Proposal: Rereversion revision
Reached quorum 17 votes to 5. Enacted by Kevan.
Adminned at 16 Jan 2010 10:24:16 UTC
In rule 1.7 “Gamestate Tracking”, replace
All updates to the GNDT are logged - if a Guest feels that an alteration goes against the Rules (as they were at the time of the alteration), he may simply undo the effects of that alteration. If such an undoing is disputed, a Call for Judgment shall be raised.
with
All updates to the GNDT are logged. Actions that change gamestate directly (defined in other rules) can normally be performed simply by applying their effects to the GNDT, which updates the gamestate accordingly, unless another rule specifies some other method of performing them; one GNDT update may contain one or more actions, or one action may be split over multiple GNDT updates, as long as it’s clear what is happening and the actions are otherwise legal. A GNDT update that does not perform a rules-defined action does not alter the gamestate; Guests should not alter the GNDT except to correct it to match the actual gamestate (in the case that the two somehow end up different), or to perform an action.
If a Guest feels that the GNDT was altered such that it no longer matches the gamestate (such as by performing an action which was against the Rules (as they were at the time of the alteration), or by any other means), he may simply undo the effects of that alteration. Instead of repeatedly reverting and re-reverting a disputed GNDT update, Guests are encouraged to raise a Call for Judgment instead.
The start of a dynasty is generally the best time to tweak the core rules. What the rules say at the moment clearly isn’t what they’re supposed to say; hopefully this should fix it. This also adds some rules that people have been following for months, but which weren’t explicitly stated, explicitly to the ruleset.
The individual changes: avoid mandatory calling of a pointless CFJ after a GNDT rereversion, allow players to alter the GNDT to match the gamestate if they differ (we’ve been doing this for years, but it’s technically illegal!), explicitly state the informal rule that multiple actions can be combined into one GNDT update, state that players can perform gamestate-altering actions just by changing the GNDT (newbies keep posting them on the blog instead, and technically speaking, I think they’re correct under the old ruleset).
Incidentally, this also clarifies what happens in the case of gamestate that updates automatically at a certain time; the gamestate actually changes, and any Guest can update the GNDT to match the gamestate. This is what we were doing anyway (in, say, Amnistar’s dynasty), but it’s nice to make it clear.
Per ais ^^
I’m a bit conservative when it comes to the core rules, especially when I can’t think of a specific instance where there was a problem that needed fixing.
alethiophile: