Friday, June 15, 2012

Call for Judgment: Predynastication

Tims out 6-2 and is enacted, but with no effect (other than to confirm that no meta was started)h. -scshunt

Adminned at 17 Jun 2012 12:44:22 UTC

Clucky and Darknight recently argued that a metadynasty was triggered by persuading a third player to travel to Dynasty 1 and use a rule there to reset Moonroof’s third GNDT column, before having Darknight (as Time Buddha) trigger an effect in Dynasty 60 whereby if all third columns are zero, a metadynasty begins.

Today, OMD travelled to Dynasty 3 and called a Revolution under one of its rules, later repealing Dynasty 100’s dynastic rules under another Dynasty 3 rule.

Both sets of actions assume that sections of the rulesets of Dynasties 1 and 3 apply to any visiting Time Monk. Yet “a Time Monk is subject to the Dynastic Rules of the final ruleset of the Dynasty that they occupy” - not Core Rules, not Secret Rules, and not (as is the case for Dynasties that predate the Core/Dynastic distinction) Rules which are neither Core nor Dynastic. Although we have a (possibly ineffectual) rule giving the Buddha a way of “detailing which rules in that Dynasty’s are considered Dynastic and while rules are considered Core”), this has never been invoked for Dynasty 1 or Dynasty 3, meaning that neither dynasty has any Dynastic Rules.

As such, both sets of actions were illegal. If this CfJ is enacted, then the change to Moonroof’s third GNDT column, Clucky’s recent starting of a Metadynasty, OMD’s calling of a Revolution and OMD’s subsequent repeal of rules shall all be regarded as illegal, and the ruleset and GNDT repaired to reflect this.

OMD ended the metadynasty, deleted the rules and went to bed saying he’d raise a CfJ about it in the morning. Since Clucky and Darknight’s metadynasty was apparently declared under the same basis (that the rules in early Dynasties are all Dynastic Rules even if the Buddha hasn’t yet confirmed them as such), we may as well deal with them both.

Comments

Kevan:

06-15-2012 15:38:18 UTC

Since OMD is still asleep, I’ll repeat his reasoning that “I think it’s reasonably likely that all the rules from old dynasties should be considered Dynastic, as despite their being “unmapped”, the concept of a single set of mutable rules is closer to Dynastic Rules than Core Rules.”

Which I disagree with - it seems entirely legal for a rule to be neither Dynastic nor Core, and that’s what the Ruleset 1 and 3 rules are. If an Item can be Edible, Inedible or Undefined, and no rule allows these states to be changed, we don’t announce that an Undefined Cessna is actually Inedible now simply because this would be “reasonably likely”.

Cpt_Koen:

06-15-2012 16:33:38 UTC

for I like the concept of a plane in a plate.

moonroof:

06-15-2012 16:38:58 UTC

for

Rodney:

06-15-2012 16:40:55 UTC

for Haven’t we just gone over “Oh, well the Emperor/Djinn would almost certainly to do this, so let’s play as if the Emperor/Djinn did.”? Which of the rules of the older dynasties would be Core, speaking from our perspective, is rather ambiguous. Is the Grand Vizir a position intended to last across Dynasties, and we just tired of it? How about Gold, which was definitely intended to be transdynastic, though we later got rid of it.

There’s no sockpuppet rules in the ancient ruleset, could I sign up thirty clones under that Dynasty’s rules, (with their own blogs, of course) and then propose myself to victory? Would it violate today’s fair play rules? Could I just say that I could have, but didn’t bother because it would be obnoxious, but hey, give me the victory anyway?

The more rules-crazy a Dynasty is, the more important it is that we do not cut corners.

Clucky:

06-15-2012 16:58:56 UTC

for

You are right about OMD’s scam not working, wrong about the Metadynasty scam not working. Moonroof set his column 1 to 3 under the dynasty 1 ruleset. It was previously zero. Had his column 1 been zero, then even without setting his column 3 to a non-integer, the protagonist still would’ve died.

So we should still be in a metadynasty. But that can be fixed.

Josh:

06-15-2012 18:44:51 UTC

for

omd:

06-15-2012 21:45:22 UTC

against

“In the case of earlier Dynasties, where Core Rules and Dynastic Rules may not be mapped, the Time Buddha may make a post to the Blog detailing which rules in that Dynasty’s are considered Dynastic and which rules are considered Core.”

I think this is a clarification, not a gamestate change: it’s not that the rules are currently neither Core nor Dynastic, but that we don’t currently know for sure which ones they are.

scshunt:

06-15-2012 21:51:17 UTC

As I described elsewhere, I believe that the mapping implicitly exists, just that the Time Buddha is responsible for posting what the mapping is. As such, the rules /did/ apply, we just hadn’t officially been given notice of this.

So against

Josh:

06-15-2012 21:54:11 UTC

I’m very uncomfortable with the idea of an implicit ruleset. It’s either there or it isn’t, frankly.

omd:

06-15-2012 22:02:36 UTC

Josh: Either way, I don’t buy the argument that the “determine which are Core and which are Dynastic” clause is completely ineffective - whether it’s a setting or a clarification, it’s a bit of a stretch to interpret an ambiguous clause in a way that makes it useless when there are other reasonable interpretations available.

So, it might be helpful if you just went ahead and announce which of the rules in 1, 2, 3, and 5/6 should be considered Core and which Dynastic.  (Depending on what you think “should” happen in this situation, it might not.  I don’t know you well :)

Clucky:

06-15-2012 22:07:10 UTC

Doesn’t matter OMD—even if the rules legally existed, you were never in dynasty 2 because you stored your chromotoms in column 3 instead of 13.

omd:

06-15-2012 22:13:09 UTC

Rather, column 2, as I noted in the other thread.  My scam actually failed for another stupid reason, and considering the ambiguity, if he did that I would either attempt to re-do the scam or perform a related scam that might work a bit better, depending on what he chose.  (Alternatively, we could actually fix all these bugs and keep playing, but my perception at the moment is that players don’t want that; it’s only a matter of which scam takes us out of the dynasty.)

Clucky:

06-15-2012 22:15:35 UTC

I’d still argue that if your intepretaiton that dynasty goes in column 1 is correct, everyone has been playing wrong for the whole dynasty and who knows what has or hasn’t been legal.

Also the more I think about it, if they aren’t mapped, that just means they are neither dynastic *or* core. They just are neither, and don’t apply.

omd:

06-15-2012 22:17:37 UTC

That was Kevan’s original interpretation.  I don’t even really care at this point, I guess.

Clucky:

06-15-2012 22:20:17 UTC

this goes back to my whole point that this whole dynasty has been a clusterfuck and the best solution is just to start a nice clean meta dynasty. That way everybody loses.

Josh:

06-16-2012 07:20:40 UTC

@omd: “So, it might be helpful if you just went ahead and announce which of the rules in 1, 2, 3, and 5/6 should be considered Core and which Dynastic.  (Depending on what you think “should” happen in this situation, it might not.  I don’t know you well :)”

I would, but I’m not Time Buddha. Purplebeard and Darknight are.

Klisz:

06-16-2012 15:42:59 UTC

for