Wednesday, December 06, 2017

Inactive Dormancy

Is the Dormancy rule going to kick in if another player idles? Although the Dormancy rule is currently set to inactive, this only means that it “[does] not have an effect on the gamestate”. But its clause that “actions defined by dynastic rules may not be taken” might not be affected - players’ actions themselves are not, I think, gamestate.



12-06-2017 11:40:04 UTC

The ruletext itself is gamestate*, so whatever it says stops having effect, even if the issue you pointed out would be true.

So, no problem. Although that may have very interesting effects elsewhere oho, good catch.

*Because of the glossary entry of “Gamestate”: Any information which the Ruleset regulates the alteration of. The Ruleset regulates the alteration of its own text, so the text of the Ruleset is gamestate.


12-06-2017 11:40:46 UTC

“it says” as in, what the Dormancy rule says.


12-06-2017 12:33:17 UTC

That sounds like it’s assuming an additional level of existence within the ruleset document - that the “Dormancy” section is both a rule and a bunch of words on a wiki page which describe a rule, and Inactivity stops that bunch of words from being considered part of the description of the gamestate that is the set of rules. But I’m not sure that level of distinction exists within the game: the document is the ruleset, the ruleset is the document.

(It may be worth switching Dormancy to be Active at this point, or temporarily repealing the Dormancy rule, before the game drifts into a grey area where dynastic actions may or may not be legal. Grynk is due to idle out in six hours’ time, taking the player count below the Dormancy level.)


12-06-2017 14:39:54 UTC

I read your comments three times over and I’m still not sure I understood :D.
How about we instead declare the winner as the player with the most merit at the moment ?
Ok ok forget that idea. Doesn’t hurt to try.


12-07-2017 12:06:24 UTC

Hello, I still exist; don’t idle me.