Wednesday, May 18, 2011

Proposal: Spring Cleaning


Adminned at 18 May 2011 20:59:46 UTC

Perform the following changes, in order:

1) In “Ruleset and Gamestate”, change “Section Three contains the glossary” to “Section Three contains the Appendix”, and rename the glossary to “Appendix”.

2) Move the entire rule “Dynasties” to be immediately below the rule “Farmers”.

3) From “Proposals”, remove “A Proposal may not also be a Call for Judgment.”

4) Move the entire rule “Gamestate Tracking” to the newly renamed Appendix, immediately below the Keywords section.

These changes are mostly geared towards new Farmers, who’ll probably read the core rules in order the first time.

Reasoning behind each change:

1) It stopped being a true glossary ages ago.
2) This is such a fundamental rule of blognomic that it deserves to be much higher up. Also, it defines the term ‘Landlord’  which is used frequently in the rest of the section.
3) Now covered by “Gamestate Tracking”
4) This is the definition of something that “clarifies the remainder of the ruleset.”, so it belongs in the third section.

The ordering of the proposal, CfJ, DoV and voting rules also bugs me a bit, but I’ll leave them be for now.



05-18-2011 08:18:19 UTC


Kevan: HE/HIM

05-18-2011 08:23:27 UTC

Looks good, and moving Gamestate Tracking is a bold and useful thing. Sadly this doesn’t tidy up the rule numbering after shuffling the core ruleset, though, which ends up making voting impossible. (“The word “Vote”, used as a noun, means a Vote that is cast in accordance with Rule 1.4 “Voting”.”)


(“A Declaration of Victory may not also be any other type of Official Post” is also redundant in Rule 1.9, for what it’s worth.)

Josh: HE/HIM

05-18-2011 08:48:27 UTC


Josh: HE/HIM

05-18-2011 08:48:46 UTC

A holistic re-write of the entire core ruleset would be interesting.


05-18-2011 09:40:35 UTC



05-18-2011 10:12:58 UTC



05-18-2011 12:30:44 UTC

against Rule Number Problems.


05-18-2011 12:33:45 UTC

against Self-kill, reproposing with suggested changes.


05-18-2011 16:39:21 UTC

We should go back to banning referring to rules by number. We used to, and it’d stop all sorts of shenanigans like this. (Perhaps have a core rule allowing rewriting any proposal or rule that refers to a rule by number to refer to it by name instead?)