Saturday, May 10, 2025

Call for Judgment: Even More Explicit

Reached quorum 4 votes to 1 with an IMP DEF. Enacted by Kevan.

Adminned at 12 May 2025 08:58:13 UTC

In the rule “The Sideline”, replace the text “For the purposes of The Break-In, if an Agent is Sidelined they are not considered to be a Guard or a Burglar unless explicitly stated otherwise”, with the following text:

A Sidelined Agent who would be a Burglar if they were not Sidelined is considered a Sidelined Burglar. A Sidelined Agent who would be a Guard if they were not Sidelined is considered a Sidelined Guard. For the purposes of The Break-In, a Sidelined Guard is not considered to be a Guard and a Sidelined Burglar is not considered to be a Burglar, unless explicitly stated otherwise.

Set the Agent named Clucky’s Infamy to 8.

Clucky’s CfJ but with the fix to the rules as well

posted by JonathanDark at 10 May 2025 17:44:00 UTC Comments (9)

Comments

DoomedIdeas: he/him

10-05-2025 22:12:05 UTC

for

Clucky: he/him

10-05-2025 22:18:10 UTC

for

Darknight: he/him

10-05-2025 23:36:26 UTC

for

Kevan: he/him

11-05-2025 12:24:01 UTC

The ruletext needs fixing, but I don’t know why this has been rolled in with definitely retroactively awarding Clucky 8 Infamy as the same time, when a CfJ is already open asking that single specific question.

imperial as I feel I have to recuse myself on the latter question, as a Preservationist Emperor.

ais523:

11-05-2025 18:42:32 UTC

against per Kevan – the rules fix and Infamy fix should have been separate CFJs.

(I take this mostly as evidence that BlogNomic’s CFJ system doesn’t work very well – it is unreasonably hard to create a CFJ that fixes exactly the right gamestate without breaking other things, so we shouldn’t be surprised that people commonly get it wrong.)

Clucky: he/him

11-05-2025 22:45:29 UTC

clarifying rules while also adjusting gamestate to account for the clarified version of the rules is a pretty common standard that has been done countless times before not really sure why people would suddenly have an objection to it here

ais523:

12-05-2025 04:08:52 UTC

It’s reasonable to want the rules fixed for the future, without changing the gamestate away from the gamestate that resulted from the bug. After all, the CFJ to adjust your Infamy is currently failing.

(BlogNomic has a habit of voting against redundant CFJs, which I believe to be wrong – players should vote FOR on those if they agree the gamestate the CFJ envisions is desirable, otherwise the CFJ system doesn’t work properly. This situation is an example of why.)

ais523:

12-05-2025 04:13:09 UTC

And to clarify why bundling it is bad – we haven’t been given the opportunity to vote separately on the two halves of this. If this CFJ was just the ruleset change (with the other CFJ being just the gamestate change), we would have that opportunity.

Kevan: he/him

12-05-2025 08:51:22 UTC

[Clucky] We don’t always retroactively apply fixes, though. Perhaps it depends on whether there were any tactics at play? If someone pulls a small midgame scam to gain some resource and we close the loophole they used in response, we’ll usually let them keep their prize for playing good Nomic, rather than reverting it and suggesting that it was pointless for them to do so.

And there is a litle tactical space here - even just somebody noticing the bug but deciding to work around it rather than fix it, in the hope that a rival would end up being affected by it.