Saturday, April 05, 2025

Proposal: Play Ball

In the first bullet point in “Announcements of Attainment”, change “Nomicers who used the action defined in “Reinitialisation” during Lacuna” to:

Nomicers who used the action defined in “Reinitialisation” during the current state of Lacuna

In “Announcements of Attainment”, change “When a Nomicer has made such a post in this way, the game is placed into a state of Lacuna” to:

When a Nomicer has made such a post in this way, excluding such a post by ais523 on 1 April 2025, the game is placed into a state of Lacuna

And add after the sentence containing that clause:

The game may not be in a state of Lacuna as a result of the aforementioned post by ais523 on 1 April 2025.

Remove from “Equity” the sentence “The default starting Equity for a new Nomicer is their Liability, divided by the number of Nomicers including themselves, rounded up to the nearest integer.” Add a new subrule to Actions above all other subrules called “Initialize” as follows:

No more than once per dynasty, after a Nomicer is unidled but before voluntarily taking any other game actions, a Nomicer may set their equity to their Liability divided by the number of Nomicers including themselves, rounded up to the nearest integer.

Repeal “No Rolling”.

If we’re not going to let ais have their win, I think the sensible thing to do is get back to playing the game. This should give us a clean break from the Lacuna and prevent anyone from being blocked from participating. It also changes the default equity to 0 and provides an action to claim the starting equity, which can only be done outside of Lacuna.

Comments

Josh: Imperator he/they

05-04-2025 18:28:50 UTC

for I think we might want to straighten up Equity values and maybe give players their reinitialisations back - but that can be another proposal.

JonathanDark: he/him

05-04-2025 19:43:31 UTC

I was against this when Josh first suggested it, because I felt like it was taking a valid scam away from ais, but that was purely regarding putting us in Lacuna, which I felt he earned.

Given the mess that it’s become now, and with idle players using legitimate means to become a part of this dynasty, I’m now more inclined to have people put their money where their mouth is and play for the win.

I’m curious about how many people have the enthusiasm to keep playing, but if there’s enough interest, it’s worth trying.

for

Josh: Imperator he/they

05-04-2025 19:45:39 UTC

To be really clear, as I’ve said some things: I hope it’s all of them! I’m really excited to have more players, and players taking legitimate moves to win is exciting and fun. Anything that has happened up until now is in the past.

ais523:

05-04-2025 19:51:59 UTC

arrow “by ais523” is blocked by the Glossary – you can’t use a Nomicer’s name in a rule without specifically stating that it’s a Nomicer’s name. It’s possible that the rule works anyway (treating the “by ais523” as irrelevant – there was only one Announcement of Attainment that day), but I’m not sure.

JonathanDark: he/him

05-04-2025 20:02:39 UTC

Within the Ruleset, a word only refers to the name of a Nomicer if it is explicitly stated that it refers to a Nomicer’s name.

So in this case, we would interpret “by ais523” as a meaningless part of “The game may not be in a state of Lacuna as a result of the aforementioned post by ais523 on 1 April 2025.”

The rest of the sentence still uniquely identifies the post in question.

Clucky: he/him

05-04-2025 20:03:43 UTC

I’m not sure this works. The game has already been placed into Lacuna. So saying it can’t be placed into it doesn’t change that.

ais523:

05-04-2025 20:16:37 UTC

@JonathanDark: I am not sure that your argument is wrong, but I’m also not sure that it’s right; it becomes “the aforementioned post by {meaningless} on 1 April 2025”, and that’s a positive restriction (i.e. the post has to have a particular author that’s defined by a meaningless word), rather than a negative restriction (like “who is not the {meaningless}” in Heightened Mill). Conceptually it feels like there ought to be a difference there.

In any case, we should probably have a rule in the Appendix that specifies how to resolve restrictions that refer to things that don’t exist or contain meaningless words, as this sort of issue has come up several times now and we never seem sure how to resolve it.

Darknight: he/him

05-04-2025 20:22:33 UTC

arrow

Zack: he/him

05-04-2025 20:34:51 UTC

@Clucky I picked up on that, which is why I added the “The game may not be in a state of Lacuna as a result of the aforementioned post” part.

Josh: Imperator he/they

05-04-2025 20:38:13 UTC

I think we may need a clear “the game is not in Lacuna” statement in a proposal but it doesn’t have to be this one and arguably is better - in terms of getting the ruleset into shape - if it isn’t.

Clucky: he/him

05-04-2025 20:41:28 UTC

imperial

ais523:

05-04-2025 20:44:54 UTC

CoV for Josh is right – even if this is slightly broken, pass-and-fix does work in this situation.

Darknight: he/him

05-04-2025 21:02:58 UTC

for

Kevan: he/him

05-04-2025 21:48:09 UTC

against in favour of The Eyes Have It.

DoomedIdeas: he/him

05-04-2025 23:30:28 UTC

imperial I’d prefer The Eyes Have It, but if that fails or is withdrawn, Play Ball is my second choice.

Josh: Imperator he/they

06-04-2025 06:51:55 UTC

Withdrawing my vote for now imperial

Raven1207: he/they

06-04-2025 08:53:12 UTC

imperial

Darknight: he/him

06-04-2025 10:04:13 UTC

against cov

You must be logged in as a player to post comments.