Tuesday, January 01, 2019

Proposal: [Appendix] The (whole) map is not the territory

Times out/reaches quorum, 4-0 (with 2 defs). Enacted by pokes.

Adminned at 04 Jan 2019 00:44:44 UTC

In “Gamestate Tracking”, replace

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

If an Attorney 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. Instead of repeatedly reverting and re-reverting a disputed GNDT update, Attorneys are encouraged to raise a Call for Judgement instead. Attorneys shall be assigned a password for the GNDT when they join the Nomic.

with:

The GNDT and wiki merely represent the Gamestate, and are not the same thing. In the event that the Gamestate and its representations are different, any Attorney may correct the representations to comply with the Gamestate.

If an Attorney feels that a representation of the gamestate (such as the GNDT or the wiki) 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. Instead of repeatedly reverting and re-reverting a disputed alteration, Attorneys are encouraged to raise a Call for Judgement instead. Attorneys shall be assigned a password for the GNDT when they join the Nomic.

I think we’d likely behave as if updates to the wiki are like GNDT updates in that illegal actions can be simply rolled back, but the Ruleset isn’t currently explicit about it.

posted by pokes at 01 Jan 2019 14:15:00 UTC Comments (9)

Comments

edelopo:

01-01-2019 15:05:08 UTC

for

Kevan: he/him

01-01-2019 19:45:02 UTC

Haven’t got time to check this sufficiently carefully tonight, but are we okay with this also applying to the ruleset (which is part of the wiki)?

edelopo:

01-01-2019 19:47:09 UTC

As I understand it, this refers only to the Gamestate, and the Ruleset is not part of the Gamestate but only defines it (unless otherwise stated)

pokes:

01-01-2019 20:05:06 UTC

I think of the Ruleset as being a representation of Gamestate but the Ruleset itself is sort of ambiguous about whether it is. Regardless, I think this solves more problems than it creates. Right now, if I edit (or have an accomplice edit, to avoid a problem with my obeying the Ruleset) the ruleset to say “pokes is emperor forever”, that’s obviously an illegal action. But what are we going to do about it? Rolling back that change might (currently) be an illegal action itself, so why would it be the right fix?

pokes:

01-01-2019 20:06:42 UTC

Update: the answer to my own question is: “If the Ruleset does not properly reflect all legal changes that have been made to it, any Attorney may update it to do so.”

edelopo:

01-01-2019 20:09:33 UTC

Maybe other solution would be to have all of the information about the Gamestate on the GNDT. Although I am new and don’t know if the GNDT can hold names and such.

naught:

02-01-2019 07:34:25 UTC

While it is (I believe) technically possible to have all the information about the Gamestate on the GNDT, it would complicate things slightly (as we would have to have a Proposal amend where clients were being tracked, as well as maybe even having to add the entire Client Pool to the GNDT depending on how edelopo’s proposition was worded).

naught:

02-01-2019 07:38:54 UTC

In terms of the question Kevan brought up, though, my thoughts align with pokes’ in that the Ruleset is just as much a representation of the Gamestate as the GNDT.
imperial

Trigon:

03-01-2019 02:26:31 UTC

imperial