BlogNomic: The First Dynasty of Desertfrog

“No part of the ruleset or gamestate of BlogNomic may be gamestate in Podnomic, or vice versa.” is interesting for making the games explicitly walled gardens, but I worry what problems that might cause through accidental or malicious overlap. If PodNomic enacted a rule of something like “all web pages created after the 4th of January 2022 are gamestate in PodNomic”, wouldn’t that mean we couldn’t make new proposal and CfJ posts on this blog any more?

Interesting. How would you work this rule to prevent that outcome? I suppose you could build a bigger wall (“the ruleset of Podnomic has no effect on any aspect of BlogNomic”) but that seems to invite further challenge…

I guess for now I’ll remove that first paragraph, which may not be necessary and which potentially invites problems.

I don’t think it needs a pre-emptive wall. From a ruleset perspective an external force can’t legally modify our gamestate - we’d just change it back, whether the modifier was a rogue player, a rival Nomic or a stone crusher spammer.

I’d rather let Podnomic be its own nomic, independent from Blognomic.

If Podnomic wants a Blognomic correspondent, they should be able to write a rule that defines it themselves. We as blongmoic shouldn’t be defining it for them.

[Clucky] The question is how the players of BlogNomic want to choose that correspondent. If we define it in the ruleset then it’s clear that a quorum were happy with that person at some point in history, and that another quorum can also vote to change that at any time. If we pick somebody informally on the Discord, then it’s much less clear how that role can be changed, and what the bar is for changing it.

I prefer tracking it, although I think it could just be a single sentence of “player X is BlogNomic’s PodNomic Correspondent”.

‘Blongmoic’

I as a player of BlogNomic do not want to have to deal with what the ramifications of choosing a Podnomic correspondent are, just like I wouldn’t want to deal with the ramifications of choosing a Blognomic correspondent.

Why does this have to be tracked on our end? Why can Podnomic not define what it means to be a Player of Blognomic and track it on their end?

whoops I meant to say I wouldn’t want to deal with the ramifications of choosing an Agora correspondent

@Clucky There aren’t any ramifications to BN for the selection.

That’s somewhat the point, actually; the Podnomic ruleset can’t affect BlogNomic, as it’s not gamestate to BlogNomic, so the ramifications to BlogNomic for anything to do with Podnomic are zilch.

The choice should be made here because, for those players involved in the overlap, the choice of who to send is one that should be made with a BN hat, not a PN hat. Beyond that there’s no impact.

If the good people of PodNomic or Agora or Canada said that they wanted a player to act as a point of contact with BlogNomic, I’d rather have our group choose that person, and for everyone involved to know that we’ve chosen them.

The ramifications seem more daunting if we instead let the outside group decide who to use as a single point of contact, possibly with no easy system for us to change that.

> If a single comment in response to this post contains the text “I volunteer”, change the word “none” at the end of the second paragraph of the newly added rule to the name of the author of that comment.

The second paragraph of the current rule text does not end with the word “none”.

Oh cocks

“A player is a BlogNomic citizen if they are a player of BlogNomic per the rules of https://wiki.blognomic.com/index.php?title=Ruleset. A BlogNomic citizen may…”

that allows the correct subset (Podnomic players who are also BlogNomic players) to choose their representative

Like, what happens if a player incorrectly applies “if there is a BlogNomic Podnomic Correspondent and the most recent three consecutive Episodes of Podnomic have been broadcast without a BlogNomic News Item having been included”

Say maybe, there is an issue where “BlogNomic News Item” is potentially not well defined. And so there is disagreement on if “the most recent three consecutive Episodes of Podnomic have been broadcast without a BlogNomic News Item having been included”

Now, because the action takes place within our gamestate, it needs to be adjudicated within our game. So now we have a CfJ which effects only a subset of the players of our game while excluding players of the game whose ruleset we’re trying to interpret

Also simply from a technical standpoint, your if/thens are wrong.

“If there is a BlogNomic Podnomic Correspondent then their name is appended to the end of this sentence” does not mean that the person whose name is appended to the end of the sentence is the BlogNomic Podnomic Correspondent

And “if there is no BlogNomic Podnomic then the word ‘none’ will appear at the end of this sentence” is missing a “Correspondent”. And also create a bit of a paradox: as far as I’m aware, there is no BlogNomic Podnomic. But if that is true, the word ‘none’ will appear at the end of that sentence. But due to multiple people using the phrase “I volunteer”, the word ‘none’ will not appear at the end of the sentence. Which means that magically, somehow, there is a BlogNomic Podnomic.

CoV given the second-paragraph bug and the fact that this will just be enacting a rule of “there is no PodNomic correspondent and you can’t change this”. We’re going to need a second run at it anyway.

Clucky makes a fair point about the “the most recent three consecutive Episodes of Podnomic” thing, it isn’t great for a BlogNomic game action to hinge on something that might be unknown or ambiguous for some out-of-Nomic reason. I think a flat sentence of “X is the PodNomic correspondent” would be fine.

withdrawn