I don’t think you can just arbitrarily add things to the gamestate. It represents variables that are publicly tracked as specified in the rules. If there’s no dynastic rule backing it, then it’s not a legal gamestate.

The dynastic gamestate page is gamestate, so proposals can add information to it directly without the rules as a mediator. The proposals can’t make that information mean anything.

However, I do not think this proposal successfully identifies the dynastic gamestate page in the first place.

no JDark, you /can/ arbitrarily add things to the gamestate. Proposals “change the Ruleset or Gamestate”. i suppose the only argument against would be that the appendix definition of Gamestate is “Any information which the Ruleset regulates the alteration of”, but arguably the ruleset regulates the alteration of The Scale Model wiki page.

that said, i do think this should come with rules so that that gamestate, like, means anything. and btw, Maldor: as-is, this proposal isn’t ~300 characters for the sake of Brevity, it’s /zero/, because it adds no text to the ruleset!

oh, Bucky snuck in a comment while i was typing. yes, i do think that Bucky has a point that this doesn’t actually call out the Scale Model in specific for its changes. Maldor, if you want to change the dynastic gamestate tracking page in a proposal, you’ll want to have it change the wiki page mentioned in the Special Case Rule “Dynastic Tracking”.

(also, i missed a couple words in my above comment. i meant “arguably the ruleset regulates the alteration of [everything on] The Scale Model wiki page.”)

@bucky So calling the “scale model” side bar by the wording “In the Game data” is not referencing the wiki page correctly? Am I right with that? I ask so that I can correct this.

@lemon Another misreading of the brevity ruleset on my part. I passed 9th grade english, I swear :D. Despite that, this proposal is meant as a framework from which other proposals can build on. Given how I was operating under the understanding that brevity applied to the proposals wording in the post and not the fact that the proposal would itself add to the ruleset, I hope you can forgive me for the thinking.

Remind me, would it be frowned upon to add some additional items that did not make it because of previous bad thinking with the ruleset? If not I’ll just add a second proposal and go from there.

I guess it just never occurred to me to have gamestate without rules that gave meaning to them. I’m not sure how much value it really adds to the dynasty, but ok.

Maldor, I owe you an apology. This felt like the Proposal of someone new to BlogNomic, so I approached it as such, but I’ve come to realize that you’ve been around a while, certainly longer than I have, and I’m sure you know the rules far better than I do. My only excuse was that I was taken aback by the idea, but I see that it’s my personal preference to have the gamestate backed by rules, and I shouldn’t let my preferences get in the way of interpreting the legality of a Proposal.

@JonathanDark I think I do agree with your interpretation though. This feels like it needs a full rewrite.

@Maldor, in my interpretation of the rules, adding information to the gamestate page isn’t the same as making it into formally tracked variables. Even if it were able to be classed a variable (as opposed to just static text), it would become orphan pretty much instantly on account of its (non-existent) definition not declaring where it’s tracked.

Plus, even if it technically worked, any new players who want to join the dynasty would probably be caught out by gamestate that doesn’t have any rules. It seems a tad impolite to force them to read past proposals to figure out why undefined objects are sitting in the gamestate document.

(Also, as others have said, you need to alter the Dynastic Tracking special case rule to move away from Scale Model.)

I think this proposal is a total no-op. The first change fails to change the Ruleset due to tagging. The other changes then modify an undefined Workshop.

An alternate interpretation is that the first change is supposed to apply to all gamestate, including past proposals and comments, which is unreasonable.

I agree with Bucky that this misfires. I also don’t see the justification for changing the name of the gamestate tracking page, given that the proposed replacement is much less charismatic.

aye, ditto the others

The Scale Model wiki page tracks specific pieces of gamestate (the “publicly tracked” ones), but the page as a whole isn’t itself gamestate. It’s legal for players to add other notes and decorations to the page that aren’t mandated by the ruleset.

Surprisingly, a proposal to add a sentence to the wiki page is actually legal these days in a way that it didn’t used to be (an enacted proposal’s “stated effects are immediately applied in full; the Admin Enacting it shall update the Gamestate and Ruleset”), but since the added sentence isn’t defined anywhere as being gamestate, it wouldn’t do anything and it would not be illegal for a player to erase or alter it.

Ok, I’m glad to see that I’m not the only one that felt that this was off. I just didn’t explain my feelings about it very well.

@jonathandark for what its worth, I’ve made 3 mistakes over the course of the day with regards to Blognomic, and while true, I’ve been around longer than you (2015 if the PMs are anything to go by), I feel like you have a much better grasp on things than I do so don’t sweat it.

But I’m taking away that if something needed to be added to The Scale Model that it should have some root in the ruleset.

Kevans thought about the wiki does bring up a good point though. I’d be interested to see how that can be used.

For now though, I’ll save what little face I can and kill it