BlogNomic: The First Dynasty of Desertfrog

1549065183341072368845319416937807415129760046

For dimensional stability!

@Josh: Why?

Because it’s not hurting anyone and the long string of numerical gibberish dissuades me.

It’s not gibberish. Read up on your history.

Although I usually dislike altering the core rules.

Also, can you just straight up translate that, DC? I don’t want to look up the first GNO decoding key, and I’m not sure I even still have the second GNO key, if that’s what you used.

It’s the first key. Also, I can’t decode it; it’s a secret scam. I can PM you, however.

Yeah, I could go back digging for the key but I can’t be arsed, so as far as I’m concerned it’s gibberish.

You’re going to let the DDA conquer the nomic?

...there is no DDA!

@Bucky: Why?

If it isn’t broken, don’t fix it.

But it is broken.

Well, I still have the system in my mind, if not my PM box… lets see if I can remember it.

His comment was “even more paranoia”

2396519553963731818056
2284900022058824782343
8554015140170792405626
1679555907070148953556
6239402749797510426903
6804570396961914787291
438

1279131491317597033764
3226663797779646849707
9339870686159498089181
597955118

Says “This flavor text is encrypted just to increase paranoia.”
and “Here’s some more paranoia text.”

for making me translate this.

30344 1487726163539159 1355146429 27612672905 666593 1525081 735718 572198 114 1068 572198 36

That’s just gibberish.

@Wak: No, it’s the new encryption method.

@NOI: Why against?

@DC

When you manage to pass a proposal that requires me to explain my votes, let me know. :)

I presume it says “may” because if you were required to present the combination of “entire number and name or type and name” every time that particular rule came up, it would be much too cumbersome. So the user has the choice of marking his or her preferred option when mentioning that rule. How is that broken?

@AL: Because of the disputes over people thinking it means we have to refer to it that way.

And can we stop with reuseing stuff from past dynasties like the code? Its really annoying

Unencrypted English only please.

I kind of like the history, but it would be nice to have a new members guide.

Currently 6-3.

I support the idea of clarifying the issue of how to refer to rules, but is it really a good idea to remove all suggestions? What about changing it to “shall” and limiting it to official posts, that way we can all just refer to it informally unless we’re making proposals or something?

no unofficial post is gamestate, NOI, and therefore isn’t governed by the ruleset by definition. 

Even if we didn’t limit it to official posts, we would still (albeit technically illegally) refer to them informally that way; I would also add a “or entire number”, so that Rule 1.1 can be Rule 1.1.

I think that’s a good solution. That way we at least have a rule preventing “that one rule about Arthexis not being able to veto” from being a legitimate way to refer to Rule 2.1.

I love how DC expects people to post explanation for why he is against but didn’t post an explanation for the proposal in the first place. Wak has apparently grown up in the last few months, so I know its possible for DC to do it as well if he tries hard enough.

Also I thought we had removed the ability to refer to rules by number to prevent reference problems. (Say I refer to rule 2.6 and then rule 2.4 is removed. Rule 2.6 becomes rule 2.5) But remove this and the ruleset breaks as you can no longer refer to other rules.

Clucky, are you here to play or just talk about the rate of growth of specific members of Blognomic?

I hope not, because I think I have shrunk at least a quarter-inch in the last twelve months.

7-3. Quorum of against votes (cannot be enacted without CoV). Failing…

(I live domino adminnings.)