Doh! Misread the ruleset… my bad.

:?:

Presumably relating to this; I’d misread “X is at least the Recipient’s Bribe Value” as “X is the Recipient’s Bribe Value”, and Wakukee perhaps had as well.

Well, thanks a lot for mistaking my clever game mechanic for an ignorable grammatical feature, Wakukee. Please assume you are mistaken as opposed to the general populace in future… or at least put in your CfJ what you think the error of rule interpretation is, instead of being so confident you are right you don’t need to state it!

Sorry… Kevan was right though. It was that note.

lol to be honest i fell into the same mind set too.

I think it was a combination of the slightly-odd wording “X is at least Y”, and the fact that it was called a “Bribe Value” rather than “Minimum Bribe” or something. It obviously makes sense that corrupt officials will also accept larger bribes, but I was thinking about it on a more abstract level (in a world where someone can successfully bribe me against my will).

In future I’ll try and be clearer and possibly provide an example, but since we have no opportunity to put flavour text within the body of a rule, that task is much harder without opening up scarier opportunities for unique interpretations.

Adding “For example: if ais523 had a Bribe Value of 7…” to a rule is safe and unambiguous enough, isn’t it?

Not a problem, anyway - misreading a completely unambiguous rule is all part of the fun of Nomic.

It’s not really important now…

I know, but noone will vote it down…

Please people vote this down, “Revert all changes made to the GNDT in the last 24 hours.” would do something entirely different now we’re in a different dynasty…