Saturday, January 14, 2017

Proposal: Anti supertrollmode

Self-killed. Failed by Kevan.

Adminned at 16 Jan 2017 09:20:47 UTC

In “Locations” change “A Villager may change their own Location once per day.” to:

A Villager may change their own Location once per day by altering the appropriate value in the GNDT.

“As a daily action, a Villager in the Town Square may add multiple units of Well Water to their inventory” to:

As a daily action, a Villager in the Town Square may add multiple units of Well Water to their inventory by altering the appropriate value in the GNDT.

“As a daily action, a Villager in the Forest may add a random plant (Mandrake, Nightshade, Red Cap, Silver Bark or Wolfsbane) to their inventory.” to:

As a daily action, a Villager in the Forest may add a random plant (Mandrake, Nightshade, Red Cap, Silver Bark or Wolfsbane) to their inventory by altering the appropriate value in the GNDT.

“A Villager at the Market may swap two units of the same Remedy in their inventory (other than Well Water) for a single unit of any Remedy, at any time.” to:

A Villager at the Market may swap two units of the same Remedy in their inventory (other than Well Water) for a single unit of any Remedy, at any time by altering the appropriate value in the GNDT.

“If a Villager is alone in the Surgery, they may add a random Remedy to their inventory at any time.” to:

If a Villager is alone in the Surgery, they may add a random Remedy to their inventory at any time by altering the appropriate value in the GNDT.

Note that a posteriori the GNDT can be altered to be any other Location or Remedy value but that wouldn’t matter for the sake of the gamestate, the purpose is that it acts as “paperwork” to prevent trolling people’s knowledge of things, because announcing yourself changing locations/gathering Remedies/whatever isn’t compulsory and if it is, there is no consequence for it. Also, the wording of “must” wouldn’t work either because of the procrastination problem (although that can be fixed with some consequence clause added but eh, I like this wording more).

Without this kind of stuff I could try to declare that an opposing DoV invalid later on, because I haven’t tracked the use of my Location-movement rights in the GNDT (and there is no consequence for not doing so), the Doctor has performed actions (such as contagion and such) based on the erroneous GNDT which affect every player that I would’ve interacted with during my lack-of-GNDT-tracking period, because I would’ve been changing the gamestate without any other player being aware of it, because that part of the gamestate isn’t bound to any mechanisms that make the other players aware of it (such as the GNDT which is explicitly not the gamestate itself). THIS OF COURSE WOULD BE ANNOYING AS FUCK so I’m going to plug it in case someone else gets the idea lol, and stop attempting to do it myself.

I’m sure there’s more stuff with this identical problem but oh well.

posted by Madrid at 14 Jan 2017 14:04:00 UTC Comments (4)

Comments

pokes:

14-01-2017 14:56:08 UTC

Note: your proposed change to “As a daily action, a Villager in the Town Square may add multiple units of Well Water to their inventory” leaves out “As a daily action”.

pokes:

14-01-2017 15:00:50 UTC

Note: Even though this seems totally harmless, this would help legitimize the idea that, for example, the phrase “Each Villager has a Location, tracked in the GNDT” doesn’t carry forth the assumption that anything else that changes Location is also tracked in the GNDT.

I personally would hold that idea to not be legitimate. If it came to a CfJ, I’d vote along the lines that “The gamestate includes variable X, tracked in the GNDT” implies that any changes to X are tracked in the GNDT, even if it’s not explicit.

Madrid:

14-01-2017 15:18:44 UTC

Realized that this exist: “Actions that change gamestate directly (defined in other rules) can normally be performed simply by applying their effects to the GNDT, which updates the gamestate accordingly, unless another rule specifies some other method of performing them”

So my proposal is superfluous, against

Ty for the input though pokes, I appreciate it.

Kevan: he/him

14-01-2017 20:45:52 UTC

Of course, “can normally be performed” still has enough wiggle room for a player to argue that they have updated some piece of GNDT gamestate in an “abnormal” way by writing it on a post-it instead. We should tighten this up - and also explicitly lock down and rubber stamp the gamestate to match what the GNDT has been saying so far this dynasty.