Sunday, December 21, 2008

Call for Judgment: Number of Fractures

Timed out, more against then for;
-amnistar

Adminned at 25 Dec 2008 19:19:30 UTC

Each citizen currently has 0 fractures. The BLO Ruleset doesn’t say “Only non-Idle citizens have fractures, fractures are undefined for Idle citizens”. Just because only BLO recognizes fractures, doesn’t mean it can’t track fractures for all citizens.

Comments

Rodlen:

21-12-2008 03:26:47 UTC

What does this do?  Nothing.

against

Rodlen:

21-12-2008 03:27:29 UTC

Quote of Doom time!!!

“Rules existing only in a Faction’s Ruleset have no effect outside that Faction’s Gamestate and Ruleset. “

Sgeo:

21-12-2008 03:27:31 UTC

Well, shouldn’t the GNDT be fixed?

Sgeo:

21-12-2008 03:28:12 UTC

But isn’t the GNDT tracking each Faction’s gamestate?

Rodlen:

21-12-2008 03:29:57 UTC

Yes, but only the Blo faction members have bones to break…WHAT THE HECK DID I JUST SAY!?!

Sgeo:

21-12-2008 03:31:40 UTC

According to Blo, every citizen has bones to break, and this is part of Blo’s gamestate.

Rodlen:

21-12-2008 03:32:03 UTC

“A Citizen is considered to be idle within each Faction that e doesn’t belong to.”

KILLER QUOTE OF DOOM!!!

Klisz:

21-12-2008 03:32:50 UTC

against

Rodlen:

21-12-2008 03:35:00 UTC

The GNDT is tracking all of Blo’s fractures.  The fractures are in the Blo ruleset, meaning they only effect Blo.  In the faction rulesets, only those factions’ members are not considered idle.

Sgeo:

21-12-2008 03:36:44 UTC

Ok, but where within Blo does it say that Idle Citizens don’t have a defined number of Fractures?

Yoda:

21-12-2008 03:40:03 UTC

against

“For the purposes of the Ruleset, excluding Rules 1.1, 1.2 and 1.8, Idle Citizens are not counted as Citizens.”

Darknight: he/him

21-12-2008 03:40:05 UTC

against Only cause this doesn’t do a thing if it does pass. Word of help. When making a CfJ, make it do something if it passes.

Rodlen:

21-12-2008 03:40:06 UTC

“Rules existing only in a Faction’s Ruleset have no effect outside that Faction’s Gamestate and Ruleset.”

DYNASTIC FREAKING RULE.

THAT MEANS THAT NON-BLO MEMBERS DON’T USE THE FREAKING FRACTURE RULE.

THAT MEANS THAT FRACTURES ARE NOT DEFINED FOR NON-BLO MEMBERS.

Rodlen:

21-12-2008 03:40:55 UTC

Never again do I want to use the same quote twice in the same post.

Sgeo:

21-12-2008 03:42:21 UTC

Yoda, got it. Sorry about this.

Rodlen, Factions can still define attributes on Citizens that are not Idle in the wider context of BlogNomic, and just because it wouldn’t have an effect outside of the faction, doesn’t mean it’s not defined.

Rodlen:

21-12-2008 03:44:20 UTC

The rule has no effect outside Blo.  Therefore, it does not effect non-Blo members.  Therefore, non-Blo members do not use the rule.  Because they don’t use the rule, they don’t get the rule’s stat defined on them.

Sgeo:

21-12-2008 03:44:27 UTC

Yoda, I managed to misread that as “for the purposes of 1.1, 1.2, and 1.8, Idle Citizens are not counted…” when I saw that rule in the Ruleset :/

Sgeo:

21-12-2008 03:47:44 UTC

Rodlen, it doesn’t put any obligations on non-Blo members, but that doesn’t mean Blo doesn’t believe that the rule’s stat is defined on them. In this case, it’s not defined on them because it’s not defined on Idle Citizens, but if Blo wished to, it could define the attribute on idle citizens, but only Blo would recognize it.

Rodlen:

21-12-2008 03:48:14 UTC

“Factions can still define attributes on Citizens that are not Idle in the wider context of BlogNomic”

Factions can’t effect people outside their faction.  What you are describing is a faction effecting people outside of it, which it can’t.

Sgeo:

21-12-2008 03:50:06 UTC

But that doesn’t mean that a Faction can’t pretend to itself that it is effecting someone. Its gamestate could in theory, for example, say “Sgeo has 100 Fractures” even though it wouldn’t actually have an effect on me, and other factions wouldn’t recognize those Fractures.

Rodlen:

21-12-2008 03:51:12 UTC

“but if Blo wished to, it could define the attribute on idle citizens, but only Blo would recognize it.”

That, sir, would be effecting people outside of your faction, which you can’t do.

Rodlen:

21-12-2008 03:52:53 UTC

“Sgeo has 100 Fractures”

Powerless.  That would be an attempt to effect someone outside of their faction.  However, if you joined Blo, you would get all of those fractures when you join them.  Not before.

Sgeo:

21-12-2008 03:54:01 UTC

But Blo would basically believe that I’d have 100 Fractures, despite me not really having those Fractures.

Rodlen:

21-12-2008 03:54:41 UTC

Yes, but it wouldn’t end up in the GNDT, as you are outside of their faction.

Rodlen:

21-12-2008 03:55:02 UTC

That would be effecting someone outside of their faction.

Sgeo:

21-12-2008 03:56:30 UTC

But the GNDT basically tracks each faction’s gamestate. The gamestate of each faction is what each faction believes, not necessarily the reality outside of that faction

Rodlen:

21-12-2008 03:56:35 UTC

Plus, think about the problems with your belief.  Lets see…I could set myself to have an extremely high stat for another faction.  I could then join that faction and keep that stat.

That…would break the game.

Darknight: he/him

21-12-2008 03:57:47 UTC

Since when has reality meant anything in a nomic?

Rodlen:

21-12-2008 03:59:17 UTC

The GNDT tracks each player’s gamestate, noting only things that have an effect on that player.

For another example:  As I am not a Citizen, I can’t get Fractures.  I can’t have Fractures.

You are saying that, if there was a rule in the Blo ruleset that gave me a hundred fractures, I would have those fractures.  However, I can’t.  Same with any player outside of Blo.

Rodlen:

21-12-2008 03:59:52 UTC

I mean only things that that player has.

Rodlen:

21-12-2008 04:00:12 UTC

In my first sentence, that is.

Rodlen:

21-12-2008 04:03:19 UTC

Or in much simpler words, you are saying that players that aren’t effected by rules are effected for the purpose of the GNDT, which is blatantly incorrect.

Sgeo:

21-12-2008 04:04:23 UTC

“The GNDT tracks each player’s gamestate, noting only things that have an effect on that player.”

Not each Faction’s gamestate? Sorry, got it.

Amnistar: he/him

21-12-2008 04:46:39 UTC

against

SingularByte: he/him

21-12-2008 07:39:17 UTC

against

arthexis: he/him

21-12-2008 08:02:41 UTC

against I am proud of myself for causing so much rules confusion with such a simple statement.

kaddar:

21-12-2008 20:35:32 UTC

If two factions have the same gamestate name with different factions, they in fact would need to be tracked separately, interestingly enough.