Any reason you want to make it mandatory?

It’s not though, “they may choose in leui of doing all of those”

The last part just details what happens if it is mandatory, but doesn’t make it mandatory for anyone.

It’s “in lieu”.

The specification for random actions happening out of order seems awkward and potentially confusing, especially if it is mandatory for some people.  I will think on it.

“In lieu of” is a synonym for “instead of” or “in place of” so if you replaced it with one of those it would read “they may choose instead of doing all of those action separately”, which doesn’t make it mandatory in the slightest.

I just thought it might be confusing to see someone do a bunch of random actions in a row in GNDT, especially if it looks like those were illegal actions, unless they made the blogpost first. Also if it were mandatory for someone, someone else might see them doing a bunch of actions in an hour and try to undo those said actions.

No, I understand, there is just the possibility to make it mandatory if there are problems, which might be warranted.  I’m just saying that if it is mandatory, it could get very confusing.  I am thinking that maybe the post should happen afterwards, after all of the random rolls have been taken, and then there is no having to revise the blog post and roll back actions.  Or maybe the random rolls can be taken before hand, with a note on the GNDT that they refer to a specific step in a specific combo, but that requires some syncing between the blog and the GNDT.

Those sound like better ideas, I’ll change it now.

I thought of something else, which is that we should probably state that the action counts as being taken at the time of the blog post, in case the ruleset has changed and made actions illegal in the meantime.

Overall, good. Just some suggestions to tighten it up a bit though:

Add that “the text “may optionally specify that the terms Organ and Statolith” to” refers to the ruleset because then it could mean that very text in the proposal itself.

Aaaaand here we go with imperatives lol:
“If any action in the blog post is in error or results in an invalid gamestate, they must do the actions in reverse order and value.” This is a command, and doesn’t grant the ability to actually do the actions in reverse order and value. If the ruleset doesn’t grant them the ability to do that, they effectively now have an impossible task. But without any consequence. So they can ignore it entirely. And even if it had a consequence, they could have the problem of not having the power to actually amend it, because they don’t have the faculty to do the “actions in reverse order and value”, just the command to.

Also, as for reversions overall, they’re a bit unnecessary imo, or not properly defined - The core of it is good, its just the reversion thing and acknowledgement of illegal actions that I’m wary about. If an action was illegal, it never actually changed the gamestate. If illegal actions can actually make legal changes that ACTUALLY HAPPENED to the gamestate, then I could submit an illegal proposal, illegally Admin and enact it, and that proposal would have a removal of all Fair Play rules and changes to the entire ruleset to have me as almighty dictator. So once the illegal changes have been made (which have been acknowledged to be actual, real changes despite the illegality), there is no chance to have them reverted anyways.

So, it’s just better to consider that illegal actions just never actually happened, imo, and instead just informal messages/gibberish that happen to be on the same locations as where representations of legal thing could be.

Well it looks like another revision is in order so
[Oracular rufio] That’s a good idea. The only issue I can see there is if there is a rule for when two actions cannot be done at the same time, which could be gotten around by making multiple Combos.

[Cuddlebeam] Hmm, I was trying to make it so that if an error wasn’t noticed and play continued, that play could continue without resetting the gamestate to before said combo. It’s probably better to let each instance of that be handled by a CfJ.

@Card: I agree. Consensus reality is really a fascinating thing lol. Like, bizarre af, especially in regards to the marriage of psyche and awareness (i.e. those unnoticed errors) and formal mechanics.