BlogNomic: The First Dynasty of Desertfrog

I chose my movies just to fit with the earlier ruleset. This doesn’t provide for anyone who did as I did to change those films. Anyway, it does not have retroactive effect so any films added under the old rules are stillobligated to be in chronological order. 

per snowball

I also chose my movies to obey the Cronological order, but this ambiguity needs to be excised.  This proposal wisely does not have retroactive effect.  Since the current wording is ambiguous, and anyone who has chosen films “incorrectly” clearly did so as a result of this ambiguity, and those choices were harmless to the game (there are not currently any other rules which care about film years), and they conform to the proposed fix, it is a good idea to simply let the “incorrect” choices stand.  This is the best way to keep the game moving, and it is perfectly fair, provided that we do not in the future make rules which punish those of us who intentionally chose our films chronologically.

as long as “three films” means “at least three films” and not “exactly three films”.

The reason I’m doing this is because, prior to the CfJ, I hadn’t even thought that earlier meant anything with the date of hte movies.  I took ‘earlier’ to mean prior to the time of adding the next role.

“Earlier” is not ambiguous. I’m sorry, but its not. If it was intended to mean “added earlier in the Filmography” it would say just that. But as it stands, it says “earlier films.” In real time. That’s what it says and there’s really no room for interpretation.

Hogwash.  Of course there’s room for interpretation.  Why do you think so many Actors got it “wrong”?

I agree with Snowball, whose name is now Trotsky due to his communist tendencies.

Amnistar, sorry if you didn’t understand the rules, but it is your fault. The CfJ does not have any consequences whatsoever and, really, the names of the Films you are in don’t matter. Deal with it, edit your mistakes, and move on.

Up until the first CfJ, I was under the impression that earlier meant earlier in being added to the filmographies list.

I misunderstood as well, although it seems like we’re teetering back and forth between strict realism and randomness… As I said in the CfJ, this seems like a really minor issue compared to people being in movies before they could possibly have been born. The heart of the question seems to be “does anything about the specific movies people choose actually matter?” and I’ve decided my vote is for realism. I will be proposing something soon to that effect.

I think this is a genuine case of lack of clarity in the rules rather than misunderstanding or malice.  While it is clear for those people that read Kevan’s original proposal, it is entirely vague as the rule stands now (particularly since the last line of the original proposal never made it into the rules—I think the fact that the line was originally included shows how unclear the rule is).  Since there is no obligation on players to understand the intent of the original proposal, this proposal is less about changing the rules than clarifying them.  As Hix said, there is no disadvantage to having one’s Filmography ordered (unless one deliberately chose films that were thought to be less likely to contribute to a win in order to meet the criteria, though I don’t think anyone has any idea at this point which films are better than others).

As far as what Seebo said, I think the movies that people choose should matter, though not necessarily in a realistic manner.

For the sake of clarity, though, I do second the motion that a future proposal change the wording from “three films” to “at least three films”