Saturday, November 05, 2016

Proposal: A little bit of self-destruction doesn’t hurt

Timed out 1 vote to 3. Failed by Kevan.

Adminned at 07 Nov 2016 15:11:53 UTC

Enact a dynastic rule “Modification of Fair Play Rules” with the following text:

In the Core Rule “Fair Play” the rule “A Player should not do any action meant to make the game unplayable (for example, changing multiple keywords to the same word in an ascension address).” should be instead read as “A Player should not change multiple keywords to the same word in an ascension address.”

Arguably, Brendan’s proposal “Twelve Times Twelve Midnight” and even Kevan’s vote FOR it are “actions meant to make the game unplayable”. By adding this, we allow to further develop this dynasty, but (given that we save the nomic) do not risk making the game unplayable next dynasties (as if we changed the core rule) because this rule will be repealed on ascension. Also, “A Dynastic Rule has precedence over a Core Rule, unless that Core Rule explicitly says it can’t be overruled by a Dynastic Rule”, which Fair Play doesn’t state.

Comments

gazebo_dude:

11-05-2016 22:55:04 UTC

I’m not sure that this proposal would actually do anything. My understanding of “should not” comes from keyword definition given in the Rules:

> Should
>    “is recommended that”

implying, to me at least, that “Fair Play” does not actually stop any potentially game breaking actions. It merely implies that a CfJ afterwards is more likely to succeed.

Now I have a question. After a DoV the game enters Hiatus, where “During this time, the only game actions that may be taken are those covered by Rules “Players”, “Votable Matters”, “Calls for Judgement”, “Gamestate Tracking” and “Victory and Ascension”.” So ordinary dynastic rules such as this one do not apply anyway.
After the Ascension address dynastic rules apply again.

My question is whether dynastic rules apply to the Ascension address itself? I do not know the precedent, but I would argue that the only thing that makes sense is for the Hiatus to continue until the Ascension address is finished, i.e. dynastic rules do not apply. If that is the case then this proposal literally does nothing.
imperial

Kevan: HE/HIM

11-06-2016 10:17:58 UTC

Isn’t this proposal itself an “action meant to make the game unplayable”, by its own logic? (You’re suggesting that “making the game unplayable” also covers the milder “proposing to make the game unplayable”, which would also cover “proposing to make proposing to make the game unplayable permissible”.)

But yes, as gazebo_dude says, it’s a “should”, punishable by CfJ. If a full quorum voted in favour of an unplayability rule, that same quorum would reject the CfJ.

This is also too broad, as it makes it acceptable to render the game unplayable in other ways, this dynasty. If Brendan still wants to have a game-ending clause, it should have a very specific “this action is not considered to make the game unplayable under the Fair Play rules” clause attached to it, and only it.

against

[gazebo_dude] Hiatus only disallows “actions”, it doesn’t switch off the dynastic ruleset entirely.

Brendan: HE/HIM

11-06-2016 13:29:17 UTC

against