So the issue here is that if there’s no allowances for it to not be flavour text, then there’s nothing that marks any two locations as connected.

If we’re going to implement this, we really need to define every location pair so that movement is possible, even if we just stick it in a wiki page and use the map as an informal representation with no game meaning.

So the issue here is that if there’s no allowances for it to not be flavour text, then there’s nothing that marks any two locations as connected.

I don’t follow that argument. Flavour text means that text loses its meaning but retains its context; if the letter A and the letter F are joined by a line, then how is that line not context?

I interpret the flavour text context clause as allowing for other rules to defined how the contents of flavour text are interpreted, and as the instructions on how to interpret the map are clearly given in another rule it seems fine to me to follow those instructions.

(It is possible that ‘flavour text’ is the wrong rubric for an image - but that’s a problem that could probably be fixed elsewhere.)

@Josh: Flavour text means that it has no meaning beyond a string of characters. A line connecting two letters in an image is not a string of characters.

In this case, the lines are meaningful and we want them to be meaningful. I can see an argument that maybe the letters should be flavour text – but the lines shouldn’t be.

@ais No, a line connecting two characters is context for those of characters. I feel like I already covered this?

The core underlying problem here is that flavour text, as defined, is supposed to refer to text, not an image. We’re trying to make a triangle peg go into a purple hole. I’m reluctant to expand the scope of this proposal but people need to stop hammering when the ruleset presents resistance, it winds up with you giving the Emperor arbitrary ruleset injection powers.

I’ve taken a swing at adding in the appendix change, open to taking it back out if people think it undermines the proposal as the more imminent issue is Kevan being able to rewrite the entire ruleset.

It’s probably not relevant anyway though? The rules reference themselves, so they’re gamestate. The hotel map is an image in a gamestate wiki page, so it’s also gamestate.

Gamestate can’t be modified except as permitted by the rules.

“All wiki pages that the rules and Building Blocks explicitly mention (except for the FAQ, the dynastic histories and discussion pages) and any images or Templates contained within (or indirectly invoked by Templates contained within) those Wiki Pages are assumed to be Gamestate”

I don’t see any means for Kevan to alter the image to inject new text.

@SingularByte Kevan editing the map is permitted by the rules:

The Concierge may make edits to the map of the Hotel Nagelburg at any time, so long as doing so would not change how any rules interpreted its content.

I stand corrected.

If there’s likely to be disagreement on whether “retains its context” allows a rule to draw information subjectively out of flavour-media (and my initial assumption would be that it didn’t), it’d be better to just remove my “may make edits to the map” ability. It was just a quality of life option in case I wanted to tidy it up or highlight things on it.

I pledge my vote in favor of a new Dark Lord.

Let’s just remove Kevan’s ability to edit the map, as it’s less controversial and gets to the heart of the issue, rather than bending over backwards around it. If the map needs specific edits, those can be proposed.

What are we bending backwards around here, JonathanDark? Are you happy that the ruleset will continue to consider images to be flavour text and that an issue like this is likely to reoccur the next time someone wants to put an image in the ruleset?

You said it directly with the quote you provided:

The Concierge may make edits to the map of the Hotel Nagelburg at any time, so long as doing so would not change how any rules interpreted its content.

If that’s the worry, let’s just remove that.

As for the long-term effects, the rules have been this way for quite some time, so rather than perturb the waters and risk causing more unintentional issues, such as possibly rendering it impossible to convey any gamestate meaning in an image, I’d rather tackle text-injection issues on a case-by-case basis.

We have this dynasty and Brendan 8? That’s 2 out of a lot, so it tells me this issue is rare and doesn’t need a rule change to address it.

I meant to say “doesn’t need a core rule change to address it”.

So you argument, to be clear, is that rather than fix the actual issue - which is that images are handled by the ruleset as text despite not being text - you’d rather punt by just bending the dynastic rules around the underlying appendix issue, leaving it there as a timebomb for future dynasties?

I think the actual issue is more complicated and will be difficult to cover with a “one size fits all” approach in a core rules change. That’s the thrust of my argument.

I’m definitely viewing it as beneficial here to actually say whether an image can convey meaning in the ruleset or not, and this change does precisely that.

Wait, I just realized I messed up.

“an illustration and a caption to an illustration must be treated as flavour text” is in the Appendix, and Appendix rules take priority over all other rules, so the existing dynastic rule “The red letters, yellow circles and blue lines on the map image are not considered to be flavour text.” actually has no effect because it’s overridden by the Appendix rule.

CoV because otherwise we can’t construct Routes at all without this change, and I apologize to Josh for being an obstructionist on this issue.

Oh, does that actually mean all past route submissions are null and void?

Oh, no, that’s not a factor - the full text is

In all situations, unless otherwise explicitly stated, an illustration and a caption to an illustration must be treated as flavour text.

From Josh’s “if the letter A and the letter F are joined by a line, then how is that line not context”, is there a difference of view on what purpose the “retains its context” of flavour text is serving?

I’d always assumed it was just there to allow the ruleset and proposals to refer to “the map image” or “the name of Bucky’s spaceship” without sliding off because that part of the rule page or gamestate had no “meaning”. I don’t think it could allow the ruleset to inspect some quality of what the text or image was intending to communicate.

@Kevan When addressing text I think it’s likely clearer. When considering an image, a situation that the flavour text definition was not designed for, it ends up being a lot more interpretable.

I hate to say this but I think that this proposal is lacking the [appendix] tag with the additional change that was edited in

@Trapdoorspyder Tags have not been required for quite some time.

Ah my bad!

The Tags rule still exists, it’s just had some exceptions added saying that it’s also okay to omit them if you explicitly name a rule or a section. Which usually works, although there was one case recently where a carelessly worded untagged proposal could have destroyed the game if enacted literally.

It could use a review now that we have Recusant players who can vote on proposed core amendments but might not notice them going past.

@Josh “No, a line connecting two characters is context for those of characters.”:

Yes, but with the original version of this proposal the line is flavour text and so it’s meaningless context that can’t be used to help interpret the characters. (The edited version of the proposal avoids the problem.)