In the rule “Fair Play” after “or Appendix rules scam to directly or indirectly cause a Nomicer to achieve victory” add “, or directly or indirectly prevent a Nomicer from achieving victory”
Not worried about past transgressions, but I feel like if core rule scams to win are off the table, core rule scams to prevent someone else from winning should go too.
@Clucky: and pointing out that a proposal that generates a win is illegal is?
i’m confused what you’re trying to argue here
right now, its apparently perfectly within the realm of fair play to abuse the core rules in order to specifically prevent another player from winning
pointing out a flaw with a proposal doesn’t abuse the core rules, so nothing about this would change that
@ais523 Clucky may be referring to SB’s actions as a scam due to the fact that SB called them a core rules scam in the Discord. I am not sure if you are on the Discord, in which case you would not have seen the message.
I am concerned that “indirectly prevent a Nomicer from achieving victory” is too broadly applicable, and as such am voting against this proposal.
I mean we already have indirectly allowing a Nomicer to achieve victory… how is this any different?
Sort of empty words, I think, as Fair Play only holds meaningful sanctions for people who break the rules to achieve Victory or who are persistent offenders.
So how do we prevent people from breaking the rules in order to stop someone else from winning again?
cause I don’t think that sort of behavior is good for the game. leaves a sour taste in the mouths of the people who were denied victory.
@Clucky The usual way: multiple CfJs and lots of fraught arguing.
I’d consider ruletext to prevent it that worked. I don’t think this is it.
I don’t think CfJs can really stop that though. SingularByte going “Yes this was a core rules scam and yes I used it to stop people from achieving victory” ultimately only matters insofaras if you buy the argument that blocking victory indirectly allows someone to achieve victory.
Personally, I’d be happy just killing all core rules scams. But if allowing them to deny victory while not allowing them to achieve victory to me creates an inconsistency that will just result in frustration and hurt feelings
This is a tricky one. This particular case of me abusing a core rule to try and make a post illegal is fairly clear cut because I was so open about my reasoning, but I imagine it would be a lot harder in cases where someone doesn’t give their motives for why they apply a particular rule unexpectedly.
Someone like ais, who gets very into the details of how core rules mesh together, could easy be said to be in breach of this with no intention to actually scam anything.
@SingularByte I’m not sure what you did was even a scam, it was just an overly-punctilious reading of the rules. What is nomic without that
BlogNomic is an online Nomic: a self-modifying game where changing the rules is part of the game. Players make blog posts proposing additions or alterations to the ruleset, discussing and casting votes in the comments: if enough vote in favour, the rules are changed and play continues.
The game has been running since 2003 and resets every month or so. Have a look around the wiki for more information and history. New players are always welcome and can join in the game at any time.
BlogNomic is powered by pMachine ExpressionEngine.
ais523:
With the current rule, it’s probably reasonable to avoid violating the rule by simply not posting a DoV (although that doesn’t fit the exact wording of the rule, which prevents using a scam to achieve victory even if you don’t declare it; we might want to fix that).