BlogNomic: The Ninth Dynasty of ais523

Kitchen. This seems interesting, I think I understand the paragraph about what’s applicable to whom… ;o

Bathroom, obv.

It’d be good to have room-relevant rules grouped into a single section, but I don’t think we need the constraint of “can’t affect people in other rooms”, which seems like it could cut out a lot of fun mechanics (running the taps in the kitchen to upset people in the bathroom, having a loud party in the lounge to wake up people trying to sleep in the bedroom, etc).

The Room Rules are going to be put through the proposal system anyway, so any unfair exploits will be caught at that point.

Reminds me of the separate Blo-Gno-Mic rules.

Kevan: One would hope anyways…

If this is building up to letting players add Room Rules outside of the normal proposal system, a mere “No Room Rule can modify the ruleset directly or indirectly” isn’t going to put up any resistance to a serious scam.

@Kevan: I am not planning on proposing anything like that (I’ve already done that before with hilarious consequences).

Also, forgot one another thing: Taking an action specified in the room can indeed change the gamestate of Candidates not in that room, as long as another room triggers on the gamestate change.

For example, if there is a Kitchen action of “running the taps” there can be a Bathroom rule that says, “When the taps are run do something”

  bedroom.

@Kevan how can a scam circumvent “No Room Rule can modify the ruleset directly or indirectly”? That seems like a very tight restriction and a solid foundation for a CfJ against any attempted run-around.

(against ruleset modification anyway - obviously the gamestate is wide open)

CoV

Kitchen
@ Darth you voted against and proposed a room?

Weird.

[Smith] Something like “this is not counted as a Room Rule for the purposes of the rest of the ruleset”, at the end of your room rule. Anything that lets players create legally-binding sentences is a minefield.

Gym. Maybe something to do with a Fitness statistic?

CoV => 

This is failing 6-7-3. Another one where ais can swing the outcome by voting.

I don’t like swinging the outcome, though. It’s not fair, giving me all this voting power!

I need to think about this one a bit more. People voting for/against, argue at me to try to make up my mind!

I still don’t see what we gain by being restrictive, here. I think we’d be fine with just “Hey, let’s have some rules about rooms, make them as subrules to this one.” - we’re just going to trip over and have null or broken rules in the ruleset, when someone accidentally adds a mechanic that would affect someone outside of the room that initiated it.

The Location restriction would also prevent any room rules from having any ongoing effects on people (as the player could negate it simply by leaving the room).

.  We could just do this as subrules of the Locations rule.

Kevan, thanks for the example, but I still think that would be modifying the ruleset, specifically the line in this proposed rule: “Those rules shall be known as Room Rules”, indirectly (it makes itself an exception to that classification, thereby modifying the rule).

CoV:    Kevan persuaded me. And I also like the idea of affecting other rooms.