Monday, April 11, 2022

Declaration of Victory: My blobber ate my thesis

Timed out and failed, 3-3. Josh

Adminned at 13 Apr 2022 11:54:42 UTC

I have a Blobber Quantity of five. My Thesis has not changed for a whole week after being set, which was shortly after the enactment of Theses Pieces. My Thesis has a hash of e3b0c44298fc1c149afbf4c8996fb92427ae41e4649b934ca495991b7852b855 which represents following outputs: Empty string from Angel’s Clover, Empty string from Angel’s Clover, Empty string from Angel’s Clover, Empty string from Angel’s Clover, Empty string from Angel’s Clover, and no salt, which put together gives a plaintext of an empty string. This has the same contents as my Blobber Imprints due to that also being blank.
On that basis, I declare victory.

Given that this declaration of victory is on the basis of the old version of Theses as described in the proposal Ninety-Five, I should probably point out how I’m able to use that version rather than the more complex version described in Theses Pieces. To put it simply, I assert that Theses Pieces did not overwrite the rule Theses and instead simply overwrote the text held in every Researcher’s Thesis.

My logic is as follows:
The proposal started with the line of text “Add a new rule called “Theses” to be the follow, or if such a rule already exists remove everyone’s Thesis, then update its text to be the following”.
The key part I’m going to look at is “update its text to be the following”. This commands the update of “its” text, but there’s two possible candidates for this update, both of which have text. There’s the rule “Theses”, and there’s everyone’s Thesis (which I’ll note is stated in the singular, not the plural).
For the purposes of argument, I’m going to replace “its” with both “the rule’s” and “the Thesis’” which gives two equally valid sentences.
“if such a rule already exists remove everyone’s Thesis, then update the rule’s text to be the following”
“if such a rule already exists remove everyone’s Thesis, then update the Thesis’ text to be the following”

Given that both are equally viable, my interpretation is to go for the more proximate object of the sentence rather than the other, therefore I have reverted the rules change that Theses Pieces applied, and I’ve instead applied it to every blank Thesis. Anyone who changed it after that rule was enacted has been considered to have overwritten it, which is a valid action in the both the older and the newer version of the rules.

As for any actions that would need to be rolled back as a result of this, I see none. Neither Josh nor myself have placed a hash into a tracked Thesis Hash field and instead have placed the hashes into the Thesis field which is only publicly tracked in the old versions of the rule. No other actions have otherwise been rendered illegal, as the only other action defined in the new version is Declare Dominion which has not yet been performed. Furthermore, there have been no proposals passed which alter or otherwise rely on the newer text of the rule.


Clucky: he/him

11-04-2022 19:59:02 UTC

I don’t think this works. The commas don’t really allow for it and it also wouldn’t be a valid thesis which would’ve made the enactment of the proposal illegal


Might just have to do a chop as the dynasty has kinda stalled out. Or people can decide to just give SB the win anyways cause why not

wdtefv: hu/hum

11-04-2022 20:04:08 UTC


SingularByte: he/him

11-04-2022 20:17:46 UTC

The commas, I can’t argue with but I’d argue that it’s absolutely a valid thesis. The rule I’d be winning under doesn’t actually state what form the thesis has to be in, other than a string which it currently is. Researchers can willingly set it to a hash, but if it was obligated to be a hash then it would be illegal for them to be blank as a default in the first place when the original rule was first enacted.

Raven1207: he/him

11-04-2022 20:36:18 UTC


Roujo: he/him

11-04-2022 21:02:55 UTC

Josh decided that it was to be interpreted as “replace the rule”, and then forgot a part of the proposal’s enactment - resetting everyone’s Thesis. Either Josh was allowed to resolve the ambiguity that way, in which case no victory has been achieved, or they weren’t allowed to resolve it without a CFJ, in which case the proposal was never actually resolved, no proposal afterwards could be enacted and we’ve been playing a game of BlogNomic which doesn’t fit the ruleset we thought it was. ^^

In the latter case, it’s possible that this DoV is valid anyway! I’ll have to check if the ruleset back before the ambiguous proposal was enacted (and so, in that interpretation, as it is right now) would have allowed the win.


11-04-2022 21:03:43 UTC



11-04-2022 21:35:58 UTC


Clucky: he/him

12-04-2022 02:35:02 UTC


If the thesis would be valid… I think it’s close enough to shit we’ve allowed in the past

Josh: he/they

12-04-2022 08:14:24 UTC

I have unidled myself; quorum rises to 5.

Josh: he/they

12-04-2022 10:05:13 UTC


Josh: he/they

12-04-2022 10:06:52 UTC

NB for the resolving admin that wdtefv’s vote on this is currently not valid as hu is not currently a Researcher.