Wednesday, May 03, 2017

Freezebullet Scam

Hands up, this is a Nomic stick up!

Blognomic is now (nearly) totally frozen, and the only way out is to have me win. But everyone else (except me) needs to idle, so that I can legally get passed a proposal to defrost us (and give myself victory of course).

—> So, everyone, please idle. (I can add a quick-rejoin in the “defrost” proposal for everyone to un-idle instantly for convenience. So Idle time on my behalf isn’t a problem, but additional wait time will depend on you.)

Currently, nobody has a vote (we’re “frozen”), because we’ve changed hyphens to bullets. So now, this phrase exists:

Manager never has a Vote, even if they were a Manager previously and had cast a valid Vote.

This would cause the game to be unplayable (since we wouldn’t be able to do anything to progress the game nor judge anything through CfJs and descend into total agnosticism over what is what)...

...If it weren’t for the Underdog rule.

Each Manager whose Starting Cash is the lowest amongst all Managers (or tied for the lowest) is considered to be an Underdog. Quorum is considered to be 1 less than usual for the purpose of Enacting a Proposal made by an Underdog. A person may not be the underdog unless their starting cash is a non-zero positive integer.

Because of that, there is still one play that I can prove that we can do. So, the game still isn’t unplayable. (Just pretty awkward to play).

If we have exactly one Manager, then Quorum is 1. However, due to the Underdog rule, the quorum they need would be 1-1 = 0. Zero. Zero is a very important number here.

One of the conditions that can be used to enact a proposal is:

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.

So. Even if nobody can vote, ever, we wouldn’t need any votes to pass a proposal made by a person who is the only non-Idle player on BlogNomic, because we’d only need zero votes to enact it. (Note that if EVERYONE is idle, then we have 0 non-idle players and no underdog, then Quorum is 1, so we still wouldn’t be able to enact anything.)

I’m going to be that person. I’m also going to take advantage from that I’m the first person to infomally declare this and the following to everyone:

I’m not going to idle, until after we “defrost”. Consider it a promise. The only play you have left is to idle so that we can pass my proposal that will fix the rules to defrost this near-stalemate - and also give me victory because the whole intent of this heist is to win, of course, and I’m going to squat until I get it.

If there were TWO people who admitted that they aren’t going to idle, then we’d truly be in a total unplayabale stalemate, because then we’d never reach that magic effective Quorum of 0*. But currently, there’s only one, me. So it’s fine.

So, everyone: please Idle. Once I’m the last man standing, I’ll make the “defrost+Cuddlebeam wins” proposal, and we can continue play as usual.


I’ve won.

(...eventually lol.)


Appendix:

“How is the proposal going to be enacted if there would be no non-Idle admins?”: Idle Manager who are Admins can still perform their Admin functions, actually. Here is the Idleness rule:

Some Managers are Idle, and shall be marked as such in the sidebar. For the purposes of all Gamestate and the Ruleset, excluding Rules “Ruleset and Gamestate”, “Managers”, “Dynasties”, “Fair Play” and any of those Rules’ subrules, Idle Managers are not counted as Managers.

It doesn’t remove nor change any Admin abilities. An Idle Manager can still legally use their Admin powers.

*barring Acts of God / Force majeure or just dieing of natural causes lol.


Appendix II:

This is very similar to a “I win” proposal, except that your “green tick votes” are “to idle” and you don’t have much of a choice except to vote green tick.

Comments

Crumb:

03-05-2017 16:17:57 UTC

I believe this was a coup.

Madrid:

03-05-2017 16:31:25 UTC

Going to sticky this

card:

03-05-2017 16:31:28 UTC

It’s true you stated to change hyphens to bullets, which I did. You didn’t state to change all hyphens in the ruleset to bullets. I changed some hyphens which satisfies your proposal.

Madrid:

03-05-2017 16:32:59 UTC

It said plainly “Change hyphens to bullets”.

Are the hyphens in the ruleset hyphens? Yeah. Then they’re bullets now.

card:

03-05-2017 16:35:18 UTC

Sure but that just means plural hyphens or more than one.

I also noticed you changed some minus signs to bullets.

Madrid:

03-05-2017 16:37:10 UTC

I just put a hyphen into a text replacer to have them change to bullets.  I’ll fix the minus signs rights now.

I don’t see what more there is to “changing hyphens to bullets” aside from changing the hyphens to bullets.

card:

03-05-2017 16:42:21 UTC

It depends upon how you interpret it.

1 Change all hyphens to bullets.
2 Change hyphens to bullets.
3 Change some hyphens to bullets.

Sentences 1 and 3 are unambiguous while people can interpret 2 as meaning either sentence 1 or 3.

card:

03-05-2017 16:44:12 UTC

You also didn’t state which hyphens are changed.

Madrid:

03-05-2017 16:50:49 UTC

I made a CfJ for this. Also, if we take your view, I can argue to invalidate several proposals/CfJs from the dawn of the dynasty because of the lack of specification. We’ve been accepting it so far, why change it now? Because I’m winning?

pokes:

03-05-2017 16:58:20 UTC

You changed hyphens to “(new line)(bullet)” and not “(bullet)”. Should, e.g., non-manager have been changed to non•manager?

Madrid:

03-05-2017 17:02:07 UTC

Yes, I was waiting for that question lol. We have in the Ruleset:

“Managers may correct obvious spelling and typographical mistakes in the Ruleset “

and taking as reference the wikipedia page of bullets https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bullet_(typography) , we have:

“In typography, a bullet ( • ) is a typographical symbol or glyph used to introduce items in a list. For example:

• Item 1.
• Item 2.
• Item 3.

If we agree on that the bullets have to be bullets, then it would be natural to correct them to be in proper list form, as per the example (from wikipedia).

card:

03-05-2017 17:07:16 UTC

Odd that you’d make a CfJ that nobody can vote on and will just sit there for 48 hours if your view is valid and if you’re incorrect then nobody in their right mind would vote for it.

You are not winning. The game has just changed to a waiting game. You think that just because you won’t idle, other people will.

If your changes are valid it’s possible for other people to win. In fact it’s more likely that an admin will win because otherwise proposals can’t be enacted.

Also to quote Kevan “If the game ever breaks, we can just informally agree to stop playing it, and to start playing a new game with the core
ruleset. (The same way you’d stop playing chess, and get a new set, if the board caught fire, or if someone tactically ate your king.)”

card:

03-05-2017 17:11:48 UTC

Why agree that they are typographical bullets, you simply stated to change them to bullets.

pokes:

03-05-2017 17:13:02 UTC

This is plainly against Fair Play, but all we have to do to fix it is make a fix proposal that can be enacted because the condition “Killed” is fulfilled on some thin justification.

Madrid:

03-05-2017 17:13:27 UTC

- Yes, because I’m using it to poll. I find it super interesting how now informal consensus is a thing, and its a necessity here now. Absolutely fascinating for me really, just like the Sticky/Illusion conundrum

- Yes, could be so entirely, hence the “stick up” factor to push me to a win. We’ll see.

- True, and I’d be entirely satisfied that an admin won on terms that they stole my idea that I’ve publicly posted. It would highlight excellently the “Admin Advantage” issue I’ve pointed out in “Plays”.

- Yep. Yet the game isn’t broken (yet), just very close to it.

 

Crumb:

03-05-2017 17:13:31 UTC

I’m honestly a bit shocked to see there are no special protections built into the core rules so that they are protected from being modified so easily. I think however this goes down we need to pass some updates to the core rules so that they are slightly more difficult to amend and can never be amended without it being obvious that they are impacted by a proposal.

pokes:

03-05-2017 17:19:58 UTC

@Crumb given the “Core Proposal” glossary term, it seems like there might have once been some special protections there that are now gone.

Madrid:

03-05-2017 17:25:01 UTC

I dont see how this is against fair play either. Everyone just needs to idle so that we can continue as usual. Plus, I can include a quick-rejoin in the defrost proposal to unidle people.

If people don’t want to unidle to get us out of the frost, that’s on them.

The game is right now is playable, and the only good play people have includes making me win. If it weren’t playable, we wouldn’t be able to do anything at all in the first place.

card:

03-05-2017 17:39:45 UTC

[Cuddlebeam] You idle first and then I’ll consider idling.

Madrid:

03-05-2017 17:43:35 UTC

Not happening, as per the early post these latter comments are on.

card:

03-05-2017 18:14:09 UTC

Don’t forget fair play. While you have stated that the game is “playable” I and others consider proposals and voting a core of Nomic. Sure if it’s an Emperor theme or something then that can change to limit voting or times when proposals can be made; it’s not really a theme of the current dynasty to not be able to vote on anything at all.

Madrid:

03-05-2017 18:22:13 UTC

When you’re out proposal slots and available things to vote on, you can’t do those things you’re considering core. Hiatuses also limit that.

Proposal slots and hiatuses would be criminal as well, if your case were true.

If what isn’t liked is the extortion factor that I’m using here, plenty of us have extorted others in the past here (I’m just extorting <em>everyone<em> in this case, instead of bullying just one/few players). Along bribery, alliances and rivalries, I think its reasonable to consider it as part of Nomic.

card:

03-05-2017 18:49:37 UTC

You’re certainly taking my statements to hyperbolic limits.

What I don’t like is that this is yet again another core rule scam that tries to achieve victory before conditions for victory have even made it in a proposal. It will also allow whoever is left to pass any proposal they please, which I don’t trust everyone with.

Madrid:

03-05-2017 19:00:05 UTC

“core rule scam that tries to achieve victory before conditions for victory have even made it in a proposal”

These are exactly the kind of scams I want to pull lol. It’s my topmost ideal way to win, because it’s a real scammer’s way to win.

About that second part, I’ve already attempted a scam in the past which would give me total control. And I used it to only give myself victory lol.

Bucky:

03-05-2017 22:00:02 UTC

I fixed this using the “obvious typo” clause in Rule 1.1. CfJ if you wish to argue that the multiple cases of broken formatting in the Ruleset weren’t “typographical mistakes”.

Madrid:

03-05-2017 22:15:19 UTC

Unfortunately I can do the same. This is a bit of the “agnostic anarchy” issue which I pointed out earlier. We don’t/can’t know what is what (at least, not until we defrost/have non-idle count of 1).

Also, your change implies that hyphens are bullets (because it turns hyphens into bullets), which I believe isn’t necesarily true, because hyphens and bullets are different things.

Madrid:

03-05-2017 22:48:17 UTC

Another way to get out could be to have several people informally cheekily agree that some (any) string in the text means “we can still do proposals despite the freezebullet shenanigans” or something, regardless of the actual language there. I’ll call this going Trollmode.

Then, to make a proposal with contents that undo the freezebullet, then optionally admit that the trollmode interpretation was false and erase from the formal history/timeline of legal actions that the trollmode and freezebullet ever happened and knit the “timeline to formally consider” over the gap. So like that, at least formally, there would be just one neat continuum where freezebullet and the Trollmode to break it never happened and everything is neat and tidy, formally.

Although I feel like games lack meaning if we ignore the rules that govern it. If you play tic-tack-toe with the provision that you don’t have to actually follow the rules and/or nobody believes in the rules you’re using and you’re cheekily disregarding them (which would have the same effect has having the provision that “you dont have to follow the rules”), are you even playing a game in the first place?

I’d prefer for the attempt to dismantle this (if its even possible) to be done through formal methods that people themselves actually believe in though. And if such a breach into informality is going to happen, why not just do Kevan’s “drop the game and start a new one”, then call the new one the “legitimate” Blognomic and trash the “old” one.

But it would be interesting to see something like the Trollmode or Kevan’s reset happen, regardless.

Bucky:

04-05-2017 00:06:31 UTC

“Unfortunately I can do the same. This is a bit of the “agnostic anarchy” issue which I pointed out earlier.” - Are the hyphens clear errors? Obviously not, they were in the ruleset for a while and nobody tried to correct them to bullets.

All we need is enough people to accept that the bullets in the middle of “self*killed” and “non*voter” are obvious typographical errors and the hyphens aren’t, and that they can therefore vote, that we can pass a CfJ affirming so.

Madrid:

04-05-2017 00:17:01 UTC

“All we need is enough people to accept that the bullets in the middle of “self*killed” and “non*voter” are obvious typographical errors”

Yes, but the bullets have been placed deliberately there, by me, so it’s not an “error”. And if the CfJ relies on people “accepting” a certain view, which is not necessarily that they believe in, then we’re back at that Trollmode issue (why not just have people accept that any arbitrary string in the ruleset means something convenient?), which if taken forwards, means that there has been no real game in the first place for me as I’ve explained earlier, in which case, there really isn’t anything for me to “win”.

Which would be sad lol, but oh well.

Bucky:

04-05-2017 00:35:46 UTC

I also agree with card on the admin discretion point - “change hyphens to bullets” is ambiguous in scope, so it’s up to the enacting admin to interpret which hyphens should be changed. This follows the procedure spelled out in rule 1.5.2.

The appropriate response if you don’t like the interpretation is to CfJ.  Not to change the ruleset document to match your interpretation of what the enacting admin should have done. Nor is anyone required to follow changes made to the ruleset document by someone who wasn’t authorized to do so.

Madrid:

04-05-2017 00:49:24 UTC

There are several (severe) consequences to that.

If we adopt what you say, then Admins have the final say in all interpretation matters in the entire game, because they would be the ones who on their own, interpret the effects of proposals - and all changes to the game stem from effects from proposals.

This would give Admins total dictatorship over the game, would they be motivated to perform as such.

Admins would also be able to update the Ruleset with non sequitur from the proposal (or even update it with content in error!), and it would be the truthful update to the Ruleset (with no taking it back, unless there is formal action to actually amend it).

Regardless, I believe all of that isn’t what would happen in reality in the first place, because:

That rule 1.5.2. says “by updating the Ruleset and/or Gamestate to include the specified effects of that Proposal”. And it’s entirely possible for Admins to update the Ruleset/Gamestate incorrectly, by performing an update that didn’t conform to the specifications (it never says that its up to their personal sole interpretation either), because they didn’t do what was specified. (Else, admins spawning new rules from non sequitur in proposals is legal, and if actions can be performed from non sequitur, then I can win the game without needing anything to back it up, because acting according to non sequitur is a thing.)

So no, it’s not so.

Crumb:

04-05-2017 04:09:10 UTC

Clearly the admin can only enact a proposal to the best of their understanding, which they did in this case. If you believe they enacted your proposal in error, your recourse is to open a CfJ, which you have. That CfJ will clarify the will of the voters who approved your proposal. I don’t think there will be a surprise which way it will go.

I think until the CfJ is resolved the ruleset should be restored, and we are basically in a normal hiatus awaiting the result.

card:

04-05-2017 05:36:47 UTC

-If we adopt what you say, then Admins have the final say in all interpretation matters in the entire game
As other’s have stated, this is not the case.

-because they would be the ones who on their own, interpret the effects of proposals - and all changes to the game stem from effects from proposals.
Right, but they can’t make unreasonable interpretations. Sure an admin could stretch some definitions but they couldn’t interpret the entirety of a proposal to instead mean the text “[admin] has achieved victory.”

-This would give Admins total dictatorship over the game, would they be motivated to perform as such.
Only if there’s one admin who wants to be a dictator (or all of the admins want to be in a Mexican Standoff Dictatorship) and they are prepared to wait 7 days for each proposal they don’t like to fall off the page and fail it.

-Admins would also be able to update the Ruleset with non sequitur from the proposal (or even update it with content in error!), and it would be the truthful update to the Ruleset (with no taking it back, unless there is formal action to actually amend it).
Clarify what you mean by “non-sequitur from the proposal”, you’ve lost me on that one. Also why would you need to “formally update the ruleset” if any manager can update it to the correct version?

As for the rest I’m still confused on that non-sequitur thing.

Publius Scribonius Scholasticus: he/they

04-05-2017 10:12:05 UTC

Cuddlebeam, agreeing with Bucky is following the rules not “adopting” a new standard, doing what you say IS adopting a new standard. Also, since Hyphens can be changed to Bullets as a typographical change, I believe they could easily be changed back.

Madrid:

04-05-2017 10:51:51 UTC

This is Post A (I’ll refer to past comment content here as A-1-r for example, when needed)

1) Crumb: Clearly the admin can only enact a proposal to the best of their understanding, which they did in this case. If you believe they enacted your proposal in error, your recourse is to open a CfJ, which you have. That CfJ will clarify the will of the voters who approved your proposal. I don’t think there will be a surprise which way it will go.

1-r) I still don’t see where it says that Admins have the power when it comes to formal application of the content of proposals. FMPOV, they “stamp” the proposal and, then its contents are formally applied to the ruleset. I think that the nature of what “Enacting” actually is in regards to what content from a proposal is formally added needs to be specified. (Is it just “stamping” and then consensus is who decides what has been formally added to the actual rules, or is it their role discretion which decides what is formally added? Again, a super interesting issue which I believe should be discussed because it affects the very nature of what is “real” on BlogNomic.)

2) Crumb: I think until the CfJ is resolved the ruleset should be restored, and we are basically in a normal hiatus awaiting the result.

2-r) Yeah, pretty much.

3)Card: -If we adopt what you say, then Admins have the final say in all interpretation matters in the entire game
-because they would be the ones who on their own, interpret the effects of proposals - and all changes to the game stem from effects from proposals.
Right, but they can’t make unreasonable interpretations. Sure an admin could stretch some definitions but they couldn’t interpret the entirety of a proposal to instead mean the text “[admin] has achieved victory.”

3-r) Exactly! That’s my point. What I was explaining there would be the consequences of Admins being the sole interpreter of what should become from a proposal. So we’re back at that its consensus is which determines what the interpretation should be, which is totally what I agree with.

4) Card: Only if there’s one admin who wants to be a dictator (or all of the admins want to be in a Mexican Standoff Dictatorship) and they are prepared to wait 7 days for each proposal they don’t like to fall off the page and fail it.

4-r) Yes.

5) -Admins would also be able to update the Ruleset with non sequitur from the proposal (or even update it with content in error!), and it would be the truthful update to the Ruleset (with no taking it back, unless there is formal action to actually amend it).
Clarify what you mean by “non-sequitur from the proposal”, you’ve lost me on that one. Also why would you need to “formally update the ruleset” if any manager can update it to the correct version?

I agree entirely that any manager can correct it to be the correct version. What I was illustrating were the consequences if Bucky’s case were true, giving arise to several absurdities which I believe we’re not playing with, and if that is the case, then Bucky’s case can’t be true (kind of a reductio ad absurdum).

Hopefully this clears your confusion.

6) Cuddlebeam, agreeing with Bucky is following the rules not “adopting” a new standard, doing what you say IS adopting a new standard.

6-r) I don’t get what you mean by “adopting” in this context. Please use an example. I think you mean that Bucky’s view is tradition, and we should follow tradition. In which case, I bring up the usual counter that “argumentum ad precedent” is moot, because we don’t need to bind ourselves to the interpretations that have been done in the past (heck, what if they were wrong). And regardless of if past or present interpretations are better or worse, they can be discussed in the present to figure out what interpretation overall is the more correct. Slapping the “hey but this was how it was done in the past” means little, aside from judging the honesty of individual/s (for example, taking one interpretation paradigm or another as personally convenient).

7) Also, since Hyphens can be changed to Bullets as a typographical change, I believe they could easily be changed back.

Sure they can be changed back. Via another proposal.

I don’t see how bullets can be “mistaken” for hyphens (how about “mistaking” them the other way around? Why not mistaking arbitrary pre-existing bullets in the ruleset to hyphens as convenient?) because its explicit that hyphens have been changed to bullets. I believe that hyphens and bullets are distinctly different things.

Madrid:

04-05-2017 10:53:53 UTC

Correcting the formatting of the last bit:


7) Also, since Hyphens can be changed to Bullets as a typographical change, I believe they could easily be changed back.

7-r) Sure they can be changed back. Via another proposal.

I don’t see how bullets can be “mistaken” for hyphens (how about “mistaking” them the other way around? Why not mistaking arbitrary pre-existing bullets in the ruleset to hyphens as convenient?) because its explicit that hyphens have been changed to bullets. I believe that hyphens and bullets are distinctly different things.

Publius Scribonius Scholasticus: he/they

04-05-2017 11:17:11 UTC

You clearly misunderstood my comment. In the past, hyphens have been changed to bullets as a typographical change without a proposal, therefore they can be changed back. Don’t try and claim that I am “taking one interpretation paradigm or another as personally convenient”, I am always of the position that unless we have new and convincing evidence or reasoning not available to us when the issue was last decided, then we must for the stability of institutions, expectations, and the rule of law, maintain the previous precedent. I am in no way “taking one interpretation paradigm or another as personally convenient” and I don’t appreciate your attempt to misportray me for your own personal gain.

Madrid:

04-05-2017 13:07:15 UTC

(I think I’ll just continue the numbers than go A-B-C-etc)

8) You clearly misunderstood my comment. In the past, hyphens have been changed to bullets as a typographical change without a proposal, therefore they can be changed back.

8-r)
- That is incorrect
- Hyphens acting as substitutes for bullets is different from hyphens acting as word-connectors.

I can agree with:

[list item introducer (bootleg-bullet hyphen)]->[list item introducer (bullet)]
or
[word connector]->[word connector]

but not with [list item introducer]->[word connector]
Which changing bullets to hyphens would be.

9) Don’t try and claim that I am “taking one interpretation paradigm or another as personally convenient”

9-r) This is a really serious deal, and if you consider that I’ve done that, I apologize, it wasn’t my intent. My intent was to show in which case “argumentum ad precedent” would be relevant, in contrast to my justification as to why it wasn’t relevant now. The argument structure I wanted to portray was that of for example “bows aren’t for tilling soil - they’re for shooting arrows”, with “bows” being the argumentum ad precedent, “tilling soil” your argument, “shooting arrows” being mine.

10) I am always of the position that unless we have new and convincing evidence or reasoning not available to us when the issue was last decided, then we must for the stability of institutions, expectations, and the rule of law, maintain the previous precedent. I am in no way “taking one interpretation paradigm or another as personally convenient” and I don’t appreciate your attempt to misportray me for your own personal gain.

10-r) Yes. As per 9-r, it wasn’t my intent to misportray you, but to illustrate with an example when the argumentum ad precedent you were invoking would be relevant - which would be at these controversial points. I wasn’t pointing that YOU were the source of controversy, just that it would be relevant in such cases.

I was tossing around “controversy” as an element of my discourse, and it’s a really dangerous thing, and unintentionally, it seemed that I was tossing controversy at you, and such wasn’t the case. Sorry.

But yeah, that small misunderstanding in etiquette aside, my point still stands.

card:

04-05-2017 15:46:08 UTC

“8-r)
- That is incorrect”
Can you disprove this?

Madrid:

04-05-2017 16:12:08 UTC

11) “8-r)
- That is incorrect”
Can you disprove this?

11-r) I was writing my argument in an artistic way to prove that hyphens acting as substitutes for bullets is different from hyphens acting as word-connectors.

You can read 8-r better as:

“That is incorrect, because, Hyphens acting as substitutes for bullets is different from hyphens acting as word-connectors.”

and then the rest of 8-r