“The GNDT merely represents the Gamestate, and is not the same thing. In the event that the Gamestate and the GNDT are different, any Scribe may correct the GNDT to comply with the gamestate.”

With your changes we could no longer change the GNDT as it only represents the gamestate and is not gamestate itself. The info tracked in it is gamestate though.

“In the event that the Gamestate and the GNDT are different, any Scribe may correct the GNDT to comply with the gamestate”

For some reason I was thinking that part was changing too and not just the next paragraph.

Outright allowing the alteration of gamestate if a Scribe feels an action was “improper” seems… too loose, to me?

What’s improper? It includes actions against the Rules, but isn’t limited to that. Does this allow undoing legal actions that violated Fair Play? Does it allow a Scribe who feels that a particular action was against the spirit of the rules, not the letter, to just undo it?

Do illegal actions actually alter gamestate, or does it just look like they do? The current clause seems to imply the latter. But this would imply that they do change the actual gamestate, and it itself allows Scribes to alter the actual gamestate, for outright subjective reasons. That’s dangerous, and I think in this case broken.

Ditto Riachu

per Raichuk

gamestate has a clear definition:

Gamestate
Any information which the Ruleset regulates the alteration of, *including all Wiki Pages*, or GNDT columns, which the Dynastic Rules explicitly mention.

Wiki Pages, including the ruleset, are game state and not just a reflection thereof.

cov