BlogNomic: The First Dynasty of Desertfrog

https://wiki.blognomic.com/index.php?title=Ruleset#Argumentation uses the word “Adopt” as a verb rather than an adjective: an Argument “may be Adopted”, “cannot be Adopted” and the proposition is enshrined “when an Argument is Adopted”.

That it’s not saying “may/cannot become Adopted” or “while an Argument is Adopted” - and that the Adopted status of an Argument is only tracked obliquely with an Enacted/Failed flag - makes it sound like this isn’t a “dynastic variable” value that can be toggled with an IHA.

Initial thoughts: the Rules Text Injection google doc I think doesn’t work on the basis of the rule Archives.

If it did, it would not be able to claim to have priority over Facts on the Ground due to the rule Prioritisation.

I don’t know if this sinks the DoV below the waterline or just knocks out non-critical elements of it?

@Kevan That feels a little tenuous, to me; it seems clear enough to me that an Argument can be either Adopted or Not Adopted, and that that is a variable.

I’m going to hold off so as to avoid leading voting.

I think it works but only because the “Adopted” state of an Argument is inexplicably separate from its Resolution. I don’t think you can use an Interpreted History Action to resolve an Argument, because the resolution of a Votable Matter is not a dynastic variable. But the Argumentation rule doesn’t say that being Adopted requires resolution, and so seemingly defines a new dynastic variable, separate from resolution.

While my personal interpretation of the rules involved are Kevan’s interpretation and I don’t believe that past instances of an action being performed can really be called a dynastic variable, I do concede it is a possible to read it as a variable by Gozherd’s explanation.
I vote   since there’s at least one way of reading things that makes this work.

I’m going to have to go , as the Argument attempts to create a Meaning for the circle sigil that would allow direct manipulation of the ruleset, and that is strictly forbidden, making it an illegal Argument in toto.

I am tempted to call this close enough, though, on the grounds that if this fails then someone is just going to do the same thing but correctly, and Madison probably deserves the win more than whichever lucky scavenger picks up the rebound.

I missed Kevan’s comment, which now convinced me that Adopted/Rejected is not an additional dynastic variable on top of non-dynastic status, but is just a description of two ways to resolve an argument.

(changed, sorry)

I think the Adopted/Rejected thing is a bit murky, it’s not enough for me to vote yet. The obvious comparison is Enacted/Failed proposals: if I pull a scam that’s sole effect was to flip a proposal’s recorded status from Failed to Enacted, I wouldn’t say that that caused its effects to be applied, it would just change the flag on it.

[Josh] What’s the exact breach there? That an Argument proposition “may not make any statement about any other part of gamestate”, but the posted argument created a new section of ruletext at the Rules Text Injection Site, and that’s gamestate?

@Kevan I don’t think that the off-site text is successfully ruletext, but the Facts on the Ground prohibition is strong enough that it still seems like a problem:

<I>Atlantean ruletext may not be interpreted as allowing or endorsing any action that would result in the contents of the Ruleset being altered, nor may they claim to have priority over this clause of this rule.<>

To me that reads like even *attempting* to make Atlantean text endorse ruleset injection (or override FotG) is illegal, successful or not.

Convinced by Josh, in the absence of counter-argument.