BlogNomic: The First Dynasty of Desertfrog

Not a proposal, I’m afraid.

Also, didn’t we establish that we can add GNDT columns without having to be directed by the ruleset?

I’ve popped it in anyway as I feel like 1.7 explicitly permits me to update the GNDT to reflect the gamestate. Anyone who disagrees can revert.

Ok. The good news is that I have not even lost the slot :P

[Josh] Did we? I’m not sure that would work - it’s fine for us to have invisible gamestate and to decide to track it in the GNDT, but there would be absolutely no legal requirement for the GNDT to be accurate. A flourished endgame scam of “you see, I actually had three extra Land all along, but decided not to track them publicly” seems annoying.

@Kevan - I accept that, but the rule as it currently exists seems to support my reading.

The GNDT merely represents the Gamestate, and is not the same thing. In the event that the Gamestate and the GNDT are different, any Sheep may correct the GNDT to comply with the Gamestate.

and

If a Sheep feels that the GNDT was altered such that it no longer matches the gamestate (such as by performing an action which was against the Rules (as they were at the time of the alteration), or by any other means), they may simply undo the effects of that alteration.

together seem to imply that the GNDT is a tracking tool rather than an explicit arbiter of gamestate values. A part of me is surprised that hasn’t been the subject of a scam already…

per Josh.

This is not a proposal, you don’t need to vote it