BlogNomic: The First Dynasty of Desertfrog

The proposed rewording of the pinwheel in this text leaves the application of the pinwheel a bit more open to interpretation (someone applying this text could more plausibly argue, for example, that the newly placed tiles can vary in the configuration of the colours from the original, while the original text and my own revision imply that colour configuration requires consistency). That doesn’t really matter as there aren’t any more pinwheel spots open, but I do note it for posterity.

I also have a reservation about upholding only actions which are “application of a Pinwheel Benediction”, when we could end up in the confusing position where we determine that a copy or rework turn action was illegally applied but the ensuing pinwheel benediction has been upheld.

My gut instinct is that in a dynasty where the wiki edits have been relatively complex there’s little value to a selective approach to upholding. If there are illegal moves in the dynastic history (and I’m pretty sure that there are a couple; I’ve been paying more attention than most and I only noticed that Kevan was doing pinwheels differently from me today) then the cost of unpicking them is huge.

Leaning against but interested in hearing arguments either way.

Hmm, I was intending this wording (“to match”) to be a stronger clarification that you can’t vary the sequence, given that we’re now detaching the colours from the materials, and putting them back.

If there’s another confusion or disagreement, that can get a CfJ; if several arise we can bring out the big guns and go for a “legalise everything”. I just don’t see any reason to jump there early, when we only have one known issue.

Happy to reword this as needed in the next couple of hours so long as nobody votes.

Josh raises a good point about upholding a benediction even if the original move was illegal being weird. so unless that gets fixed I’m more inclined to just go with his proposal

I can take a little fixable weirdness; it’s certainly safer than upholding actions that we haven’t even looked at. If I typo’d my Turns the other day and am 10 ahead of where I should be, is it fair to lock that in?

I would strongly prefer a CFJ to contain corrections only, rather than change the rule to match the interpretation and retroactively correct everything to match the interpretation.

FWIW I think the correct interpretation of the current rule is that a Pinwheel replaces both the whiteness and the stone of the target.

I agree Bucky, but I think its also a bit too late to change things and better to be consistent.

But I guess that means I don’t think this actually solves the problem.

The wiki is not the actual gamestate. When Josh copied their pinwheel, the gamestate became out of sync with the wiki. Then when Kevan reworked, *that* was an illegal action because he reworked as ink tile instead of a stone tile.

So this CfJ doesn’t actually solve the problem except maybe if Kevan’s actions created something that shouldn’t have been a pinwheel that then got copied.

[Clucky] Oh, good point. So I guess this would just need another bullet point of “The later modification of a tile that has been modified by a Pinwheel Benediction”.