Wednesday, June 02, 2010

Proposal: Suck it in, like you’re Rin Tin Tin or Anne Boleyn

3-13, cannot be enacted without CoV -Darth

Adminned at 03 Jun 2010 15:01:29 UTC

Add an entry to the Glossary as follows:
A Hook is a word or phrase that is added to the Ruleset by proposal that is not defined or explained in the then-existing Ruleset or that Proposal, such that a definition or explanation can be supplied via a later proposal or game action. A Proposal containing a Hook may, but is not required to, acknowledge the Hook as such by setting it off with {curly braces}, in that case, the curly braces have no game effect and can be removed from the Ruleset by any Admin at any time.

By request.

Comments

Narya:

02-06-2010 22:42:53 UTC

imperial I defer. The last dynasty’s implementation of hooks was unusual: the existence of Arguments meant that the name of a hook was meaningful, but the ability to define them meant that they need not otherwise match their names.  Also, it didn’t work well with implicit definitions, where there was a way to gain the hook as a game state.

Klisz:

02-06-2010 22:43:19 UTC

against  I personally think Hooks shouldn’t continue beyond the previous dynasty.

Bucky: Proprietor

02-06-2010 22:48:02 UTC

against

Galdyn:

02-06-2010 23:04:04 UTC

against  I think that hooks could continue as long as there is a limitation on how many there are, or how to propose them. Specifically so that there aren’t too many of them.

Tiberias:

02-06-2010 23:05:53 UTC

against I might support hooks as a dynastic rule, but I think it’s too early to put it in the core ruleset.  Also, there’s apparently some confusion over what constitutes defining or explaining something (see the comments on http://blognomic.com/archive/dywypi/)

Wooble:

02-06-2010 23:11:01 UTC

against

Darknight: he/him

03-06-2010 00:01:31 UTC

against

spikebrennan:

03-06-2010 00:29:15 UTC

We have always had hooks; this proposal does nothing but create a consistent shorthand to identify them.  Unlike last dynasty, nothing here encourages hooks.  If anything, this makes it easier to ban them.

lilomar:

03-06-2010 02:04:33 UTC

against

Jumblin McGrumblin:

03-06-2010 02:22:15 UTC

for There’s nothing wrong with this rule.  We’re too caught up in what hooks were in the last dynasty, when the whole point was to come up with unusual hooks.  The number of hooks won’t get out of control because, as spikebrennan said, nothing here encourages them.

lilomar:

03-06-2010 02:41:34 UTC

(per tiberias)

spikebrennan:

03-06-2010 03:51:34 UTC

Look- all this rule really does is acknowledge the use of curly braces around a word or phrase that’s proposed to be added to the ruleset, as shorthand for saying “Yes, I know that I’m not defining that rule or phrase.  We’ll get to that later.”  This happens all the time—all this is doing is suggesting a shorthand for that particular kind of explanation.

Klisz:

03-06-2010 03:55:03 UTC

I’m still against per Tiberias, and considering a veto.

lilomar:

03-06-2010 04:04:01 UTC

I am against specifying that shorthand, as I think it encourages the hook-usage from the last dynasty. If it happens all the time and there has never been a rule for it before, and it doesn’t create a loophole or contradiction in the rules, let it ride.

scshunt:

03-06-2010 04:28:04 UTC

against I agree with Tiberias

Aquafraternally Yours:

03-06-2010 06:13:50 UTC

against  Per Lilomar and Tiberias.

omd:

03-06-2010 13:52:32 UTC

for for what it’s worth.  It would make more sense with only a few hooks rather than an explosion of them.

Put:

03-06-2010 14:31:36 UTC

against I prefer the standard “notice something undefined - define it”

Hix:

03-06-2010 16:07:03 UTC

against Ugh.

Rodney:

03-06-2010 21:54:07 UTC

against Should we really be putting core mechanics of dynasties force-killed by proposals in the ruleset?