Thursday, February 13, 2020

Proposal: Catapracticality

Timed out and failed, 1 vote to 5. Josh

Adminned at 15 Feb 2020 23:33:31 UTC

If the rule “Cataclysm” exists in the Ruleset, replace its first paragraph with the following:

Text inside of blockquotes in this rule is flavour text.

If both Universes are ever Cataclysmic, then all Scientists have failed, no Scientist may declare victory, and any Scientist can and should replace this sentence with the following block of flavour text:

No Portals exist and all Portals must be removed from the gamestate (including the Scientists wikipage). The contents of the Alpha and Prime Rulesets are considered flavour text. There is no longer an Alpha Universe version of any Prime-Oriented Scientist and there is no longer a Prime Universe version of any Alpha-Oriented Scientist. No Scientist may declare victory until neither Universe is Cataclysmic. This rule applies to both Universes.

Comments

Farsight:

02-14-2020 05:52:33 UTC

I presume the idea is that if both universes become cataclysmic, the flavour text in blockquotes becomes rules text?

If that is the case then, at the moment, I’m not sure that is clear enough. Perhaps a minor edit to make it clearer that the blockquoted flavour text becomes rules text?

Otherwise i like it :)

Darknight: HE/HIM

02-14-2020 06:47:13 UTC

imperial

Kevan: HE/HIM

02-14-2020 09:27:45 UTC

imperial

Can we find a better markup for this kind of thing than “blockquote”? It’s going to trip us up when we hit an enacting admin who doesn’t know what a blockquote tag is, or wrongly assumes (as I did until I looked at the page source) that “:” is wiki markup for it.

Jumble:

02-14-2020 13:32:41 UTC

imperial

Kevan: HE/HIM

02-14-2020 14:34:51 UTC

I suppose an admin getting the blockquote wrong is just an illegal enactment, really, so could be fixed. Still a bit odd to have rules depending on underlying and invisible markup, though.

The Duke of Waltham: HE/HIM

02-14-2020 22:43:36 UTC

It is odd… If we referred to “quoted text” within a rule, would that be clearly and unambiguously understood? The effect of the blockquote is the same as that of quotation marks.

In any case, instead of trying to erase our tracks, I think it would be better to put the content in a sub-rule and declare the sub-rule flavour text unless the conditions exist to activate it. (Something that has already been tried; there was confusion there, but that was partly because the clause declaring “Divergence” flavour text was in a different rule rather than in a parent rule, where it would be easier to find.)

The proposal’s purpose is interesting, in it aims to… smash the two universes together? Is that the undesirable outcome players will aim to avoid? Better than an “everyone has lost” metadynasty, I suppose.

All right, 5 votes in favour as of now. If nothing else, I’ll aim to replace the blockquote with a subrule at some point (I only have so many slots), and move the rule’s second paragraph ahead of this one; it fits better there anyway.

imperial

The Duke of Waltham: HE/HIM

02-14-2020 22:56:42 UTC

Question… After this “shutdown” is activated, what happens once neither Universe is cataclysmic any longer? There is no provision here to put it back in its box, so this must be a permanent change rather than an interlude.

Brendan: HE/HIM

02-14-2020 23:24:38 UTC

[Duke] This is intended to be an actual fail state—a permanent change that means the cooperative group, in whatever sense, has lost the game. Josh’s idea was to end the dynasty immediately when that happened, to which numerous people objected. My alternative here is something that doesn’t end the dynasty, but can only be undone by proposal (an extradynastic cooperative mechanic).

The Duke of Waltham: HE/HIM

02-14-2020 23:33:24 UTC

That sounds reasonable. Thanks!

pokes:

02-15-2020 17:49:44 UTC

against