BlogNomic

I mean, if it was an illegal entry, then he illegally edited the ruleset and you should be able to edit it back to reflect the true gamestate without cfj?

Not really much reason not to vote for.

The platonic gamestate is what it is whether the Ruleset reflects that or not, but, the Ruleset doesn’t have a clause referring to fixing illegal edits of itself, I don’t think?

But there is such a clause for the GNDT.

actually, upon looking at it, as it is currently worded, that page IS the ruleset and a platonic gamestate/ruleset does not exist.

Well, it does for the gndt. Not the rest. That is weird and kinda silly and we should change that.

though I don’t understand why you couldn’t just update the ruleset page as well…

Previously, gamestate was that Person had attempted to perform an action (enter the lottery) that they weren’t allowed to do

Now, gamestate is such that Person has attempted to perform an action (randomly add their name to the lottery list) that they aren’t allowed to do.

If this fails, we’ll arguably need another CfJ to reset Person’s paper to 12. Would’ve been better to either leave it at 12 and have the CfJ reset the whole action, or reset the whole action and if Person disputes, then they can use a CfJ to resolve

If someone illegally passes a proposal and edits the ruleset as a result, I can change that and reset the ruleset. how is this any different?

You legally can’t do that. The ruleset has no clause saying you can undo illegal edits. It is kinda a problem actually. I never realized it before just now while looking at it because of the CFJ.

if an action isn’t allowed to be done, i’m not sure why you need a rule to undo the doing of that action.

like, its probably a good thing to clarify. but I don’t think its illegal to revert illegal ruleset changes

I think there *is* a platonic ruleset that can’t be illegally modified.  But I also think serious disputes about the state of the Ruleset should be handled by CfJ rather than admin fiat.

Yeah.

And possibly leaning towards more CfJs than strictly necessary is a lot better than leaning towards fewer, I think.

I think the existence of the platonic ruleset is implied by “The Ruleset and Gamestate can only be altered in manners specified by the Ruleset.”, (thus, illegal changes didn’t happen, because they can’t) but actually being able to fix the appearance of gamestate to match the actual, platonic gamestate is fuzzy, except in the case of the GNDT.

CfJs are an unnecessary hammer at times though. In a case like this, I feel like there is no actual dispute. Person just misread the rules. Once they get on, I imagine they’ll agree with Bucky’s interpretation. I feel like we should only have to use CfJ’s when two player actually disagree on a interpretation of the rules.

If fixing something can only legally be done by CfJ,

Then, even if everyone would unanimously vote FOR such a CfJ,

It still needs to be made to legally fix the thing.

Incidentally, the Lottery Room isn’t a real location.

Terribly sorry, I forgot the location requirement.