Thursday, June 01, 2017

Proposal: Cleaning Up the Expedition Manual

Self-killed. Failed by Kevan.

Adminned at 02 Jun 2017 10:40:07 UTC

1. Under Rules rule, append the following term:

At all time, rules which have the same name can be cleaned up into a single rule if the context is related to the same subject matter.

Each rule may track the enactment date time and the name of the explorer submitting the proposal and other reference information as necessary (such as the URL to the proposal) for the purpose of dispute resolution reference.

The order of the rules in the wiki doesn’t necessarily relate to the order of enactment and is preferably ordered by the importance of the subject matters.

Only in the attempt to make a rule more legible to explorers, the formating of the Dynastic Rules in the wiki can be modified with no changes to the specific wordings of the original proposal. If the meaning is altered in anyway, the changes can be reverted back to the original version. If there are any dispute between the revisions, the interpretation of the originally approved proposal wordings will prevail. This specific paragraph of this rule will be removed immediately in the case that an edit war is arising and subsequent rule formatting changes will have to go through formal proposal submission.

2. Change the name of Expedition Leading rule into Mission to match the content.

3. Move this temperature related term from Camps

The default temperature for a Camp is 20°C.

to Temperature as stated in point 5.

4. Move this temperature related term from Rules

The temperature of a Rule that is held by an Explorer is the same as the temperature of the location that Explorer is in.

to Temperature as stated in point 5. (And in accordance with this Keep Your Core Warm proposal, revise Rule to Dynastic Rule)

5. Revise wording for Temperature rule from:

All Dynastic Rules have a Temperature. Temperature is a value in Blognomickian Temperature Units, which is an integer (which can be negative) and can be employed as XXX BTU, where XXX is the temperature value in Blognomickian Temperature Units.
The default Temperature for any entity that has Temperature is -25°C.
The list of entities which have Temperature are:
* Dynastic Rules
* Camps
* Latitudes
A Temperature of -50°C or lower is Extremely Cold. A Temperature of -25°C or lower is Very Cold.

to (major differences highlighted):

Temperature is expressed as a signed integer value measured in Blognomickian Temperature Units (BTU).
Each and every one of the following entities has a Temperature:
Entities     | Default Temperature
Dynastic Rules | -25°C
Camps       | 20°C
Latitudes     | -25°C

A new camp has a default Temperature of 20°C and other entities which has a Temperature has a default Temperature of -25°C.

Temperature can also be expressed interchangeably in the following terms:
Temperature     | Term
20°C         | Warm
-25°C or lower | Very Cold
-50°C or lower | Extremely Cold

The Temperature of a Dynastic Rule that is held by an Explorer is the same as the Temperature of the Location that Explorer is in.

Wow, a new edition of the Expedition Manual has been published, I probably have to sit in the corner of the camp and read this through carefully.



06-01-2017 11:55:10 UTC

I’m afraid this is not very compatible with the Steady Mercury proposal.

Also, I don’t know about the word “could” in these rules.


06-01-2017 12:32:01 UTC

I’ll revise this proposal to include the case if the Steady Mercury is accepted.


06-01-2017 13:05:49 UTC

Ah, okay, me and my habit of using “could” instead of “can” almost anywhere. Yes, “could” is not there in the core ruleset. I have revised this proposal accordingly. Thanks for the review.


06-01-2017 15:43:32 UTC

Steady Mercury has passed, you still have an hour left before you cannot update the proposal.


06-01-2017 16:18:00 UTC

Updated the Temperature Unit. Removed point 6 related to the proposal adaptation for the Steady Mercury rule enactment.


06-01-2017 16:43:50 UTC

If rules that have the same name can be “cleaned up into the same rule” and the rules are located in different places, what happens when they are merged into the same rule?


06-01-2017 20:46:31 UTC

Supplies #1 and #2 will becomes just one Supplies and belongs to you, card, because you have picked it up already. In the future, newly enacted rule proposals with the same name as a previous rule should be either treated as concatenation or replacement based on the wording in the proposal.

Basically, that section came up because I think new rules shouldn’t have the same name as any existing rule because the wiki automatically treats the rule name as an anchor and thus you can’t properly link to a particular rule if they have the same name (yes, you can alter the id of the element just for that purpose but it will introduce inconsistent markup).


06-01-2017 20:50:56 UTC

ayo this is like a reverse ship of theseus

are merged rules the same rule with a different nature or are they a new thing.


06-01-2017 21:48:53 UTC

Same thing. They shouldn’t be two of them in the first place. Hmm; who creates the second Supplies rule?!

I was only referring to that specific double Supplies rule and trying to cover future events where new rules with the same name accidentally listed as double entry rather than ajoined.

Sigh, all these concerns of the rule merge is there because of the whole black magic to carry rules around and letting them have bloody temperature. Thank you for your concerns, though. Can’t help it since Nomic gameplay is a treacherous field indeed where innocent commas lying around might bring an end to a dynasty.


06-01-2017 23:01:37 UTC

Wouldn’t it be way more simple to clean up the ruleset explicitely by stating precisely which rules should merge into what and what the new gamestate should be, rather than create a new rule that should “automatically” clean up the ruleset? Especially since our current gamestate is directly dependent upon the rules.


06-01-2017 23:21:39 UTC

against per Cpt_Koen


06-02-2017 03:59:09 UTC

imperial I concur and am a little confused by some of these proposed mechanics.

Kevan: HE/HIM

06-02-2017 07:58:09 UTC

against “cleaned up into a single rule if the context is related to the same subject matter” seems risky, as it would become quite easy to pull the rug out from under a proposal you didn’t like by merging a rule it was trying to amend.


06-02-2017 09:39:01 UTC