Wednesday, July 29, 2020

Proposal: Quay-whirred [Appendix]

Fewer than a quorum not voting against. Failed 2-5 with 1 DEF, by Kevan.

Adminned at 30 Jul 2020 09:13:26 UTC

Add the following to the list of keywords (after “Hiatus”):

A label given to something of the game (an individual thing, a relationship between other things, a mechanism, etc), reasonably inferred from context or by having it explicitly defined in the Keyword section. For example, “A Gambler may gain an apple” doesn’t mean that a Gambler gains a literal, real-life apple, but rather, an in-game token which is referred to as an “apple”.

Pending on the laundry list


Tantusar: HE/THEY

07-29-2020 09:52:46 UTC

not unidling

glossary is appendix, not core


07-29-2020 09:59:44 UTC

Ah, thanks, fixed

Kevan: HE/HIM

07-29-2020 10:01:27 UTC

I’m not sure about “reasonably inferred from context” - what kind of situation is that meant to cover?

Does it mean that if we have standalone rules of “a Gambler may gain an apple” and “a Gambler with three fruit wins” (with no further definition of what fruit is), we’re allowed to “reasonably infer” that fruit can refer to apples?


07-29-2020 10:24:49 UTC

I tried to make it so that it covers our usual way of writing rules and we dont have to change anything.

And, hrmmm. About the last part, my intent is that it only refers to the names (labels) and not further categorizations like that, but if it’s not clear, then I should change the wording a bit (not sure yet how, though)

Kevan: HE/HIM

07-29-2020 10:37:29 UTC

What does “reasonably inferred from context” give us that (something like) “referred to by a rule” doesn’t?


07-29-2020 10:49:57 UTC

Being referred to by a rule would nearly everything keywords and it sort of defeats needing to have the concept of a “keyword” at all. It’s a more formal solution to what I have so far, though

Kevan: HE/HIM

07-29-2020 11:18:25 UTC

If the definition doesn’t require rules to refer to them, that sounds like it allows informal game talk to define keywords: in a dynasty with apples and oranges, “fruit” becomes a keyword as soon as we start using it in conversation. And a rule of “gain 3 fruit to win” would be enforceable if enacted (where we’d normally frown at it for being insufficiently precise).

Being able to define undefined terms like this feels a bit risky, if what would normally be seen as a stub mechanic is jolted into life by what can be “reasonably inferred from context”.


derrick: HE/HIM

07-29-2020 15:33:45 UTC

I don’t like having a keyword named “keyword”.

Publius Scribonius Scholasticus: HE/THEY

07-29-2020 17:58:32 UTC


Darknight: HE/HIM

07-29-2020 22:45:47 UTC



07-30-2020 00:46:56 UTC


Raven1207: HE/HIM

07-30-2020 02:02:58 UTC



07-30-2020 02:09:41 UTC