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

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.

OwO

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

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

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

(() pizza is cool ())

or

(() pizza is cool ())

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.

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.

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.

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.

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

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

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

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

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.

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.

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

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.

I agree with Bucky. 

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

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.

s/k

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”.

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.