Sunday, August 22, 2021

Proposal: Notes, Or Timing Evaluation

Self-killed. Josh

Adminned at 25 Aug 2021 10:56:41 UTC

Rename “The Veto List” to “The Mandate List”, and change the text before the list to:

A Proposal is a Fit if it has all the properties on this list (“the Mandate List”), otherwise it is a Misfit:

If the word “Bill” exists in the dynastic ruleset, change “Proposal” in the new text to “Bill”.

After the list, add “The Wielder of Vetoes may append parenthesized notes to the entries on the above list, so long as those notes cannot be interpreted as binding rules text. These notes are flavour text.”

Add the following entry to the Mandate List:

It does not add any parentheses to this list.

If “Put it on my bill” failed, also add the following entry to the Mandate List:

Either its “Entry Date” was less than 15 minutes ago, or its author voted on it within 15 minutes of its “Entry Date”.


Three main changes here.

One is to change Veto List to Mandate List terminology, to reduce the chance of an entry accidentally being added in a reversed form.

One is to let me keep track of additional information with each entry. I’m planning to use this to say “(Added on date/time)”, to make it easier for me to check whether a proposal complied with the Mandate List at the time it was added.

The final change is to force a policy on edit windows; if Clucky’s proposal to force them open fails, this proposal will force them closed instead (by requiring the author to vote-lock their own proposal).



22-08-2021 18:47:38 UTC

The last is timing sensitive, in that the proposal could easily violate it and yet stop being Misfit before you notice.


22-08-2021 18:52:48 UTC

I’ve made it less timing-sensitive, at the cost of forcing players to write and vote on their proposal within 15 minutes – the displayed date (“Entry Date”) is when you started writing the proposal, not when you posted it. (The actual time of posting isn’t observable.)

Players can get around this issue by writing the proposal in a separate editor and copying-and-pasting it, but I’m not sure that’s obvious to everyone. I’ll add a clarifying note to the ruleset if this proposal passes, to help explain that to newer players.


22-08-2021 18:55:35 UTC


Clucky: he/him

22-08-2021 18:56:49 UTC

given we’ve already seen multiple players take advantage of edit windows on multiple proposals locking edit windows seems like a bad idea. They are a very useful thing to have and I really don’t seen the benefit in locking


22-08-2021 18:59:41 UTC

What happens if you add “(()” and “())” around some text?

Which case happens? (the bolded is what would be flavor text)

(() pizza is cool ())


(() pizza is cool ())


22-08-2021 19:01:19 UTC

The author should be required to vote on it in a comment (or with a voting icon) because the author votes for it when he posts it.

Will be voting for, I think the extremely short edit windows are necessary.


22-08-2021 19:02:04 UTC

The proposal’s quite clear that anything I add is flavour text – I wouldn’t legally be able to add it if it wasn’t.


22-08-2021 19:02:41 UTC

That aside I’m concerned about the potential that parenthesis might be used in some way to selectively remove characters to alter the meaning of the rule.


22-08-2021 19:14:21 UTC

I’ve changed it to clarify that they can only be added at the end of an entry (preventing me, e.g., adding a note mid-word to make it unreadable). I’d intended that all along, but I agree that the previous language was ambiguous.

Clucky: he/him

22-08-2021 19:15:23 UTC

wouldn’t this allow someone to leave a hanging open parenthesis and arguably turn half the ruleset into flavor text?


22-08-2021 19:18:47 UTC

No, but it’d allow them to remove a closing parenthesis.

Lulu: she/her

23-08-2021 00:37:00 UTC


Clucky: he/him

23-08-2021 00:40:03 UTC

I’m a still kinda worried what a hanging open paren would do. I think “so long as those notes cannot be interpreted as binding rules text” should prevent the entire ruleset from falling apart but it would still be up in the air just how much of the rules get turned into flavor text

i also think the edit window is good for the game so against

Janet: she/her

23-08-2021 01:54:28 UTC

A note isn’t parenthesized if it isn’t enclosed by balanced parentheses.  for


23-08-2021 01:59:10 UTC

It’d allow removing a closing parenthesis from one mandate and an opening parenthesis from another, thus turning all the intervening mandates into a big note.

Janet: she/her

23-08-2021 02:34:50 UTC

The Emperor can’t do that themself, that can only be done by proposal, at which point you’re just going about it in a really indirect manner.

Clucky: he/him

23-08-2021 03:16:40 UTC

sure, but its an avenue by which a scam can be introduced

Raven1207: he/they

23-08-2021 04:26:34 UTC



23-08-2021 07:13:59 UTC



23-08-2021 19:04:27 UTC

Tagging to the rescue!

“change the text before the list” isn’t limited in scope to the rule the list appears in. Thanks to Tagging, this proposal doesn’t replace the entirety of the core rules, it merely replaces its rule’s name and the Victory condition rule.

I suggest a self-kill and reproposal.

Josh: he/they

23-08-2021 19:26:11 UTC

I agree with Bucky.  against

Janet: she/her

23-08-2021 19:37:07 UTC

I’m still not sure I buy it, but against out of caution. (CoV)


24-08-2021 01:00:11 UTC



24-08-2021 23:51:11 UTC

I don’t buy it either, but I agree that it’s too dangerous to pass something like this if people are concerned it might delete half the ruleset.

against s/k


25-08-2021 00:51:23 UTC

Oh, Tagging’s restriction on modifying core rules meant it would fail to do so. If I were enacting this, it’d only replace “Victory”.


25-08-2021 03:05:28 UTC

I don’t want to take the risk that Tagging was illegally enacted or something, and we end up discovering some time in the future that this proposal destroyed BlogNomic entirely.

It seems unlikely, but I said I was going to be paranoid about this sort of thing.