Saturday, June 10, 2017

Proposal: [Core] “Invalid”

Self-killed. Failed by card.

Adminned at 11 Jun 2017 17:32:34 UTC

Add to the Glossary:

An entity which is an invalid X isn’t an X for the purposes of the ruleset.

Last dynasty we had the argument tossed that an invalid thing could somehow cause actual effect in the ruleset as the thing it was failing to be. I disagree with that. I believe it should be something like this.



06-10-2017 01:32:46 UTC

The word “invalid” is used twice in the ruleset:

1) In “Clarifications - Numbers and variables”

Invalid values for game variables can never be used, even if the values stored in the GNDT remain valid. (for example, if X appears in a formula referring to a value that is a non-negative integer, X must be used as a non-negative integer)

That occurence of the word refers to the regular English meaning of the word, and mustn’t be overruled by your Glossary entry.

2) In “Ascendance”

If the Explorer posting a DoA is not a Cultist, or has not achieved victory, the Expedition Leader should make a comment containing only the text “INVALID”, which makes the DoA invalidated.

That rule describes precisely and specifically what happens when a Declaration of Ascendance is invalidated. I can’t see the point of making things less specific and more vague with a new glossary entry.

PS: The Glossary is part of the Appendix. It is not part of the Core Rules.


06-10-2017 01:41:02 UTC

PPS: This would be very paradox-prone. I can imagine something along the lines of “This DoA is invalid. Hence it isn’t a DoA for the purposes of the ruleset. Hence it can’t have been invalidated.”


06-10-2017 04:02:19 UTC

This proposal would either do nothing since no glossary currently exists in the Core rules or create a Glossary in the Core rules, depending upon the admin enacting this.

Also I disagree with the entry as a whole. Some rule wordings have been “make X invalid”, “X is invalid” or “X becomes invalid” which would make whatever X is have some strange properties. For one if someone made a proposal that becomes invalid (pretend the previous proposal made the next one invalid) it would
not be a proposal
not be a voteable matter
not be an official post
not be a blogpost
not be an entity
not be in gamestate
which raises some problems.

[Cpt_Koen] You’re addressing PSS? Did they delete a comment?


06-10-2017 12:40:49 UTC

against Nope, I just meant “PS” as in “post-scriptum”.


06-10-2017 15:15:42 UTC

@Cpt: Ah, dangit. True. I’ll reword it.


Publius Scribonius Scholasticus:

06-10-2017 20:57:22 UTC



06-10-2017 23:30:20 UTC