BlogNomic: The First Dynasty of Desertfrog

“uphold all the actions I like but not the one I dislike”

...

if we’re gonna say the lighting rules were wrong, we should uphold all of them not just the ones you like

also not a huge fan of using a CfJ to rush the closure of the dark room loophole. Let people have some fun and abuse it for a bit!

@Clucky: the votes on your CFJ determine whether to uphold your action or not. If your CFJ already passed, this doesn’t revert the passing of your CFJ (meaning that you get the effects of your action regardless). If it didn’t, it reverts your action, but edits your CFJ into something that re-applies the effects of your action.

Revert Clucky’s attempt, at 18:18, 14 July 2021‎, to Light a Room that was already Lit; however, if “Too lazy to come up with a proper title” was already enacted, remove the Puissance that Clucky attempted to spend on that action. If “Too lazy to come up with a proper title” is still pending, edit its text by appending “Clucky loses 3 Puissance.”.

How is this compatible with Clucky’s CfJ? It reverts the action, even if Clucky’s CfJ passes. Any why does Clucky owe 3 Puissance?

I’m not going to go out of my way to uphold an action that I think didn’t work the way you wanted it to; however, I did go out of my way to a) make sure that it continues to work if people decide that it did work, and b) refund the Puissance you spend if we decide that it didn’t work.

@Josh: Clucky’s CFJ would remove the Effect from Blinding Cave (which was the effect of Clucky’s action), and also refund Clucky 3 Puissance. If we decide that Clucky’s action worked, then this edits Clucky’s CFJ so that it re-applies the action, removing the effect, and un-refunding the 3 Puissance that Clucky was refunded.

Like, Clucky’s CFJ unconditionally sets Blinding/Living Cave to have no Effect even if Clucky’s action failed (which makes sense, we want to have consensus about the gamestate). So this CFJ needs to make sure that Clucky spent the Puissance for that if he’s getting the benefits from the action, but that he didn’t spend the Puissance for that if he isn’t.

if my CfJ passes first, this reverts my action which included setting the room effect to none, meaning the old room effect gets applied

if my CfJ passes second, the room is no longer called the “Blinding Cave” and thus my CfJ does nothing

this also reverts my rename. which was unquestionably a legally performed loophole even if there is debate over what should’ve happened with the effects.

Hmm, “revert” is ambiguous here. I meant it to not revert the changes that had been made by CFJ subsequently. I’ll edit to make that clear.

I’d already fixed the room name issue by the time you made that comment.

So two issues: the pending-case clause for the Clucky para is busted as it changes the name of the room away from Blinding Cave, meaning that Clucky’s CfJ would not do anything as it targets the room by name. More broadly, I think reverting the action even if the other CfJ passes is petty; if the other CfJ passes that that signals that quorum people think that the action was valid, so no need to revert it.

Honestly, this CfJ trying to be a broad fix to lighting while also grappling with Clucky’s action might be too much; I’d suggest removing that paragraph and setting up a separate counter-CfJ that deals specifically with the Blinding Room issue.

I’m not sure that “Set the status of “My Songs Know What Richardo Did In The Dark” to Enacted rather than Pending (but without actually enacting it)” works; setting the proposal’s status to Enacted makes it closed per the EE software but not per the ruleset, which has proposal status as a subservient property of enactment, so I think technically it would still be open for voting and would just legally pass after holding up the queue.

Ah I note that the pending-case clause was edited while I was typing.

why are we reverting the change?

If my CfJ passes, everything is properly upheld. The room effects get set to none.

If my CfJ fails, the game state is preserved. The room effects stay what they currently are listed in the gamestate.

In either case, I don’t think we need more.

also what happens with Lemon or Kevan or Chiiika decide to light an already lit room before this passes?

“Enacted rather than Pending” was meant to explicitly change the core-rule-defined state “Votable Matters can either be Pending, Enacted, or Failed.” Can you think of a clearer wording to do that?

@Clucky: because if your CFJ passes, that doesn’t mean that your action worked. The CFJ doesn’t uphold your action, it just unconditionally sets the room’s effect to ‘none’.

I think your action failed, and I don’t want you to be able to set the room’s effect to ‘none’ without spending the Puissance on it. That’s what your CFJ does, from my point of view: you just wait for it to set the effect to ‘none’, then point out “actually, my action didn’t work, I’m going to give myself back the Puissance I spent on it but I still get the benefit from the CFJ”.

Also, I think the game state is currently badly broken, so we need a CFJ to get it back into shape.

By using the word “status” you are (deliberately or not) evoking

The oldest Pending Proposal may be Enacted by any Admin (by updating the Ruleset and/or Gamestate to include the specified effects of that Proposal, and then setting that Proposal’s status to Enacted)

from the rule Resolution of Proposals.

I think I would go with something like

If it has not already been enacted, remove all of the text from Proposal: My Songs Know What Richardo Did In The Dark and then enact it.

sure but why not just go with “Uphold all attempts to Light a Room (or Explore an Unexplored Room) that failed purely because…”

I think your action failed, and I don’t want you to be able to set the room’s effect to ‘none’ without spending the Puissance on it. That’s what your CFJ does, from my point of view: you just wait for it to set the effect to ‘none’, then point out “actually, my action didn’t work, I’m going to give myself back the Puissance I spent on it but I still get the benefit from the CFJ”.

That’s not a terrible point but by far the cleaner approach would be “If CfJ: Too lazy to come up with a proper title was enacted then Clucky’s Power Action at 18:18, 14 July 2021‎ is upheld.”

@Clucky: Ah right, that does work. Let me clean up the wording a bit.

@Josh: I changed the “My Songs” fix to just enact it (it’ll have no effect if enacted, given the other changes in the CFJ).

fyi I’m abstaining on this until My Songs passes/fails because I think upholding the actions taken is probably a good thing, but changing it so that you cannot light lit rooms doesn’t feel like something that needs to be urgently fixed to me, and it instead feels like a strategic move from someone who doesn’t have the resources to pull off any lit room lightings to prevent other people who do have those resources from pulling off lit room lightings before they get a fair chance.

The Lighting Rooms rule needs to be urgently fixed because Lighting Rooms doesn’t work properly at the moment, either in the scam or non-scam version.

I guess you could argue that I should be fixing it to a version in which the scam works, but we’d need to define exactly what we wanted the scam to do in that case.

It is quite possible that there will be another Expedition before My Songs passes, and I think it’s quite pressing to sort out the gamestate by then, so I think there is actual urgency here. (I did forget to put a [Pressing] in the title, though. Maybe I should edit that in.)

i’m still not convinced that this is a problem…? like, we can interpret the sentence as being, give the features to the room, and we clearly have been doing so for some time

The point of a CFJ is to convince everyone that it isn’t a problem. If there isn’t a problem, this CFJ doesn’t do anything other than make the wording of the rule a bit clearer, whilst causing the players who think there is a problem to agree with you on what the gamestate is.

oh, u’ve removed the parts that interfere w/ other rules? in that case i think my vote’ll be def, once i place it

“Remove any markings on Features/Effects within the ruleset that specify that they are part of the Effect of a particular room”

I don’t think I know what this means. What would it remove in the current ruleset?

This appears to be silently removing “A Room may be considered to have any property implied by an effect (e.g. a room can be said to “have a Glyph”, “be blocked from the north”, “be Daunting”), although the text of the Effect is sovereign for determining such properties.” from the ruleset?

If we’ve decided that it’s more fun to write “if the Room has a “This room is Familiar” effect but not a “This room is Daunting” effect” out in full every time, there are still bits of rules that just use the adjectives. If we’ve decided that the sentence is unnecessary and of course these properties are implied, fair enough, but I missed that.

Ah, I see now that this CfJ was written while Creature Feature (which added that clarification) was pending.

Just in case my comment on Slack didn’t count: I consent to Chiiika’s Enthralling of me.

@Josh: The previous wording of the rule required you, when Lighting Features, to put markings on those Features. Those markings may platonically exist (either in the ruleset or as orphaned variables), so the CFJ removes them just to be sure.

but we should probably add the implication clause back in.