Thursday, October 08, 2009

Proposal: Messing about with points

Anti-Quorumed, -2 Score to Excalabur—arth

Adminned at 08 Oct 2009 15:38:26 UTC

If there are no points, this proposal does nothing. 

Else, add a Dynastic rule to the ruleset, entitled “Somewhere to spend your points”, with the text:

At any time, a player may spend five points to add a word to the end of this rule’s subrule “Work in progress”, and may then add one punctuation mark after said word.  Any addition to the rule must not form an ungrammatical sentence, nor make it impossible for a grammatical sentence to be formed.  Any incomplete or ungrammatical sentences in the rule “Work in progress” have no effect, and any player may at any time delete the last word of an incomplete sentence in “Work in progress” for eight points.  Under no circumstances may “Work in progress” contain the name of any player, nor may any player achieve victory based upon text in “Work in progress”

As a subrule of “Somewhere to spend your points”, create a rule entitled “Work in progress”.

Nomic? 

This gives us something to do with points.

Comments

Kevan:

10-08-2009 10:27:31 UTC

for

Josh:

10-08-2009 11:46:04 UTC

for

ais523:

10-08-2009 13:13:45 UTC

against If this passes, the first person to 5 points will be able to win the dynasty with a few minute’s worth of actions. Seriously. (I’d love it if this passed, just in case nobody else figured out how to do this, but I don’t really like to give that much advantage to whoever admins it.)

ais523:

10-08-2009 13:25:36 UTC

Ah, I’ve realised the bug: “for eight points” is ambiguous; I interpreted it as meaning that doing so gains the player 8 points, presumably it was meant to mean that it loses the player 8 points. Now I can see both meanings, it’s not at all clear which one should be considered the correct one…

Excalabur:

10-08-2009 13:41:15 UTC

Clearly, the one that makes sense and doesn’t have infinte recursion?

ais523:

10-08-2009 13:49:49 UTC

@Excalabur: it doesn’t say anywhere in the rules that picking an interpretation that doesn’t allow actions to be repeated infinitely should be favoured over one that does in the case of ambiguity. As always in nomic, just because something is obviously intended doesn’t necessarily make it correct.

Qwazukee:

10-08-2009 14:05:33 UTC

against

Kevan:

10-08-2009 14:07:22 UTC

against CoV for ambiguity.

Wooble:

10-08-2009 14:57:03 UTC

against

arthexis:

10-08-2009 15:11:58 UTC

against

Oze:

10-08-2009 15:15:04 UTC

against

Bucky:

10-08-2009 16:06:09 UTC

against

Shem:

10-08-2009 17:57:53 UTC

against Such a minor point, and I love the idea.  Please make it clearer and repropose; this would be a great rule.

arthexis:

10-08-2009 21:44:30 UTC

I dislike the idea, in fact.

Darknight:

10-08-2009 22:08:03 UTC

against

Hix:

10-08-2009 22:35:17 UTC

nor may any player achieve victory based upon text in “Work in progress”


Achieving victory “based upon text” is extremely ambiguous, I think.  What if the “Work in progress” rule allows a player to increase their points under certain circumstances, while another rule spells out a victory condition involving gaining a bunch of points?  I would say that anyone who increased their points under the WIP rule cannot achieve this victory condition because the achievement was “based on text” from the WIP rule.

On another note, anyone could use this rule to block a soon-to-be-player from joining/unidling by adding eir name to WIP, since then it would be illegal for any admin to allow em to become an official player.  “Under no circumstances”, after all!