BlogNomic: The First Dynasty of Desertfrog

And I am using an optimistic interpretation. If we where pessimistic, we could say that since the two terms are different, no one should have any SP.

Help me with “revert all effects” with a fungible currency.  If I socialized myself 2 more SP (total 4) and then bought myself into free agency (leaving me with 2 again) would my employment revert or my remaining 2 revert?

(sorry, meant 1 not 2 for buying out employment).

I am guessing everything you did would have to be reverted.

ah, hmm… that means if my SP affects anyone else in the meantime those are all reverted; can freeze the game that way. 

CoV due to the reversion clause; I disagree with flurie and I don’t agree with your analysis; the text is clear from the context.

@coppro: If the CfJ I will asume that both rules are undestandable from their context and not in error.

The error flurie cited isn’t entirely clear. I don’t care enough to argue since there’s a fix in the works, and we can just try not to give ourselves SP for socialism and the world will go on. I think the one you cited is clear.

I just gave myself SP due to Socialism. If I don’t grab it now, we won’t be able to grab it due to the timing restrictions of claiming SP.

Okay, here’s why I voted against:

- The reasoning in the first paragraph doesn’t make sense.  “Eligible to receive X” and “eligible” are definitely the same thing (if the latter refers to the former), but “eligible to X” is a different construction.  I think it’s an obvious synonym, but if it weren’t, “eligible” in “Stimulus Package” would still refer to “eligible to receive a SP”.

- There is no point in reverting actions - it would be better to say “change the gamestate to what it would be if this had always been true”.

My reasoning is the same as comex’s. “eligible to 1 SP” is unclear.  The implied word could be gain OR spend. While gaining SP is clear from dynastic rules, spending any currency is described in the appendix, so there is no reason for a dynastic rule needing to describe the process. For that reason, I believe that the rule does nothing in its current form.

I think the phrasing is reasonably clear. Compare “entitled to cake”: the most natural reading is “entitled to have cake” (implying an entitlement to receive cake, given context); “entitled to lose cake” would be an entirely unreasonable interpretation.

Pavrita, you’re using a different word. How about the phrase “eligible to cake”? It doesn’t parse, and that’s because there’s a word missing.

I just noticed this in the Glossary (3.3.1, first bullet point):

Any situation which would require a roll of DiceX when X is zero or lower always yields a value of 0 unless stated otherwise.

This may affect the consequences of certain recent events.

Pavitra: Good catch.

Even before Pavitra’s comment, I’d already fixed at least one GNDT action that was contrary to that rule. There may be others.