BlogNomic: Every Explorer’s location is a Camp; card was located at latitudes; ergo those latitudes were Camps.

Monday, May 29, 2017

Proposal: Every Explorer’s location is a Camp; card was located at latitudes; ergo those latitudes were Camps.

Timed out 6-0. Enacted by card.

Adminned at 31 May 2017 16:14:00 UTC

Amend the rule “Camps” by replacing:

Every Explorer is located at a Camp. This is tracked as a String under “Location” in the GNDT and defaults to “Base Camp”. Camps along with their state are tracked on the wiki page called “Camps”. Each Camp has an amount of Supplies and a Latitude. Latitude is an angle which ranges from 66° to 90° (both inclusive). In addition, each section tracking a Camp can have a Description, which is a subsection of their Section on the “Camps” page.

with:

There are Camps. Camps along with their state are tracked on the wiki page called “Camps”. Each Camp has an amount of Supplies and a Latitude. Latitude is an angle which ranges from 66° to 90° (both inclusive). In addition, each section tracking a Camp can have a Description, which is a subsection of their Section on the “Camps” page.

Every Explorer has a Location, which can be either a Camp or a Latitude. The Location of every Explorer is tracked in the GNDT and defaults to “Base Camp”.

A Call for Judgement is needed; I strongly believe all the Latitudes in the range [77°, 82°] are Camps. If they’re not, then card’s actions were illegal.

These are the first two sentences from the rule “Camps” :

Every Explorer is located at a Camp. This is tracked as a String under “Location” in the GNDT and defaults to “Base Camp”.

This is the full text of the rule “Entering And Exiting”:

An Explorer may exit a Camp by setting their Location to their current Camp’s Latitude. An Explorer who is not currently in a Camp may enter a Camp by setting their Location to the name of that Camp if they have the same Latitude as that Camp.

And this is the text of the rule “Exploring”:

If an Explorer’s Location is a Latitude they may spend 1 supply to increase or decrease their Location 1 degree for every Dog Sled they have.

Comments

card:

29-05-2017 16:24:01 UTC

If a CfJ is needed, why is this a proposal? Too late to change categories though.

Which rule has a narrower scope is really the deciding answer here due to https://wiki.blognomic.com/index.php?title=Ruleset#Prioritisation

Cpt_Koen:

29-05-2017 16:28:19 UTC

This is a Proposal to make the rules consistent now.

A CfJ is needed to either make your actions legal or revert them (though reverting them would be boring).

“Prioritisation” may not apply here, because “An Explorer may exit a Camp” doesn’t necessarily contradicts “Every Explorer is located at a Camp.”.

Cpt_Koen:

29-05-2017 16:43:35 UTC

Hmm, and the rule “Rules” should probably be clarified too:

“An Explorer may remove a Rule from their RulesHeld and the location of that Rule changes to the same as the Explorer removing the Rule and that Rule’s location is then tracked on the Camps wikipage until it is picked up by another Explorer. “

Madrid:

29-05-2017 18:00:43 UTC

I haven’t read the rules tbh but if they both have formal and non-comparable scopes, then Principle of Explosion goes boom, because both would’ve stuck and there is way to clean it out through precedence. (Or, arguably, the action of actually enacting the proposal to insert that contradiction was illegal, and therefore, all subsequent actions depending on that were just illusions and its reverted anyway.)

Tbh since we’re pre-wincon and card’s “profits”, if any, dont have any wincon connotation, I really don’t mind one way or the other. What you guys prefer will be cool with me. (I think he actually has harmed himself with that, unless this was a display of altruism, because now, in a competitive sense, it seems best to now try to make Debt the most severe shit ever, because Bampaming out card. Going to be hard now to establish what debt’s disadvantage should be, if any, given that any penalty to it can be taken as, in part a euphemism for “lul screw card”)