BlogNomic: The First Dynasty of Desertfrog

I prefer it this way.

Doesn’t it say it’s renamed.

You are right Quazukee. That rule should probably be amended. But it does mention the fact that each Bill Murray can have “additional” of each commodity. Hinting that they retain said commodity.

Actually, I don’t like that rule at all. Renaming a GNDT column isn’t easy.

I think this rule is in dire need of being rewritten.

In fact, enacting this would probably imply redefining a couple of things in the English language.

You guys all vote against this CfJ with invalid reasons.

1. Preferring it the wrong way, I cannot help, it should’ve been written that way in the first place.

2. Yes, it’s renamed, but that in no way involves converting an old GNDT quantity into a new one. It would have to say that pretty explicitly for it to happen.

3. Hinting at something is not an effective way to run a nomic.

4. [no reason given]

5. Nothing would be redefined in the English language, I’m not sure where arth is trying to go with this.

Looks like we’re gonna just have to repeal the Rule if this fails.

If you rename a street in honour of someone, do you tear up the street? No. The street stays the same. It’s just the label that changes.

Also, the rule neither states that we SHOULD smash, or we SHOULDN’T smash our metaphorical street. It however, hints that we shouldn’t smash, so we should take the hint, because of the lack of a better-defined choice.

In any other situation where a quantity which was defined in the Ruleset becomes undefined, that quantity no longer exists for game purposes. The Rules do not specify a method for switching one commodity to another; in fact, the Rule doesn’t even imply that the quantity carries over.

Rather, it seems clear that a new quantity (with a new, specified “default value”) is created each week and the old statistic goes defunct.

Just looking at the Rule, it is apparent that what we’ve been doing is quite wrong.

Here’s a comparable metaphor: When Italy switched to the Euro, the Lira became valueless. True, there was an opportunity to convert Liras to Euros, because Italy did a good job of planning the switch.

We did a poor job of planning the switch, and thus, we failed to create a way to convert our old currency to a new currency. You see why we have no way to turn our Icicles into Books?

We have a way: Take our bills, scribble out the old name of the currency, write the new one, and use it.

Except our rules don’t say to do that, and we can’t do anything our rules don’t allow. The Rules say to change the accepted currency, not to change the old currency into the accepted currency.

The rules don’t say we can’t do things they don’t say we can do.

Yes it does, that was the lesson I learned from my first ever DoV.

In Rule 1.1: “The Ruleset and Gamestate can only be altered in manners specified by the Ruleset.”

But they don’t say to reset all values, so your method is illegal.

. . . When a value CEASES TO EXIST, then it is reset! Actually, some have argued that such a value should be preserved until the next time such a statistic exists, but that’s a completely different issue. If “Icicyles” is ever a statistic again, then we can worry about that.

Since none of us had any Books before, we start with 0, then get the 10 that are granted to us be Book Economics as soon as it came into existence. While you could argue that the Icycles aren’t forever gone, you cannot say that the Icycles become Books. Our Rules don’t provide for that to happen.

Please excuse me spelling “Icicles” wrong multiple times.

The rules don’t say either way, so we could keep arguing to kingdom come about this. I’m not going to. I’m going to sleep.

Excused. I wasn’t going to say anything.

The Rules are pretty clear, but go ahead.

I agree with Qwazukee. Also, the rule never says to change anything in the GNDT either. Also, the rule never said that we were to get rid of tracking the amount of Icicles. So technically, we have Icicles AND books. All the rule said to do was to rename it, and give additional Books. It never said that Icicles are no longer tracked by the GNDT. Our economy is royally screwed.

Unfortunately, we can’t use those old Icicles anymore, because they aren’t regulated by the Ruleset. So we’re stuck with 10 Books (well, most of us).

But that doesn’t make sense. Just because they don’t appear anymore in the Ruleset doesn’t mean they can’t exist. It’s just they can’t be used for anything. No rule says that Icicles have disappeared. That would be like saying just because there is no way to achieve a step in a good deed means that that step is no longer in existence. Right? Please correct me if I am wrong.

I think it was Hix who suggested that your reasoning might be used to scam a win in-between Dynasties (forgive me if I’ve named the complete wrong Bill Murray, I don’t remember for sure).

The thing is, we’ve never tracked commodities that stopped being defined in the Ruleset. There’s no doubt that they’re pretty worthless now. The only possible question is, “Do these statistical quantities retain their prior values when they become redefined in the Ruleset?”

So you are saying that unless explicitly in the Ruleset, that quantity does not exist? So unless Icicles actually appear in the Ruleset, they don’t exist? Why can’t we just add that as a rule? And yes. We do need to have an answer to that. I agree totally.

Yup, unless we say we have baseballs, then we don’t have any. And “baseball” doesn’t have to be what you’d think it is, if we define it otherwise. In fact, we could all be Muffins with mental faculties.  : )

Okay. Well in that case…

Currently failing 4-2.

Yup, and it will stay that way for another 2 and a half days unless someone gets over here and votes. I’ll talk to Wak about it.

Qwazukee, despite all of your attempts at logic, you seem to continuously fail at common sense.

What you are failing to see here is that when “Books” becomes “Ghosts”, the rule which says Books existed in fact never did. Books never convert to Ghosts: Books are Ghosts now. When the rule becomes Ghost economics, rule Book economics not only ceases to exist now, it never existed. Once gone from the ruleset, it was never there.

Why? Because rules only apply while they exist, otherwise we could have rules that continue to apply after they are repealed as if they haven’t. Also, nothing in the ruleset says we should keep track of rules after they are repealed.

Gosh, I feel like Clucky must have felt all those times. I wonder what his and Kevin’s opinions are on this subject.

Part of your argument makes sense, part of it doesn’t. I can understand how Books, in this argument, are as-if-they-never-existed as soon as they exit the Ruleset.

The false statement here is that Books “are” Ghosts now. The whole concept of Books, and everything they represented, are gone. This includes the 14 Books you had before: they become nothing, meaningless.

Then, a new statistic springs up. This statistic is Ghosts. We start with a default number of Ghosts, specified in the rule. The number of Books you had before has no impact whatsoever on how many Ghosts you now have; they are totally unconnected.

Thus, we shouldn’t be converting our Books to Ghosts. That makes no sense.

I’m not actually arguing for keeping Rules after they’re gone. I was playing devil’s advocate on that possibility. It has nothing to do with the issue at hand, however.

@Quaz: Your opinions are wrong ‘cuz I say so.

Furthermore, I made the rule, and obviously it wasn’t an attempt at bending the ruleset or cause your dynasty to collapse.

, but I’m idle and so this vote doesn’t count.

You’ve played this game long enough to know that your actions can have unintended consequences, arht.

i don’t care either what way.

reread. If quaz can argue that theres nothing saying ya keep, then i’ll argue that theres nothing there saying that you don’t keep.

Fortunately, this is now meaningless, allowing the whole affair to come to an ignominious close.