Sunday, May 01, 2022

Proposal: Return Of The Fun

Timed out / quorumed 6 votes to 0. Enacted by Kevan.

Adminned at 03 May 2022 09:26:20 UTC

Add a new dynastic rule to the ruleset, called Facts on the Ground:

Memories of Atlantis may take actions based on their understanding of instructions of the ruleset that are wholly or partially in Atlantean, where that Atlantean does not have an agreed, tracked meaning; such an action is a Interpreted History Action. An Interpreted History Action may only extend to altering dynastic variables, and may not under any circumstances extend to altering the ruleset in any way; Atlantean ruletext may not be interpreted as allowing or endorsing any action that would result in the contents of the Ruleset being altered, nor may they claim to have priority over this clause of this rule.

All Interpreted History Actions must be publicly tracked in a log, along with the section of ruleset that justified it and the precise gamestate change that was made as a result of the interpretation.

When a Interpreted History Action is rendered invalid, either by a piece of Atlantean language gaining a concrete meaning that contraindicates the change made in the Interpreted History Action in question, or directly by the passage of a CfJ, or by the failure of a CfJ or DoV that attempted to establish its legitimacy, the Interpreted History Action in question may be reverted by any Memory of Atlantis and its entry may be removed from the log.

Another try at this.


Lulu: she/her

01-05-2022 23:30:50 UTC



02-05-2022 01:30:38 UTC

Just to make sure that I understand how this works: So basically I could say (e.g) “I take the Interpreted History Action ‘โ—‹ my ๐ŸŒ€ by 2’ and change my ๐ŸŒ€ from โญ to ๐ŸŒ , and that works because I interpret ‘โ—‹ my ๐ŸŒ€ by 2’ to mean ‘change a โญ to ๐ŸŒ ’”?  And then as long as:
1. That action only alters dynastic variables (so no “I declare victory”)
2. That action doesn’t change the ruleset (so no “I add a rule saying that I become Perma-Emperor of BlogNomic”)
3. There aren’t any future Arguments (or CfJs) that change the meaning of the symbol
then the action is fine?

Josh: he/they

02-05-2022 07:12:49 UTC

Yes, although I do want to think about #3 - what happens if two different interpretations clash

Kevan: he/him

02-05-2022 07:47:53 UTC


Given that players were uninterested in requiring DoV votes to be truthful, is “or by the failure of a CfJ or DoV that attempted to establish its legitimacy” meant to deliberately set the stage for “no, I personally think that squiggle means, um, fish, not gold, see it looks a bit like a fish, so you haven’t won” DoV AGAINST votes?

Josh: he/they

02-05-2022 08:19:45 UTC

I think it can be read in the classical way too - if DoV votes are meant to represent a true belief that the person has achieved victory, I think voting against a DoV based on an Interpreted History Action would be justified, on the basis that the meaning hasn’t been solidified.

But what it’s actually doing is just setting the stage for what happens if a DoV gets voted down - that implicitly means that the IHA was wrong, right?

Kevan: he/him

02-05-2022 08:55:20 UTC

Feels like a bit of a house of cards, if that means that any victory that rested on a single IHA (even one taken weeks previously by multiple people) could be brought down with a charismatic “personally I think that squiggle means that if you have five gold then you die” comment during the DoV.

Kevan: he/him

02-05-2022 11:06:48 UTC

On further reflection I think it’s mostly the general “if a claim fails (even a bad faith one) it takes the IHA down too” angle that doesn’t sit right with me. I’ve put a proposal up to amend it.


02-05-2022 18:36:39 UTC



02-05-2022 20:11:11 UTC


SingularByte: he/him

03-05-2022 07:34:36 UTC