Friday, July 08, 2016

Proposal: Legalize Ctrl Z

Times out and fails 2-4. -Bucky

Adminned at 10 Jul 2016 23:14:23 UTC

In the rule “Gamestate Tracking”

replace

If a Scribe feels that the GNDT was altered such that it no longer matches the gamestate (such as by performing an action which was against the Rules (as they were at the time of the alteration), or by any other means), they may simply undo the effects of that alteration. Instead of repeatedly reverting and re-reverting a disputed GNDT update, Scribes are encouraged to raise a Call for Judgement instead.

with

If a Scribe feels that gamestate was improperly altered (such as by performing an action which was against the Rules (as they were at the time of the alteration), or by any other means), they may simply undo the effects of that alteration. Instead of repeatedly reverting and re-reverting a disputed alteration, Scribes are encouraged to raise a Call for Judgement instead.

We shouldn’t need a CfJ to undo an illegal alteration of the ruleset proposal or editing of a wikipage.

Comments

Bucky:

07-08-2016 17:32:37 UTC

for

Larrytheturtle:

07-08-2016 18:24:19 UTC

against
“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.

Clucky:

07-08-2016 18:33:27 UTC

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

Larrytheturtle:

07-08-2016 19:22:39 UTC

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

RaichuKFM:

07-09-2016 14:24:09 UTC

against 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.

GenericPerson:

07-09-2016 14:53:17 UTC

against

Sci_Guy12:

07-09-2016 15:42:34 UTC

Ditto Riachu against

Bucky:

07-09-2016 16:21:28 UTC

against per Raichuk

Clucky:

07-09-2016 21:06:33 UTC

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.

Bucky:

07-10-2016 04:34:34 UTC

cov for