I guess

Actually this makes “Starting Energy” useless…

I thought about this earlier, wondered how you were planning on tracking Energy

Completely useless.  Of course we should add “tracked in the GNDT” to the Ruleset, but just because it isn’t there, doesn’t mean we can’t or shouldn’t track it in the GNDT.  Initializing Energy is also not necessary, since anyone can spend their weekly action to rest and set it to 100.

I am adding the GNDT column right now, and setting most everyone’s energy to undefined (If anyone joined as a new player, it gets set to 50, if e rested, to 100.  Less energy spent for movement, of course.

How is it useless? every other time we needed something tracked we always have it written in the rule that its tracked otherwise we have to track it in our heads. plus if you do what you say your gonna do then i lose alot of energy and waste my weekly rest.

Hix - “Specific parts of the Gamestate data shall be tracked by the Generic Nomic Data Tracker at http://blognomic.com/gndt/generic.cgi?nomic=blog. Any Colonist may update any Colonist’s data via the GNDT, whenever the Ruleset permits it” - arguably you can’t add that column to the GNDT as the ruleset has not allowed you to do so.

Of course I can add the column to the GNDT (Proof:  I just did).  I’m an admin, and have a responsibility to see that the game is playable.  This includes making a GNDT column that will surely be appreciated as a way to track Gamestate variables that are not tracked elsewhere.  It could be argued that the GNDT column representation of Energy is non-official and not itself part of the Gamestate (the representation, that is).  But that doesn’t mean that the GNDT isn’t a legitimate place for people to go and make their “I spend X energy” comments.  Better than clogging up the main blog.

Well it’s not “of course” anything; you’ve performed an action that’s explicitly excluded in the ruleset, which goes out of its way to say that the GNDT can’t be edited except as permitted by itself. Arguing capacity is pure sophism; I’m capable of deleting the blog, replacing the ruleset with the word “penis” 500 times, and set all of my GNDT values to infinity, but that won’t make them legal game actions. Being an admin doesn’t give you the legal right, under the ruleset, to break the rules in any way that you chose to find convenient.

I mention this mostly because I’m disinclined to revert it; it’s handy and this proposal, which legalises the action, is probably going to pass anyway. It just makes your slightly bad-mannered against vote look, well, slightly bad-mannered. The proposal is necessary and the ruleset clarity is needed.

  Excalabur is capable of banning everyone except him. That doesn’t make it legal.

I’m with Hix (it would be entirely legal to add a non-Gamestate GNDT “Notes” field for each player), but it’s useful to tell future players where to look for this variable.

As for whether Hix’s action is legal, I think it is per rule 1.7 (“Colonists should not alter the GNDT except to correct it to match the actual gamestate (in the case that the two somehow end up different), or to perform an action.”) The GNDT is not the gamestate; it’s just a reflection of it, that we keep updated so that we don’t get completely confused as to what’s going on. It’s probably a good thing too that it’s a “should” not a “shall”, on the basis that otherwise the rules would technically prevent Kevan from adding new features to the GNDT if he happened to be a Colonist at the time, which is kind-of ridiculous. Still, it’s best for the rules and the GNDT to reflect the actual state as much as possible, to help avoid total confusion, which is a good reason to vote FOR this proposal.