This is explicitly not an attack on the validity of the DoV, which I haven’t made my mind up on yet. Just an attempt at a common-sense solution.

Not for any reason relating to my current scam, interestingly enough, but because I think that gamestate should be redefined instead of gamestate document.

I believe that my definition of gamestate document in the comments to the currently pending DoV is a good one. The problem you are tying to fix would be better served by re-defining gamestate.

I disagree. I think there’s a need for the definition of “gamestate” as it stands i.e. everything that is demarcated as game-space, outside of which nothing can be game-space. There is also an extent to which votable matters and gamestate documents (per this CfJ’s definition) are useful subsections of the gamestate. I don’t see the definitions that you’re trying to establish as being particularly useful - it becomes too amorphous and ill-defined to be particularly helpful.

If you want to separate that subsection out, I think you should use a different term so that it is clear that you are not referring to a document of gamestate when you say “gamestate document”.

Terminology that doesn’t refer to what it seems to refer to is bad in general.

Arguably, this way is actually much more accurate. Things like the current Inventory page are gamestate; are complete, self-contained documents; and are currently undefined in the ruleset. It’s far more sensible to call that a Gamestate Document than, say, this comment.

Well, we’ll agree to disagree then, I believe that this comment should be a gamestate document since it contains gamestate, and I don’t believe that we are likely to convince each other otherwise.

Not that your definition would be game-breaking, it just seems counter intuitive to me.

But look at me still talking when there’s sci…I mean, scamming to do. I should probably be focusing on my DoV instead of arguing about this here. :-D

Oh, it should certainly be gamestate. In fact, it pretty much has to be. Just not a gamestate document :D

(simple) This is very buggy. Your definition of “gamestate document” defines, say, the rules of Agora and the US Declaration of Independence to be gamestate documents.

It also doesn’t fix the original issue (the self-contradiction in the rules).

Bleh, yes, I miswrote that I think it’s covertly because I prefer the simple option.

I don’t think your second point is germaine - just because it’s not fixing the problem you want to fix, doesn’t mean it’s not fixing a problem - but nevertheless.

I think lilomar wins fairly per my post in the DoV.

h2g2guy: this cfj doesn’t really have to do with my winning or not, it’s just trying to fix some issues that were brought up as a result. It is broken though, per ais.

Yup, lilomar can win or fail to win regardless of whether this passes or fails (it even says so explicitly); it’s the same with the other fix CFJs. This is simply to determine how to clean up the mess. Whether he wins or loses will be decided by the DoV.

simpler

per ais523.

Strongly