Friday, March 17, 2017

Proposal: Lest the GNDT be filled with more minuscule text

1 to 6 after 48 hours. Failed by Derrick

Adminned at 19 Mar 2017 13:00:46 UTC

Add a rule titled “Tracking”
Under it add the text

Anytime an organ wants to do 4 or more consecutive non-atomic actions, they must first make a blog post (which can’t be edited after posting) detailing the order of their actions and any changes to the gamestate and initial value of anything changed in the gamestate in those steps. They may then adjust the gamestate and anything that represents the gamestate to reflect the final results. If any action in the blog post is in error or results in an invalid gamestate, they must do the actions in reverse order and value. As an example, if they were to accidentally take 4 nutrients from the Statolith, they would do the opposite of that step, giving 4 nutrients to the Statolith.

I’m not annoyed with a bunch of actions if you can do them, but I want to be able to read and understand what you’re doing.



03-17-2017 08:55:12 UTC

I’d approve this. My latest scam has also already been detailed at the Ganglion, here: , but I very much like this generalist approach as well for further convenience’s sake.


03-17-2017 11:36:03 UTC

I’m in favor of this. does anyone have any flaws they see in it?


03-17-2017 12:34:25 UTC

I like the idea of allowing complex GNDT edits to be summarised in a blog post, but think it’s a mistake to try to make it compulsory.  If it was optional and someone ignored it, they could just expect a heavier hand from the other players when challenging or tidying up the gamestate. (If it’s really not worth anyone’s effort to comb through work out exactly what an impolite scammer’s final score should be, they’re likely just to CfJ it to the least useful result.)

Also some haziness here. If I make three actions and an hour later want to take another one, does that make the first three illegal because I didn’t “first make a blog post”? And what’s an “action”? Would an admin enacting four proposals or a player casting four votes have to fill out this paperwork?


03-17-2017 12:42:41 UTC

I like it a lot. Have been wondering how to transfer actions partially to the blog, it’s really hard to keep track. It would be nice to have a bit of narrative going as well that way, I’d make blog posts the default action for most moves.

On the plus side the dynastic experiment is going as planned so far, we are majestic and sprawling.


03-17-2017 12:44:42 UTC

But yes it needs some clarification. Maybe we can tether it to a few important actions and just make it recommended that other actions around those are also mentioned?


03-17-2017 13:27:44 UTC

making it optional is a good idea.


03-17-2017 15:56:26 UTC

Well it’s too late to change it now, maybe I should stop making proposals before I go to bed. Anyway, you can either choose to pass the proposal and fix it later via other proposals or CfJ or just fail it and I’d have to submit another one.

[Kevan] Hm, I guess actions are taken to be the simple English meaning of the term. Maybe a better choice would be Dynastic Actions, thus no paperwork for admins or for people voting on proposals. I also guess there should be a time limit added, does within an hour sound like a good amount of time or should it be something shorter?

Oracular rufio:

03-17-2017 16:16:20 UTC

I would be in favor of a version where this is mandatory only for Cuddlebeam.


03-17-2017 16:51:12 UTC

You’d be free to amend it to be so.


03-17-2017 18:41:15 UTC

against Per earlier comments.


03-17-2017 18:45:02 UTC

against I’ve drafted a revision.


03-17-2017 20:46:18 UTC

against very good, awaiting redraft. I think my eyeballs may fall out if I try to keep track of the gndt else.

Oracular rufio:

03-17-2017 20:59:42 UTC



03-17-2017 21:20:13 UTC

against Like others, I like the concept but there are some weird sharp edges here.


03-17-2017 21:37:12 UTC

It’ll have to wait until pokes’ proposal passes, and mine immediately after it.


03-18-2017 22:27:57 UTC

against  moving along