“A Petition becomes invalid 24 hours after it was made, and cannot result in changing the game state.”
Could be interprited as “A Petition becomes invalid 24 hours after it was made, and a petition cannot result in changing the game state.”
Maybe something like “Invalid petitions cannot change the gamestate” or “If a petition is older than 24 hours it has no effect.”

“A Petition becomes invalid 24 hours after it was made, and cannot result in changing the game state.”  I suggest removing the comma - right now it looks like it’s saying that all Petitions cannot result in changing the game state rather than just ones that are 24 hours old.  Alternatively: “Once a Petition is 24 hours old it becomes invalid and cannot result in changing the game state.”

Jinx!

Changed the last sentence to the shortened form above, and added ‘valid’ to “Once all of the Nymphs named in a valid Petition…”

[Oracular rufio] Ha!

This could be used to “teleport” Nymphs.

Make Petition with Nymphs all at the same location -> Nymphs disperse -> Nymphs suddenly become part of a creature and merge from wherever they are.

Also, it doesn’t mention where the new creature is located at. It’s easy to believe “oh, just where that cluster of Nymphs was”, but it’s not stated anywhere where a new Creature appears at.

(You could argue that the “The Creature” in “The Creature’s starting location is named “Sea of Eden”.” can refer to “A creature”, even newly created ones, but there are more problems that can arise from that, potentially, because of the wording. I also believe that “The Creature” will most likely be taken to refer to Eve anyway, because that is who it was referring to at the time it was made.)

A more complex version would be:

Make Petition with Nymphs all at the same location -> Nymph moves into an adjacent group, makes a Petition with THAT group -> Nymph becomes part of the first group when it activates, teleporting -> Former nymph becomes part of the second group by teleporting yet again when it activates.

If I make a petition and then Nymphs disperse, then the petition no longer “[names] at least two other Nymphs that share the same location”.

As to where the new Creature is located, the nymphs already have a location. It’s completely reasonable to assume that because a change is not stated, the proposed action does not change their location.

As for the location yes, I agree entirely, but it’s not explicitly stated as a mechanic. Why would we even need to state where Eve starts at, when it was more or less agreed that she should start at the middle?

As for the teleport:

“A Nymph may make a Petition to Aggregate as a blog post.” <- Grants the ability to make the Petition.

“The Petition must give a legal and unused Creature name and also name at least two other Nymphs that share the same location as the petitioning Nymph.” <- Conditions for the content of the Petition being made, ie. a Valid Petition. Note that these don’t change with the gamestate or anything, you make it and it stays as it is.

“Once all of the Nymphs named in a valid Petition agree to aggregate by commenting “I’m in” on the Petition, they along with the petitioning Nymph become part of a new Creature with the name in the Petition, and their states become amorphous.” <- This is the one with the teleport issue. The Nymphs, after the Petition was made, can comment “I’m in” later on, because their names are already on a Valid Petition (the Petition doesn’t stop being valid after the Nymphs leave, there is no mention of that).

“A Petition becomes invalid 24 hours after it was made.” <- Automatic closure mechanic, not much to say.

All that said, , because its locked anyway and the base idea is good. If people fall for the (potential) trap before a fix is made, well, on them lol.

“Why would we even need to state where Eve starts at, when it was more or less agreed that she should start at the middle?”
It wasn’t agreed upon at all, Viv simply created the wiki page with an ‘X’ in the middle and it was stated that the X represents the Creature’s position in the Habitat.

If what you’re saying ever becomes an issue then a CfJ would be in order; that’s what they are for.

To be honest, though, I think that rule about Eve’s starting location probably needs to be removed because it doesn’t really mean anything anymore now that we have (potentially) multiple creatures.  IMO it shouldn’t have been in the ruleset in the first place, the proposal that created the Habitat should have just said “set the Creature’s location to <whatever>” instead.

Post-hiatus, I intend to propose amending how a petition becomes invalid to include any nymph named in it moving. Or anyone else can do so.