BlogNomic: The First Dynasty of Desertfrog

Note: I think it’d be best if the last line specified an active villager and idle villagers, as I don’t think its as iron-clad as it could be that the villager must be active.

Though it is clear from context, these are rules, and they ought to be clearer

True we shouldn’t care too much about somebody controlling multiple Idle Villagers in the past. Wording changed.

One may want to disassociate their past user’s history from one that of their current BlogNomic name.

In my case (I was “Mat” in early BlogNomic), I was unable to re-register, as required, because BlogNomic had changed engines and required a username of ≥4 characters.

Is there some other verification method we can use as a more sound basis for associating previous players with current; say, the same registration e-mail address? We could then question if the same user is at the current as previous e-mail address but that could digress into whether two users over time with the same BlogNomic name (cf. someone playing another’s account) are the same human, which is a philosophical debate outside of the scope of this dynasty.

Another related question, are previous and/or idle players still “within BlogNomic”? Is it the case that once someone is within the BlogNomic system, they are ALWAYS in the system?

[Matt] This proposed rule is less harsh than the current one, isn’t it? Under the current rule, a user disassociating themselves from past accounts is breaking the Fair Play rules of BlogNomic by having a new account at all.

I don’t think we have anything beyond email, and even email is patchy for the blogspot era. You could track down some early players by looking for them mentioning the game in their own blogs at the time. But I doubt it matters too much about distinguishing a genuinely returning early player from an impostor.

Idle Villagers are always Villagers for the purpose of a few rules. Anyone can “cease to be a Villager at any time by posting an entry to the BlogNomic weblog requesting such an action”, but I don’t think it’s ever happened.

For the record, my current “orkboi” account is a new account with a new email address associated with it, even though I was “orkboi” in a previous dynasty, using an email address I no longer have access to. In my mind, this amounts to the old entity being in-idled, but it could perhaps be read differentlyl.

For what it’s worth, this explicitly doesn’t amount to the your old account being unidled. (You could have done that by just asking to be unidled, and we’d have said “prove you’re really Orkboi” and you wouldn’t have been able to.) But it doesn’t make much difference either way: you’re a new player who’s in temporary breach of the Fair Play rules until we fix them. Which is not that big a deal.

If I don’t control an email address associated with a Villager, do I control that Villager?