Tuesday, May 20, 2025

Call for Judgment: Acting while citing

Change the gamestate (including the history of performed dynastic actions) to what it currently would be if the second list item in “Essays and Citations” had never been part of the ruleset.

Change the text of “Essays and Citations” to read:

As a weekly action, a Drafter may make a Citation, a blog post in the Story Post: Votable Matters category that highlights a passage from an essay held in the Essays category on the Blognomic wiki that was authored by a Drafter or idle Drafter other than themselves. In the same post, they should distil the passage thus highlighted into a sentence that begins “A Plan should” or “A plan should not”; said sentence should represent a sincere attempt to convey the render the sense of the highlighted passage into a precept that can be legally followed by a Drafter when composing a Plan, and is known as that Citation’s Suggestion.

If a Citation is Popular, its author or any admin can mark it as Enacted and add that Citation’s Suggestion to the list of Mandates in the rule Mandates, preceded by an ID number that is not being used by any existing Mandate or any Mandate in the proposal queue.
If a Citation is Unpopular, its author or any admin can mark it as Failed.

Making a Citation is currently defined as an Atomic Action with two steps: making the Citation then, 48 hours later, resolving the Citation. However, Atomic Actions are atomic – you can’t do something else while you’re performing them. As such, making a Citation locks you out of dynastic actions for 48 hours.

This is clearly unintended, and needs urgent attention because some players are locked out of the game. As such, the first sentence of this CFJ removes the action lock (and effectively upholds actions that were performed despite it, as long as they didn’t have another reason to be illegal), This also contains a rewrite of the “Essays and Citations” rule to remove the problem. (I also got rid of the 48-hour minimum, instead using the same rules for enacting/failing that CFJs currently use.)

posted by ais523 at 20 May 2025 16:03:00 UTC Comments (6)

Comments

DoomedIdeas: he/him

20-05-2025 16:46:29 UTC

for

JonathanDark: he/him

20-05-2025 16:47:42 UTC

for

Josh: he/they

20-05-2025 16:48:45 UTC

Oh yeah shit that’s funny

for

Trapdoorspyder: he/him

20-05-2025 18:40:01 UTC

for

Kevan: he/him

20-05-2025 19:19:04 UTC

Why do we want these to run at CfJ speed rather than proposal speed?

ais523: Supervisor

20-05-2025 20:36:37 UTC

The delay on proposals is mostly to give players a chance to point out potential breaking issues, and I didn’t think that would be likely to cause problems with Mandates (both because a broken Mandate is unlikely and because a broken Mandate would be very unlikely to block gameplay but quite likely to cause interesting gameplay), so an artificial delay didn’t seem necessary here.

But the main reason behind the change was a combination of a) thinking “48 hours is too slow, that’s half proposal speed” and b) wanting to match a criterion that the core rules already used for arbitrary rules amendments, because this could probably be forced into making arbitrary rules changes if abused and thus it should at least be as difficult to do as a mechanism that already allows arbitrary rules changes. I don’t have a strong opinion on whether it should copy CFJ rules or proposal rules – I copied the CFJ rules for the reasons explained above and because it lead to simpler wording, and because I wanted to get this CFJ up quickly to unblock the gamestate.

You must be logged in as a player to post comments.