Monday, March 06, 2006

Proposal: Podules

Timed out.  Failed 4-8 with one abstention. - Shadowclaw

Adminned at 08 Mar 2006 10:22:23 UTC

Add a rule titled Podules:

Any Gostak with a positive number of Dosh may decrease that number by one to create a Podule. When a Podule is created, it is entered into the Ruleset under the Podules subrule “Active Podules”. Any Podule that is outside of the subrule “Active Podules” shall have no effect on the rules or gamestate.

No Podule may contain more than two clauses, nor may a Podule be longer in length than one sentence. All Podules must be grammatical and free from errors in spelling and punctuation. All Podules must contain the name of the Gostak that created them at the end of the sentence, in italics and enclosed by parentheses. A Podule may optionally be given an italic title on creation.

In the case that a Podule contradicts or is otherwise in conflict with any Rule or Law, precedence shall always be given to the Rule or Law in question.

Podules may not:

  • Give or take Dosh from any Gostak, or specify that Dosh be given or taken from any Gostak at a future time.
  • Specify or alter any conditions of victory, or establish conditions under which victory cannot be declared.
  • Define or re-define existing Ruleset terminology.
  • Change or entail the change of any state that is recorded in the GNDT.
  • Move or otherwise alter rule text.
  • Specify conditions on the creation of new podules

Any Gostak with a positive number of Dosh may decrease that number by one to move any Podule that is listed under the Podule subrule “Active Podules” to the subrule “Inactive Podules”.

Add two subrules to Podules, titled “Active Podules” and “Inactive Podules”.

Unless more than half of the votes on this proposal contain the phrase “That’s playing with fire!”, give all Gostaks one Dosh.

The idea is to create a sandbox in which the players can create new rules that don’t interfere (so much) with the old ones. If you see a consequence of this rule that causes the game to break, point it out and I’ll kill this proposal. Thanks to Bucky for specifying necessary conditions on Podules to prevent breakage.



03-06-2006 18:29:20 UTC

for Pure cheese.


03-06-2006 18:56:18 UTC



03-06-2006 20:03:06 UTC

One possible problem, similar to Bucky’s Weevil trick: If a proposal is pending, you create a podule that defines a term in a rule to be created by the proposal, and then enact the proposal.

Since the proposal hasn’t passed at the time of podule-creation, the podule does not “Define or re-define existing Ruleset terminology”.

Elias IX:

03-06-2006 21:38:56 UTC

for Cheese


03-06-2006 21:40:21 UTC

for mmm, cheese


03-06-2006 21:58:34 UTC

against by Banja’s reasoning

Angry Grasshopper:

03-06-2006 22:17:57 UTC

Banja, wouldn’t the Podule then disagree with that Rule after the proposal was passed?


03-06-2006 22:46:55 UTC

You’re right, there is this part: “In the case that a Podule contradicts or is otherwise in conflict with any Rule or Law, precedence shall always be given to the Rule or Law in question.”
So, this hole could only be used if the wording of the rule was vague. A clear definition in the rule would overrule the Podule.
It’s probably not that big a problem.


03-07-2006 00:02:23 UTC

Banja’s concern is legidemate, as are some others.  I beleive the only safe version of Podules would be something like “Podules may not alter the Gamestate.”


03-07-2006 00:03:02 UTC

..but in case thiss passes,
against  cheese


03-07-2006 02:00:08 UTC

imperial cheese


03-07-2006 04:42:34 UTC



03-07-2006 05:40:06 UTC

...on second thought, I just spotted something big.  Purely Selfish for  CHEESE!


03-07-2006 05:40:45 UTC

^^^ was a CoV.


03-07-2006 11:52:51 UTC

against I don’t trust Bucky’s enthusiasm.


03-07-2006 14:39:24 UTC

against sorry i didn’t comment while this was in progress, but this seems dangerous for two reasons. Restricting podules by what they can’t do leaves an uncomfortably unknown number of things they can do. Making podules active immediately with no voting will just accelerate abuse. I think we have to start in a much more limited fashion.


03-07-2006 18:44:04 UTC

against I’m with Josh here. CoV.


03-07-2006 21:32:03 UTC



03-08-2006 01:17:17 UTC

Hmm, apparently I never voted


03-08-2006 11:58:51 UTC

against Fun idea, though.

Elias IX:

03-08-2006 12:41:32 UTC

against CoV.