Some of this feels a bit superfluous - ruleset maximalism designed to prevent the long tail of edge-case outcomes. The existing “An Explorer should not deliberately exploit [...] unexpected behaviours in the software” seems to me to be sufficiently loosely worded that it would prevent most cases that this sets itself up against.

My argument would be that a lot of ways you could interfere with the game are by definition not unexpected behaviours. They’re behaviours that were created by the developers, and have extensive documentation.

I don’t believe using features at odd times (such as locking pages) really crosses the threshold of unexpected behaviour when it’s literally a feature doing exactly what it was designed to do.

The context of SingularByte’s previous comment was some discord discussion where I brought up the example of a wiki admin “protect"ing the dynastic tracking page to prevent a subset of players from taking game actions that modify it.

per redtara on Discord:
> so if I were to use the software features of logging on to blognomic and making a proposal that altered the game’s sense of normalcy then wouldn’t that be using features of the software to interfere in normal play

@Janet, a proposal is an action permitted by the ruleset,

@SB Something can be intended, documented, a deliberate feature etc and still be unexpected - I would not expect you to lock the gamestate tracking page of the wiki, for example, and is having spoken about it doesn’t change that.

.