Wednesday, May 03, 2017

Proposal: Do past mistakes cause actual changes in the gamestate, or was it all just an illusion?

Timed out 2-4. Failed by card.

Adminned at 05 May 2017 15:40:18 UTC

I made a comic which illustrates the idea here: http://i.imgur.com/a3hRJS6.png

Add a section called “Continuum”. Within it, add:

Solely for the purpose of play during the current Dynasty, there are two possible Continuums.
-Sticky Continuum: Changes to the game in the past have their consequences apply in the present, even if the present later finds that such changes have been performed illegally. It is recommended to take measures that adjust the game from its former, found-to-be-incorrect state, to a correct one. Past illegal changes “stick”, and need to be changed via formal mechanisms in order to be corrected.
-Illusion Continuum: Changes to the game in the past don’t have their consequences apply in the present if such changes have been found to have been performed illegally. It is recommended to take measures to update the methods of visualization of the game to adjust it from their former, found-to-be-incorrect state, to a correct one, but the actual formal game behind it hasn’t actually changed due to those (presently, considered to be) illegal changes. Past illegal changes were just “illusions” or bogus, and have no effect in the present, even if considered to be legal in the past.

Managers may add to their comment which contains a valid vote the string “Sticky” or the string “Illusion”, and only one of the two. These are vote strings. If the majority of vote strings are “Sticky”, add to “Continuum”:

This Dynasty’s Continuum is a Sticky Continuum

If the majority of vote strings are “Illusion”, add to “Continuum”:

This Dynasty’s Continuum is an Illusion Continuum

In case of a tie between the vote string amounts, the Commissioner must choose one of the upper two options at a timely fashion, and that option’s ruletext will be added.

I think its very important to know what is actually “real” in the game.

Comments

Publius Scribonius Scholasticus: he/they

04-05-2017 00:16:56 UTC

for This Dynasty’s Continuum is an Illusion Continuum

Crumb:

04-05-2017 04:10:20 UTC

against

card:

04-05-2017 05:16:39 UTC

This proposal does nothing because it creates a section, not a rule.  against

Madrid:

04-05-2017 09:55:16 UTC

@Card: Exactly. And sections are rules, by:

Appendix: “Rule: Each individually numbered section of the ruleset is a rule (...)”

Madrid:

04-05-2017 13:56:24 UTC

Also, voting as well to get my vote string in:

for This Dynasty’s Continuum is an Illusion Continuum

Crumb:

04-05-2017 15:31:30 UTC

I just want to restate my thoughts from the other thread. When there is a CfJ it will specify what remedies will be made to the gamestate. Therefore each CfJ is essentially an isolated declaration of “illusion” or “sticky” for the particular situation it addresses.

For instance if we adopt illusion we would have to undo all those illegal auctions. But we don’t want to do that. So we should make this decision for each incident as it is brought to light by a CfJ.

Madrid:

04-05-2017 15:49:00 UTC

I see your point, and I agree entirely with that we should have that possibility. And we can still do it, its just that it would be better laid out what is exactly happening to the gamestate when we want to make legal a desirable illegality.

We can turn, via CfJ something which was an “illusion” to “sticky”. It’s easy, we just enact, via CfJ, to make whatever was illegal, legal, once the illegality has been found.

For example, making legal the Pseudoauctions.

Madrid:

04-05-2017 16:04:14 UTC

Actually, better put, using the Pseudoauction example:

We find that the Pseudoauctions were illegal, but its desireable to keep the effects of the illegality. What we do is to simply copy the would-be effects of the illegality into the new gamestate.

So, once the Pseudoauctions are found to be illegal, we just spawn a bunch of auctions which are copies of the pseudoauctions (with the proper corrections to make them legal), into the current and formerly pseudoauction-less gamestate.

card:

04-05-2017 16:05:11 UTC

[Cuddlebeam] That only applies to numbered sections. So while enacting someone could any type of section, including one that isn’t numbered which therefore wouldn’t be a rule.

Madrid:

04-05-2017 16:05:40 UTC

...which can be done with just “Make the Psuedoauctions legal with their stated Duration, which they lacked, to be 48h”

Madrid:

04-05-2017 16:09:18 UTC

@Card: Yes, and even subsections (which are also “sections) are numbered

From the table of contents:

Unless you consider the “2.1” to be an invalid way to “number” a section.

pokes:

04-05-2017 16:11:36 UTC

against but Illusion. S-t-i-c-k-y may enable someone to add anything they want to the Ruleset and it sticks.

Madrid:

04-05-2017 16:21:59 UTC

I think I should’ve [included] the following: “Changes to the game in the past [which were considered legal by consensus at the time] have their consequences apply in the present, even if the present later finds that such changes have been performed illegally. “

But knowing what the consensus thought to be legal in the past is kind of impossible without CfJ acknowledgement or something.

I dunno, 1llusion master race lol.

However this kind of begs the question about what the hell is going on with past Dynasties. What if I disagree with the way someone has achieved victory in the past - what if the current consensus does?

We’d be hypocrites to just handwave it and consider the Ascension which stemmed from that to be Sticky.

It really really bothers me that I’m currently needing to play in total hypocrisy with that I’d like to play everything from an Illusion Continuum point of view, yet that means that I have to agree that everything in past Dynasties is Sticky (and the Ascension Addresses that have required such perceived-to-be-illegal actions, which would make all forthcoming Dynasties illegal and illusions), even if I percieve it to be illegal and I should consider it an Illusion.

Madrid:

04-05-2017 16:25:10 UTC

I’ll call this problem “Necessary Interdynastic Hypocrisy”.

Madrid:

04-05-2017 16:32:40 UTC

(of course this is part of a larger problem which that anyone needs to behave as a hypocrite when you disagree with the consensus yet continue to play the game according to their purview, but I think that it illustrates a good example where its very clear, such as he passing of dynasties)

Man I should write an essay lol.

pokes:

04-05-2017 16:37:34 UTC

I don’t like formally removing one interpretation because things start out as illusory but stick after a certain point; determining where is a good job for CfJ’s.

If I were playing any other game and I pointed out that someone couldn’t have bought that widget for 50 seashells a turn ago maybe we can go back and redo that turn. If they won 20 turns later and I said the game didn’t count because they bought the widget for only 50 seashells, I’d rightfully be told to fuck off.

card:

04-05-2017 16:58:41 UTC

[Cuddlebeam] I thought there was a way to make a section which doesn’t appear in the TOC, which would therefore not be numbered, but as far as I can tell that’s not possible because of the software used for the wiki.

Sphinx:

05-05-2017 05:16:58 UTC

against
I think the implication of “to the ruleset” after “add a section” is strong enough to allow this to work though.