

04-24-2010 18:10:36 UTC

@Josh: well, you need to be the author of the post, and find an accomplice to cast the vote on it (proposals need two votes to time out). I’ve felt for a while that proposals over a week old should be autofailed even if not adminned, although for a somewhat different reason (because if a proposal is accidentally adminned early and nobody notices, which given the timelag between the time on a post and it being published is entirely plausible, the entire queue is held up forevermore). From the Ruleset: “It has been open for voting for at least 48 hours, it has more than 1 valid vote, more than half of its votes are FOR, and it has not been vetoed or self-killed.” I don’t see anything in that rule that implies that the proposal must have continuously been a proposal for those 48 hours. (Thought experiment: someone submits a post in no category by mistake, then edits it into a proposal in the first 15 minutes. Does it time out 48 hours after the edit, or 48 hours after originally posted, or, worse, 48 hours after its author clicked on the “new post” button?) The core rules are arguably disasterously broken in this respect at the moment; but it isn’t exploitable unless you can find a post that’s been open for voting for 48 hours (and I can’t think of any reasonable argument that a request to idle, say, is open in any sense, let alone voting).