Wednesday, September 30, 2020

Call for Judgment: Jiggery Pokery [Appendix]

Times out 1-5. Failed by Brendan.

Adminned at 02 Oct 2020 17:14:31 UTC

During pokes’s turn, they used the Seed action to change the name of the NPC formerly known as Schwingrasen to “pokes.” This is arguably legal under dynastic actions: Seed states that the player should “set the value of one of Schwingrasen’s held gamestate variables to match their own value” and gamestate is defined as “any information which the Ruleset regulates the alteration of.” Because the rule “The Floating Island” regulates how Gaia may change the name of that NPC, that makes the name—again, arguably—a held gamestate variable.

But, in the #currentdynasty Slack channel, pokes admitted that this made the mandatory Seed action impossible for other players:

“I don’t know if a turn can be taken right now”

In my view, this makes the name change illegal under the seventh bullet of the Fair Play rule:

A Island should not do any action meant to make the game unplayable

I’d also like to point out that I already proposed a glossary addition that would have headed off this argument. Commentary on the proposal indicates that players feel it could go further, and I agree with that, but the preceding events make it clear that it’s valuable to have even a minimal definition as a starting point.

To resolve this issue, enact the following changes:

  • If there is an NPC named pokes, change the name of the NPC named pokes—not the player named pokes—to Schwingrasen, and update the Great Sea page accordingly.
  • Add a new term to the Glossary, called NPC, as follows:
    A Non-Player Character or NPC is an entity used to track gamestate under a name which must be distinct from the names of all active Islands. In typical usage, this often means an extra row (per NPC) added to the table of statistics on a given Dynasty’s relevant gamestate wiki page.

Comments

pokes:

30-09-2020 17:23:17 UTC

Does this hotfix for the gamestate need to be attached to a new glossary definition?

pokes:

30-09-2020 17:26:44 UTC

Also, for those not on Slack, I want to carry forward my view that it’s not illegal under Fair Play, which intends to mean that I shouldn’t make BlogNomic as a whole unplayable, not just one action in the dynasty. The example given there (“changing multiple keywords to the same word in an Ascension Address”) makes the core game unplayable.

Brendan: he/him

30-09-2020 18:01:13 UTC

It’s not just a gamestate hotfix, it’s a live rules exploit. If this enacts before “Garbage Patch,” there’s nothing to prevent another player from taking the same action on their turn and locking the game again, unless we add a rule to keep NPC and player names distinct.

As for the example, it’s one example, not an exhaustive set of cases. It cites a core-based example because it wouldn’t make as much sense to cite a dynasty-based example (like a game with turns) in a core rule that doesn’t necessarily change from dynasty to dynasty.

Josh: Observer he/they

30-09-2020 18:14:46 UTC

against Garbage patch is at quorum, meaning that this is effectively just the appendix hotfix. In that light I’d still rather see the full fat version.

Kevan: he/him

30-09-2020 18:21:30 UTC

against Per Josh.

Kevan: he/him

30-09-2020 18:27:50 UTC

We should clarify whether “any action meant to make the game unplayable” is referring to BlogNomic or the dynastic subgame. I’ve certainly always taken it as the former.

pokes:

30-09-2020 19:02:39 UTC

against

pokes:

30-09-2020 19:05:16 UTC

(the no is per Josh.)

Also: If I illegally made the game “unplayable”, then so does ascension. That’s absurd, so I didn’t.

derrick: he/him

30-09-2020 21:59:04 UTC

against

per josh.

But this whole thing was awesome!

Bais:

01-10-2020 05:09:51 UTC

against