Monday, March 01, 2021

Proposal: Archival [Appendix] [Core]

Timed out unpopular, 1 vote to 4. Josh

Adminned at 03 Mar 2021 22:03:40 UTC

Add the following entry to the Appendix rule “Other” immediately before the entry for “Post”:

Immutable
    Gamestate that is Immutable cannot be modified by ordinary means; it can only be modified by a CfJ’s enactment, or after ceasing to be Immutable and/or Gamestate.

In the Appendix rule “Representations of the Gamestate”, change

The historical fact of the occurrence of a defined game action is itself considered to be gamestate, tracked in the history of whatever resource is used to track the gamestate modified by that action, where possible, or in the wiki page Gamestate Modifications if this is not possible.

to

The historical fact of the occurrence of a defined game action is itself considered to be gamestate, tracked in the history of whatever resource is used to track the gamestate modified by that action, where possible, or in the wiki page Gamestate Modifications if this is not possible. Individual historical facts are Immutable once they have occurred.

Add the following paragraph to the end of the Core rule “Dynasties”:

Blog posts predating the start of the current dynasty, except for pending Votable Matters, are Immutable.

Comments

Kevan: he/him

01-03-2021 22:27:03 UTC

“modified by a CfJ’s enactment” could be stronger - we’d be just as likely, maybe even more so, to make a sweeping “do X to all gamestate” fix in a CfJ as in a proposal.

Bucky:

01-03-2021 22:36:18 UTC

We have a history of retroactive CfJ emergency fixes, though, which do sometimes try to affect historical facts.

Kevan: he/him

01-03-2021 22:43:03 UTC

Sure, but we also have a history of non-retroactive CfJ emergency fixes. They shouldn’t default to including all past dynasties, if that’s the thing we’re trying to stop ourselves from doing by accident.

Josh: he/they

01-03-2021 22:49:51 UTC

I have a broad issue with precedence - historically the culture of BN has always been that proposals are all-powerful, and it’s very unclear what has priority between the ruleset and a proposal that’s trying to do something that the ruleset says it can’t.

(If a proposal was casually doing something that it wasn’t allowed to then it might get noticed and voted down, but if a proposal said “Suspend the immutability of this rule, then change it” then that’s another matter, and it’s a third matter if a proposal simply says “This proposal if enacted takes precedence over immutability provisions in the ruleset”... look, there’s a variety of use cases here that are iffy in a world where the precedence between the ruleset and a proposal is unclear.)

I have a narrow issue with the flexibility of this fix. Why not just have a rule that says that “any gamestate to be created within a dynasty ceases to be gamestate when that dynasty ends” or something similar?

Kevan: he/him

02-03-2021 12:53:26 UTC

Ceasing to be gamestate would unbolt some trapdoors, although I’m not sure how bad or likely they really are. (For example, an “enact failed Proposal X, then…” proposal happening to survive an ascension would be enacting a non-gamestate anyone-can-edit-it blog post.)

But it feels instinctively very bad to say that editing old rulesets and gamestate documents is fine and doesn’t matter. We’ve had a few dynasties that have plundered old rulesets, and future generations wanting to do the same shouldn’t have to put up with any intervening “Kilroy was here and can achieve victory at any time” graffiti.

It takes about as many words to say that old gamestate is immutable after the dynasty ends, as it is to say that it stops being gamestate. I think this approach is the better one. (I’d prefer it if we called it “historical gamestate” to avoid the overlap with Suber ruleset terminology, though.)

Josh: he/they

02-03-2021 13:48:05 UTC

In either case:  against to this specific implementation, although I agree that something is necessary.

Kevan: he/him

02-03-2021 14:22:24 UTC

against Also.

Brendan: he/him

03-03-2021 03:07:21 UTC

against

Madrid:

03-03-2021 10:13:41 UTC

against Bandwagoning