Monday, January 08, 2018

Proposal: [Core] Clarifying the nature of changes described in Proposals

Self-killed. Failed by Kevan.

Adminned at 11 Jan 2018 08:51:19 UTC

In “Clarifications” add the following item to the “Rules and Proposals” list:

When applying a proposal step, an admin is simply updating the ruleset or gamestate to reflect the changes described in that step. They are not considered, for the purpose of the ruleset, as the entity who is performing those changes.

In “Keywords”, for both the “Core Proposal” and “Dynastic Proposal” entries, replace “A Proposal which mandates changes that” with:

A Proposal which describes changes that

In all fairness, I’m not sure Cuddlebeam was wrong in saying their distance could not have been modified by a Proposal while being captured. The word “mandates” implies the admin is performing the changes on behalf of the proposal and therefore the change could be considered as being performed by a Failed Experiment. Since the CfJ “Return of the Cleanup Crew” annulled this action, and everyone including Cuddlebeam voted in favour of it (even if Cuddlebeam did it for different reasons), I would say we have officially declared the action to be illegal, but in retrospect I’m having doubts. This proposal removes that gray area for the future.



01-08-2018 13:24:35 UTC

Not convinced this needs a fix. It’s a niche situation of a poorly considered (or cleverly loopholed) dynastic rule, which could just have plausibly said “cannot be changed” without specifying the changer, and been unaffected by this core fix. It also seems risky to introduce such a deeply unintuitive concept into the core rules, as future dynasties might miss it and trip over it, or suffer a carefully-worded scam from someone who noticed it.

We’ve fixed the Capture rule, that seems enough.



01-08-2018 14:03:29 UTC

against I agree with Kevan, it was the total immunity thing from Captured which was the abusey part.


01-08-2018 22:14:42 UTC



01-09-2018 08:58:39 UTC