BlogNomic: The First Dynasty of Desertfrog

Wouldn’t this just delay things even longer if we had to wait another 48 hours for this to expire? Honestly if my CfJ fails, I concede that my worldview is wrong in some way (whether it be my interpretation of the rules or my more abstract beliefs about the conditions under which actions should be considered legal). Josh can just carry on to the Finish Line and then his argument for why we can’t end the Race will no longer apply (no more non-Slug Snails in the Bucket) and we can finish up Race 2 and take it from there.

One thing I especially don’t want and am worried about is my CfJ timing out 1-1. It would be pretty sad for me and Josh to put significant effort into putting forward our positions only for it to come down to a crapshoot where no one else actually takes a side. I’d much rather there be some votes on the table, even if it ends up being 1-4 and I am shown to be completely delusional. I do urge you to consider both of our arguments and vote one way or the other, even if it’s against me!

Oops, that’s my bad. I voiced my opinion on your CfJ but forgot to actually vote. I’ll fix that.

Thank you!

Regarding ending the Race, Josh could certainly go ahead and do that, in which case we can just vote down this CfJ.

I think this is unnecessary, it just gives Josh the power to guarantee at least a tie for 1st on the near-impossibility he doesn’t manage to get to the finish line in less than 14 moves so

Not to mention there might be a double Award Ceremony if he finishes and then does the Award Ceremony before this passes, giving him 2 Races worth of stuff.

I have a reservation about the reworded Position clause, whicb doesn’t quite solve the problem. ” Snails in the Bucket or on the Bench are considered Snails for the tracking of their gamestate variables” is all well and good but it doesn’t actually make those Snails Snails for the purposes of the definition of those gamestate variables, and as they aren’t idle the values of those variables can’t be corrected after any vandalism has taken place.

This negative definition approach is probably just bad - it would be better to positively define what Bench Snails can’t do (I think it’s just Move and interact with Slugs, right?) rather than trying to create a vague-but-specific clause that hopefully does more or less what we want it to.

I’d be against changing it to a positive statement. Ends up being much less exploitable when you forget (carelessly or maliciously) to add something to the list of things Bucket Snails can do then when you forget to add something to the list of things they can’t do. I think we can just patch up the concern you mention (maybe “Snails in the Bucket or on the Bench have the same gamestate variables as those not in the Bucket or on the Bench”) and it’ll be just fine. The vague-but-specific-ness isn’t exclusive to negative statements and it’s just as possible to write poorly defined clauses for a positive one that don’t exclude things they should.

I think it’s probably equally exploitable through neglect or malice, but at a certain point, isn’t there also a virtue to the ruleset just having a clear statement of what is possible or allowable, rather than an implacatory statement that requires parsing the rest of the ruleset to interpret?

In general I find that the ruleset is at its least reasonable when it requires a lot of referring back and forth between different rules or sections; straight statements are much more accessible.

Ok.

Looks like the proposed rule rewrite isn’t quite good enough and Josh is past the Finish Line, so both purposes of this CfJ have been negated.

I don’t know - I haven’t voted against yet because I haven’t decided how best to end the race. Torn between min-maxing advantage and honouring the spirit of the proposed resolution contained herein; for all that I don’t like the language of the rewrite, I do see Habanero’s point and am willing to compromise.

I suppose I’ll go as being the lone FOR vote seems perverse, but my laundry list of proposals is getting unweildy.