Oof, I didn’t mean to add my commentary to the proposal. I’m hoping that since it was contained in its own blockquote, if that commentary is added to the ruleset, it doesn’t have any adverse effects.

I can also understand that this is clunky and not desired if folks want to vote it down for that reason. If you do so, please at least let me know whether or not it’s worth bringing up the explicit definition of the Discovered list (with a corrected Proposal later).

It’s part of the “Commentary or flavour text” field of the post, so you’re fine under the Appendix definition of “Commentary”, however it displays.

Honestly, it’s probably fixable under the typo correction rules for changing your own votable matters, since there’s no possible other interpretation than that you meant an end of blockquote rather than a start.

Better than nothing.

unnecessary. lists by default don’t contain duplicated elements, regardless if we clarify that in the appendix or not.

sorry do contain. but point remains. this is unnecessary and just leads to further possible conclusion when someone tries to claim “well this list doesn’t contain duplicates even though the rules never actually specified that”

@Clucky: I’m not understanding your argument. The proposed rule text says, “duplicate entries are allowed”, it doesn’t say “required”. I’m not seeing how anyone would think that the absence of a duplicate would render the list illegal.

Duplicate issues are already allowed due to the nature of it being a list so why do we need to change the rules to clarify anything?

Am I in an alternate timeline?

In your proposal “What’s a List?”, you said you felt that Kevan did not put duplicates in the Discovered list, leading you to make a CfJ that explicitly defined a list as allowing duplicates, among other things. The main reason it was voted down, along with my similar one, was that people didn’t want this to be part of the default definition of a list. The thrust was that a variable defined as a list should have the properties given to it at the time it was defined in the dynastic rules.

So, here’s a Proposal that does exactly that, and addresses the concern that you brought up in your CfJ earlier. I’m having trouble understand how you suddenly no longer have that concern and are in fact against being concerned about it.

I’m not trying to be antagonistic. I’m just trying to figure out how I read the room incorrectly. You literarlly said in your commentary to your CfJ:

Currently, Kevan ran the break in with Discovery not containing duplicate elements, and possibly not being in order.

I’ve address both of those here, haven’t I? Were those not your words or your concerns?

Its part of a the default definition of a list. Kevan confirmed this when he informed everyone of the duplicates, rendering the CfJ unnecessary.

If people want to define a list otherwise they can add a proposal that clarifies that a list by default doesn’t have duplicates in it. But without something like that in the ruleset, I don’t see the point of this proposal all its doing is reiterating stuff we already know to be true

I didn’t distribute the duplicates based on a universal default definition of what a list is, I was going from points made in discussion about how the current ruleset described adding items to it.

This proposal is still redundant to that, but there’s no harm in clarifying it, particularly if there’s a chance of us rewording or repealing the Noisy ability in future and rendering the question unclear again.