Tuesday, February 15, 2022

Proposal: Rolling the Dice

Timed out unsuccessful, 4-4. Josh

Adminned at 17 Feb 2022 10:06:46 UTC

If the sentence “Each Player has a number of Points, which is publicly tracked.” does not exist in the ruleset, add it to the rule “Points”, creating that rule if it does not exist.

Add a new dynastic rule, titled “Side-Betting” that reads:

Each player has a wager, which is a publicly tracked integer. As a daily action, a player may reduce their number of points by 1 and increase their wager by 1.

Each player has a Lock, which is publicly tracked, is either empty or a string containing the name of an active BlogNomic player. and defaults to empty. A player may update their Lock to read the name of any active BlogNomic player as a daily action. If a player’s Lock is invalid, then any player may set it to be empty.

If “Let’s Tic-Tac-Go” has been enacted, then add to the end of the rule “Tic-Tac-Toe Rules”:

* Give every player whose Lock names the player who won the last round points equal to twice their wager.
* Set every Player’s wager to 0

If “Let’s Tic-Tac-Go” has been enacted, then the remainder of this proposal has no effect.

If “Draught Board” has been enacted, then add to the end of the rule “Tic-Tac-Toe Rules”:

* Give every player whose Lock names the player who is performing this action points equal to twice their wager.
* Set every Player’s wager to 0

 

Pardon all the conditionals, Tic-Tac-Toe Rules is kinda up in the air right now.

That being said, enjoy betting on the games, rather than always needing to win them (You’ll still need to win at least one, though)

Comments

TyGuy6:

15-02-2022 06:57:31 UTC

I can’t wait to see what happens if both Draught Bored and Let’s Tic-Tac-Go have been enacted.

Greentick.

TyGuy6:

15-02-2022 06:58:15 UTC

Oh, right, I literally skipped over the in-between line while reading, and got back to it right after typing that last comment.

Lulu: she/her

15-02-2022 10:36:31 UTC

against

Josh: Observer he/they

15-02-2022 11:59:52 UTC

“Give every player whose Lock names the player who is performing this action points equal to twice their wager”

‘Names’ is a verb that can be used in ways other than that intended by the author.

against

Zack: he/him

15-02-2022 13:16:27 UTC

@Josh Can you explain? A lock can only be “empty or a string containing the name of an active BlogNomic player” so it’s not like someone could set their lock to something ambiguous that may resolve to multiple players.

Josh: Observer he/they

15-02-2022 13:21:55 UTC

Hi, Zack! I name you… Clucky! Yes, Clucky shall do nicely for you, and as this is a perfectly acceptable use of the verb ‘to name’ I anticipate that there shall be no objection to me scoring for your win despite my lock saying Clucky, for that is what I have named you.

Lulu: she/her

15-02-2022 13:33:28 UTC

oh no the horror of identity theft is sinking in

Zack: he/him

15-02-2022 15:17:12 UTC

@Josh No, that doesn’t work, and that’s why I told Supernova to phrase it this way. No player is doing any naming, the verb “names” is done by the Lock. The Lock doesn’t have free will and merely holds the name of an active Player.

Josh: Observer he/they

15-02-2022 15:27:14 UTC

I’m glad you’re satisfied of that; I am not, and I don’t think that you can trust that a CfJ on the subject would go your way. I’m happy with my vote.

Zack: he/him

15-02-2022 15:49:00 UTC

against I wasn’t trying to convince you to change your vote…

Brendan: he/him

15-02-2022 18:00:11 UTC

for :D

Snisbo: she/they

15-02-2022 18:22:01 UTC

@Josh do you have another way to phrase it? I couldn’t think of anything that worked as well as that (Other than the lock “is the name of…” and that has a whole mess of other problems)

Josh: Observer he/they

15-02-2022 18:52:28 UTC

“Contains the name of the player” maybe?

TyGuy6:

16-02-2022 03:42:58 UTC

for

Snisbo: she/they

16-02-2022 06:21:29 UTC

@Josh, and if I create a new account with the name ‘the name of the player…’, then set my lock to that? There’s really no perfect solution, and I think the plain English usage here is that “naming” means referring to something by name.

Josh: Observer he/they

16-02-2022 07:32:20 UTC

@Supernova You can’t; names must be “between 4 and 30 characters in length, and may only include the 26 letters of the Latin alphabet, numbers, underscores, hyphens, full stops and apostrophes”.

wdtefv: hu/hum

16-02-2022 09:59:25 UTC

imperial

DragonSlayr15001: he/him

16-02-2022 10:16:21 UTC

for sounds interesting

Raven1207: he/they

16-02-2022 13:31:10 UTC

for

Snisbo: she/they

16-02-2022 15:21:22 UTC

@Josh, Oh yep. Well, if it seems to be a problem, we can always fix it, but I really do think that it quite obviously can’t change someone’s name.

And besides, it’s *if* it names something, and “if” doesn’t give the power to do something new. Unless there’s a way to name someone elsewhere in the ruleset, that shouldn’t be an issue.

Brendan: he/him

16-02-2022 20:14:07 UTC

against

Brendan: he/him

16-02-2022 20:14:39 UTC

(In favor of betting, but I think the “name is a verb” issue is real.)

Josh: Observer he/they

16-02-2022 20:56:36 UTC

@Supernova I’m not convinced by any argument that rests on intent; there’s plenty of convention that suggests that if a read is grammatically defensible then it’s often allowed to stand.

Snisbo: she/they

17-02-2022 00:45:51 UTC

I would still argue that saying “if xx is done…’ doesn’t inherently give the ability to do xx, but I see your point.

If I were to repost this with that patched, what would likely be your vote, Josh, Jumble, and Brendan? (I really like this idea, makes it easier to skip a day if you need to as I often do)

Lulu: she/her

17-02-2022 00:52:03 UTC

Nah, I’m opposed to Betting in general.

Josh: Observer he/they

17-02-2022 07:49:49 UTC

Probably, yeah! I like the betting angle; I liked it in Giolitti and I reckon I’d like it here too

DragonSlayr15001: he/him

17-02-2022 07:52:50 UTC

for