Monday, March 20, 2017

Explanation

I’m making this Victory attempt because after mentioning that I could do something like this at the Ganglion, an attempt to stop it has been made, and if it continues, I fear that I can’t perform this at all. I’m getting paranoid lol. Admittedly, it was my fault for mentioning it at all in the first place, and people have mentioned that they’d prefer to see it too already. If I don’t achieve victory with this, I will ask to idle myself, as a self-timeout for being so hyperactive, because I kinda should. If I do win though, I’ll repeal no Dynastic Rules, and pass the mantle onto Viv, if she’s willing, so that this Dynasty can continue as it has until now as usual, and then idle myself regardless, but with the win.

So, onto it.


-HOW DID I WIN?-

A good part isn’t obvious with casual reading - don’t miss out! This explanation will be separated into three parts: CREATING “ENACTED” VOTABLE MATTERS WITH NO VOTES, CREATING A VOTABLE MATTER WITH NO DEFINED STARTING VALUE and the APPENDIX. If either of the first two parts fail, the entire procedure is likely to fail as well.


-CREATING “ENACTED” VOTABLE MATTERS WITH NO VOTES-

In “Clarifications”, in “Numbers and Variables” it says

If a game variable has no defined starting value, then that starting value is the nearest legal value to zero that it may take (for numerical variables, defaulting to positive if tied), blank (for a text string or list that may be blank), the alphabetically earliest legal text string it may take (for a text string which may not be blank, with the digits 0 through 9 considered to precede “A”), or the list which is alphabetically earliest from the set of lists with the fewest elements (for lists which may not be blank, and considering each list to be a single unpunctuated text string, with the digits 0 through 9 considered to precede “A”).

In Votable Matters, it says:

Votable Matters can either be Pending, Enacted, or Failed. When a Votable Matter is first put forward, it is considered Pending.

If I could somehow create a Votable Matter that wasn’t the first time it was put forwards, yet it doesn’t have a defined starting value when it becomes such, it would take “the alphabetically earliest legal text string it may take”, from “Pending, Enacted, or Failed”.

Which is Enacted. E comes before F and before P.

With that established, we’re going to somehow create an “Enacted” Votable Matter via that.

For that, we’ll need to study the “Gamestate Tracking” rules, detailed in the following:


-CREATING A VOTABLE MATTER WITH NO DEFINED STARTING VALUE-

In the “Gamestate Tracking” rules, we have:

An official post may be altered or removed by its author if it is less than six hours old and either no Organ has commented on it or all comments on it contain no voting icons; otherwise this can only be done as allowed by the Ruleset.

So, if I make a CfJ Official Post, has that CfJ been put forwards? Yes, because I posted it. If I alter that CfJ Official Post (within the legal window), into a DoV Official Post, has that DoV been put forwards? Yes, because it was altered from a CfJ to a DoV. So I’ve put forwards a CfJ (which doesn’t exist anymore, but that “was put forwards”), and a DoV. We can then conclude that changing the categories of an official post, it a way of effectively “putting forwards” that particular instance of its new category. Eg. Changing a CfJ into a DoV is “putting forwards” a DoV.

...Or changing the Categories of an official post isn’t “putting forwards” that particular DoV/CfJ/etc, in which case, it hasn’t been “put forwards” for the first time, because it hasn’t been put forwards at all. So it doesn’t have a defined initial value granted by “When a Votable Matter is first put forward, it is considered Pending.”, nor any other rule.  Thus, it would default to “Enacted” because it’s the alphabetically first value it can take because it’s undefined, so this works anyway.

Now, assuming that changing the category of a post is “putting forward” that CfJ/DoV/etc (whatever new Votable Matter type it becomes), or this works anyway,  if I alter that same Official post back to a CfJ, and then back to a DoV, I would’ve put forwards that same DoV a second time, because “putting forwards” happens when you change the category, as found previously. Since putting a DoV which has been put forwards a second time has no defined initial value (“DoVs that are put forth a first time” has a defined starting value, but “DoV’s that are put forth a second time” don’t have a starting value for their Enacted/Failed/Pending status), it defaults to Enacted. You could argue that it inherits the “Pending” status of the first time it was “put forwards”, but that doesn’t exist as a trait defined in the ruleset, however granting “the alphabetically earliest legal text string it may take” does.

So it gains the “alphabetically earliest legal text string it may take”, which is “Enacted”. The post is also a DoV, and therefore, I have an Enacted DoV (yet not Adminned, because it didn’t go through Admins to get Enacted, which it why it looks the way it does).  And so, with

When a DoV is enacted, all other active DoVs are failed, and a new Dynasty begins with the Organ who made the DoV as its Statolith.

...I guess it’s time for a new Dynasty.

As mentioned, I’ll repeal no Dynastic Rules, and pass the mantle onto Viv, if she’s willing, so that this Dynasty can continue as it has until now as usual. I’ll post screenshots of the revision history of my DoV/CfJ/DoV shortly, to prove that I’ve effectively done the procedure I’ve mentioned.


-APPENDIX-

Given that if acknowledged that my DoV is effectively an already-enacted DoV, then all of your comments or votes (even if they’re FOR, not that it matters though for the sake of it being actually enacted) are technically illegal, because

Comments cannot be made on Enacted or Failed Votable Matters.

Which creates a beautiful example of a quirk of Consensus Reality (which is, only what the consensus deems to be real in the Nomic, is real. And in this case, it reveals that it not only affects the formal field of things such as votes, but the informal as well, as I’ll need with the following). I’ll take the votes on the DoV as an informal poll for that you acknowledge that I’ve effectively won, and act accordingly.

This has been a pretty long post, thank you reading all of this. I appreciate it.

Comments

Cuddlebeam:

03-20-2017 09:07:30 UTC

I’m not too familiar with the BlogNomic software but here is the DoV/CfJ/DoV’s history:

I don’t know what “load” implies, but Revision 1 was a DoV, Revision 2 is a CfJ, Revision 3 is the current version, a DoV.

Sphinx:

03-20-2017 09:49:16 UTC

I’m not convinced.

I’m not sure if I’d count votable matters as game variables, but even if they are:

Either your dov is the same, put forwards again, not for the first time - in this case why does it retain it’s identity but not it’s status?

Or, which I think it is, it’s not the same dov and is thus put forward for the first time as normal.

In addition, I’d argue that “when a votable matter is first put forward” defines a default value, so the paragraph about variables without a starting value doesn’t apply.

I’m not sure about that though and I don’t have any more time to read and think right now.

Cuddlebeam:

03-20-2017 10:03:17 UTC

It retains its identity because it never stopped being a votable matter, nor the same item, because:

“Votable Matters and other official posts, as well as specific gamestate information, shall be tracked by the BlogNomic blog at http://blognomic.com.”

It’s tracked with a unique identifier, which happens in the software Blognomic is made of. That is what is explicitly acknowledged there.

It defines a value when its *first* put forwards. The necessary mechanics for “putting forwards” to work as intended are explained in the second part, and how they’re used.

NP, totally understandable that you need more time. This is pretty incredible as it is lol.

orkboi:

03-20-2017 16:11:25 UTC

An interesting loophole. You do indeed have a baroque mind!

It seems to me that the lynchpin of your argument is that a matter can be “put forward” multiple times, while retaining only a single identity.

A likely alternate interpretation is that a matter is “put forward” when it is created (with a unique ID), and that a change in category does not “put it forward” again (any more than editing the text of the post would do so).

Oracular rufio:

03-20-2017 16:34:09 UTC

1.  DoVs are not game variables.

2.  “Changed into” implies that it is now something new.

against

Viv:

03-20-2017 18:59:50 UTC

Cuddlebeam.
This might well be the most brilliant thing ever. I will never know, because no, I did not read it.
I am all for clever interaction, but this has ceased to be interaction and become pure action.
I know you are aware that this was not a well chosen moment to interrupt the game in this way. You were given very clear pointers to not try to take over, and though I approve wholeheartedly of your enthusiasm,  there are limits to what you can demand in terms of attention.
I may read this one day when I am less tired. I am sure it is clever. I am sure you could have posted this at a more convenient time.
Social interaction is a vital part of this game, and I am voting against this on grounds of ocean-deep fatigue.
No hard feelings. Kindness.
But… No.
against