“eis” isn’t a spivak pronoun but this can be corrected under Rule 1.1 at the time of enactment.

Otherwise

Also, the rule is a bit misleading in that it suggests that the blog colour scheme is regulated by the rules.  However, I see nothing in the rules that regulates it.

Hmm. This seems to overlook the problem of a GNDT error going unnoticed for a long time - I don’t like the idea that we could get to the end of a Dynasty and somebody could say “Surprise! I should have gained 5 followers instead of 1, four weeks ago, which means that my fifteen mining actions and ten building actions actually gave me five palaces, in the invisible Gamestate (which I have been tracking in a local text file)! I win!”

A Nomic I used to play had a rule that any incorrect gamestate changes more than 24 hours old became legal, if nobody noticed them in that time (and excessive abuse could always be undone with a proposal). Which is perhaps how we’re playing it here, unspokenly.

Kevan makes a good point - and suggests a good remedy (although I’d probably make it 48 or even 72 hours rather than 24).

CoV

I don’t think I’ve ever voted on a prposal before.

My concern with Kevan’s suggestion is that it ultimately condones cheating.  This is because if you can get an error to stand for more than some period of time it becomes permanent.  Under my version a person who acts as Kevan fears will have broken rule 1.7 (“If a Traveller feels that an alteration of any part of the Blogstate causes it to deviate from the Gamestate e should take action to inform the other Travellers of eis belief and to revert the Blogstate so that it correctly reflects the Gamestate so far as it is within eis power to do so”).  Perhaps we need to put some teeth into this, but I don’t think pro-cheating rule is the solution.

To make matters worse, in a dynasty like the last one, there were only a very small number of people who could have definitively stated that a change to the blog was or was not allowed within the ruleset.  Making failure to notice errors (or cheats) grounds for them to become accepted seems likely to create an incentive for players to engage in precisely the sort of opportunistic, outside the rules play that nearly became a problem in the last dynasty.

If the majority of people think that Kevan’s solution is correct then I will repropose with that language.

We don’t need Kevan’s language either.  We have CfJs to resolve disputes.  If the incorrect presentation of Gamestate is thought to be the result of cheating, we CfJ it.  If it’s recent, we correct it.  If it’s very old, we decide if it’s important enough to warrant a CfJ.

Blogstate what? I like the glossary addition but I think that the amendment to 1.7 is superfluous.

too confusing.

There might be a compromise in legalising cheating but still punishing it, without necessarily being able to undo it perfectly.