Eh. Don’t we usually common-sense these problems away? Not very nomic-y, perhaps, but I think you’re too trusting of people not to break rules letter-by-letter while hoping that no-one notices. (An admin could, for example, change a key word while enacting another proposal - the manual checking and following up will increase the burden of play dramatically, and that’s the best case, we-find-them-and-they-fail scenario.)

Agreed; it’s boring enough having to do a word-by-word diff when someone proposes a minor change as “here, replace the whole rule with this new version” - I don’t want to have to do that every time an admin enacts a proposal. And I dread the idea of a “ha, you idiots were playing by the rule you voted for, but I changed an ‘l’ to a ‘1’ when I enacted it last week” victory.

Ending up with a different Emperor seems very easy to imagine. If Wakukee’s DoV had turned out to be illegal, I suspect we’d have just given up on the dynasty and had a quick round of voting for the next Emperor. I can’t imagine how this could make up “90% of the gamplay” in a Nomic.

@Kevan: Unfortunately, it takes up 70% of Fresh Nomic’s gameplay…

@Kevan: if Wakukee’s DoV had turned out to be illegal, I imagine NOI would have tried to cast PROUST, and hilarity would have ensued. Now, imagine that happening halfway through this dynasty…

IMO, it’s a lot more exploitable without this rule than with. An admin could, for example, change a key word while enacting another proposal, then everyone would play according to the rules on the wiki, giving the admin a huge advantage when they went and used the rule as originally written.

(Also, the wiki does diffs between versions automatically, making checking a lot easier…)

Okay, some small chaos with PROUST there, but it would blow over in a day or two. And I really don’t think anyone would go along with a retroactive CfJ raised halfway through a dynasty (although I can imagine an angry mob wanting to bring down an Emperor who belatedly revealed that his ascension had been illegal, we’d do something other than retroactively returning to the previous dynasty).

I think any “huge advantage” from enacting a rule illegally would get pretty short shrift from the other players; I can’t imagine a sneaky admin would survive a DoV that openly hinged on having broken the rules earlier in the game.

(Wiki diffs would show up illegal tweaks of existing rules, but you’d have to find some other means to check that a new rule exactly matched the proposal that enacted it.)

Indeed; the problem with this proposal is that it provides a route for illegal actions to become legal. If the sneaky admin were caught at the DoV stage, I’d rather we had a means to punish them or revert the error than they being able to say, “No, look, it’s been more than a week. It’s legal now.”

This would make it “legal” in the sense that it would continue to affect the gamestate, but not “legal” in the sense that they couldn’t get banned over it.

I feel like it is already standard practice not to CfJ mistakes more than a few days old, but limiting this is limiting. If something serious enough occurred that we want to go back and fix it, we should be able to.

We’d still be able to fix things, under this rule - they’d just default to being legal, rather than illegal. (Well, we’d mostly be able to fix them. Fixing a sneakily-inserted “Playername may veto any proposal, CfJ or DoV” would be tough.)

For what it’s worth, the Nomic I played that had an “old mistakes become legal after 48 hours” rule had a lot of “Wait, how did you get $514 so quickly?” “By cheating, three days ago! Heh heh.” - it was fun, and would be fine for one dynasty, but I think it’d wear a bit thin as a core rule.

.  This is the purpose of DoVs - a passed DoV legally starts a new dynasty even if for some reason its author had not legally achieved victory, so that afterwards the gamestate is the same either way.

@Bucky: Yes, but there was the chaos over whether the DoV could even have been legally made in the first place.

@DC: Yes, but the DoV succeeded, thus making those concerns moot even if they were correct… right?

Not necessarily, as a CfJ can invalidate a DoV. I’d be tempted to grandfather it, though.

@NOI: Not just concerns over whether he actually won; concerns over whether he could have legally posted the DoV.

When I won my dynasty, it was technically illegal due to my failing a few proposals I should not have, due to the queue.  But no one noticed this (including me) until after my DoV had passed, at which point I noted that rule saying “if a Quorum of Adventurers have voted on the DoV and more than half of those votes were in favour, then the DoV passes.”  At the time, at least, everyone felt this settled the matter.

It seems like this is another unwritten rule we have, or at least an unwritten standard: A CfJ can invalidate a DoV, but I think we wouldn’t go back on a DoV vote unless something truly egregious and shitty was done.* 

This is a very long and roundabout way of saying what Bucky said, that this already exists for DoVs, but we really shouldn’t give people the latitude to do it everywhere.

*Then again, for the last four years all I’ve done is skim the interesting proposals and CfJs every two weeks-ish, so I might not be the best expert on what the consensus is.

When I won my dynasty, it was technically illegal due to my failing a few proposals I should not have, due to the queue.  But no one noticed this (including me) until after my DoV had passed, at which point I noted the rule saying “if a Quorum of Adventurers have voted on the DoV and more than half of those votes were in favour, then the DoV passes.”  At the time, at least, everyone felt this settled the matter.

It seems like this is another unwritten rule we have, or maybe an unwritten standard: A CfJ can invalidate a DoV, but I assume we would only do this for an egregiously shitty or manipulative DoV.*

This is a very long and roundabout way of saying what Bucky said, that this already exists for DoVs, but we really shouldn’t give people the latitude to do it everywhere.

*Then again, for the last four years all I’ve done is skim the interesting proposals and CfJs every two weeks-ish, so I might not be the best expert on where consensus stands.

Man, make one mistake in reading a rule and the debate that follows can make ya feel like a twit lol. 

It seems like this is another unwritten rule we have, or maybe an unwritten standard: A CfJ can invalidate a DoV, but I assume we would only do this for an egregiously shitty or manipulative DoV.*

That’s pretty much my feeling.

We’re almost to Anti-Quorum, and it’s only been 8 hours. I love winter.

In fact, if Wak votes against, we’ll elevate all the way to Anti-Quorum automatically…

COV lol.

7 against. Need 1 more vote to kill this.

Just to be done with it.

Digibomber, you aren’t a player yet.

and I call WP:SNOWBALL