Monday, August 02, 2021

Proposal: Betterment of the Ruleset, one Proposal at a Time: Flavours!

Failed by Take Two!—Clucky

Adminned at 07 Aug 2021 03:37:52 UTC

Add a new Rule to Dynastic Rule, named “Flavour Text”

Any text that is underlined is Flavour Text.

This allows for flavour text to be used in Dynastic Rules, including examples and story bits.

This is not as easily scammable as using italics for flavour text since using italics to hide some text have been proven successful in not noting to inattentive readers. Using underline to write them will prevent these attempts.

Comments

ais523:

02-08-2021 21:45:46 UTC

I suspect that using underlining wouldn’t be enough to stop scams like this one; even if most people spot it, it only takes one inattentive person for a slightly-smaller-than-quorum cabal to win the game.

An advantage of underlining over italics is that it’s unlikely to happen by mistake, at least. (The rule does, however, need to be worded in such a way that links – which are underlined in some browsers – don’t count as flavour text, because we have some links in the rules that are meant to be actual rule text.)

Clucky: he/him

02-08-2021 22:37:18 UTC

eh seems too risky to me. feels like its just begging to be scammed somehow

Jason: he/him

03-08-2021 02:33:12 UTC

against

Raven1207: he/him

03-08-2021 06:45:58 UTC

against

Kevan: Drone he/him

03-08-2021 11:07:10 UTC

If you define examples as flavour text, doesn’t that remove all legal force from them?

If the literal wording of a rule plainly said X but the example said the opposite, I assume we’d just go with what the rule said rather than regarding the situation as having any genuine ambiguity. The same way that if a rule contradicted how the proposer informally described it during the proposal discussion (without making any of those clarifications rule text), we’d only go by what the rule actually said rather than what the player said they meant.

Examples are fine as ruletext, if written clearly.

against

Kevan: Drone he/him

03-08-2021 11:43:08 UTC

(I mean if the underlined example said opposite, there. If a rule said X in plain text and then gave a plaintext example that contradicted it, there’d be some scope for arguing what the effective rule actually was: if the contradiction was flavour text which “is not considered to have any meaning beyond being a string of characters”, that scope disappears.)

Darknight: he/him

03-08-2021 13:41:59 UTC

against

ais523:

03-08-2021 16:08:52 UTC

against

Clucky: he/him

03-08-2021 20:42:42 UTC

against