Taking Blueprints
Taking Blueprints
Taking Nails
Taking Wood
Taking Kindling
Taking Energy Drink

I’m not in paralysis thankfully, due to what seems to be consensus about Atomic Actions :D

Yes, I’m doing 6 Atomic Actions at the exact same time (this single comment fulfills “Posting a comment in the relevant Crate blogpost stating which item is taken.”).

Anyways, this crate is empty now.

I don’t follow your GNDT comment about the Comfy Chair. You’re arguing that “Randomly choose a Supply that isn’t in a Resident’s Inventory already with the text Blueprints in its name and add it to your Inventory.” has “no range given” and you’re allowed to pick from a subset of items that don’t have the text Blueprints in their name?

I’m not sure what consensus you are referring to. There was a discussion on this in the last crate, yes, and it actually ended in Sam undoing their action so in fact we could really say the consensus, if there was one, was to say that Atomic Actions are series of actions done in order, not at the same time.

I chose it at random didn’t I

An so with that in mind, you can’t take a second item within an atomic action, as it’s illegal by that point.

@Diabecko: I initiated 6 Atomic Actions simultaneously.

All of them at 20:03:06 UTC, at the same instant, to be precise.

Ok I realised after my comment that I misread yours, but still where is the consensus on being able to do several actions simultaneously ?

You already can.

“For gamestate which is tracked in a specific place (such as the GNDT or a wiki page), any alteration of that gamestate as a result of a Resident’s action is (and can only be) applied by editing that data in that place.”

“One GNDT or wiki update may contain one or more alterations, or one alteration may be split over multiple updates, as long as it is clear what is happening and the alterations are otherwise legal.”

You can change GNDT gamestate (only) by making changes in the GNDT, and such a change can have more than one alteration (making all of those alterations simultaneous)

(That’s just an example, but anyways, I assume that the comments relevant to Crate mechanics themselves which are gamestate are tracked as, well, comments to the Crate post)

“Taking an item from a Crate is an atomic action that consists of the following:

  Posting a comment in the relevant Crate blogpost stating which item is taken.
  Putting it into that Resident’s inventory. “

It uses singular pronouns. I reckon that means a ratio of one to one between comments and items. You could comment for each item if that was otherwise legal but it isn’t. I think.

So you can make multiple alterations to the GNDT in one go, ok, but that’s different than saying you can make multiple actions in one go. Actions are causes which have the effect of gamestate changes which in turn result in GNDT/Wiki changes (since “The GNDT merely represents the Gamestate, and is not the same thing.”). So the ruleset says simultaneous gamestate changes are legal, but it does not say simultaneous actions are legal, nor does it say otherwise either (but not saying something is possible doesn’t make it possible doesn’t it).

In fact, the rule doesn’t even say simultaneous gamestate changes are legal, but that simultaneous GDNT changes are legal.

It doesn’t explicitly say that individual gamestate changes are legal either

I just think we either accept there will be some aspects of the rules that have to be interpreted in a “reasonable manner” (such as considering actions must be taken one after the other unless a rule explicitly states otherwise) or we end up with a 200 page legal document covering all the bases just so that proper gameplay can take place. It’s interesting to see scams founded on loopholes in dynastic rules. It’s boring to have them stem from some core edge case.

yep. normal courts can set the example in some places; often, rules deliberately use vague terms like “within reason” specifically to shift the burden away from absolutes that may not always apply

Subjectively, Core rules and dynastic rules (and their scams) feel very similar to me. Dynastic and core rules are both text, but one changes slower than the other. I don’t get what’s so taboo about the slower one.

Anyways @Dia: It’s pretty much why the Appendix exists, to clarify those things. I think I’m not alone in acknowledging that “reasonable interpretation” can vary a lot between players in nomic (and it’s not uncommon to believe that those who can’t see or recognize our interpretation must be fools or dishonest or something. I’ve had people suggest friggin invasions because they couldn’t believe that some others didn’t recognize the interpretation they were convinced to be the reasonable one. They had to be lying! Or immensely daft or unreasonable!).

&Cuddlebeam;& i did read one of those short essays you posted to the agora discussion (or might have been someone clarifying something to you about judges can’t remember), sounds like you’re talking about that dichotomy.

I don’t know which dichotomy you mean but was it maybe this one?
https://agoranomic.org/wiki/wiki/Library/Vanyel.html

that is the one, i read it quite a while ago

Cool. Agora’s also a peculiar place when it comes to interpretation - it relies on whoever is selected to be a Judge at the time, not the consensus like we have with CFJs here.

Which leads to pretty weird situations. Like, getting yellow-carded by one judge’s verdict because you gave a yellow-card to someone for a reason they disagreed with to be legal, but then you card that card because you’re in the right and carding you incorrectly merits a card. But then they card that card. And you card that card. And so on forever - loads of cards you see, card.

Lol anyways, I don’t think Agora could logistically handle the everyone-jury CFJs we have here anyways though.

Core rules aren’t just slower to change - they survive between dynasties, and (at least the way I see it) new players should be able to assume that the core rules are solid and fair, and start playing BlogNomic without scrupulously checking every sentence of every core rule for loopholes first.

If someone wins with a dynastic scam, then the other players are to blame for voting it through, and that’s good Nomic. If someone wins with a core scam they added in 2013 and which no other active player voted on, that’s just annoying.

Core scamming within the space of a dynasty falls somewhere between those - you’re potentially setting up a situation where you don’t use the loophole this dynasty for whatever reason, but either you or another player can use it in a later one, against players who didn’t vote on it.

I’m occasionally tempted to add “no core scams” to the Fair Play rules.

This is like that joke about someone finding a $20 bill on the ground, and their economist friend tells them “don’t bother, it must be fake; if it were a real $20 someone would have picked it up by now.”

A dynastic scam is like finding $1 on the ground. Core scams are like finding the $20 bill on the ground.

Anyway, is this now back to being open to PineTreeQ or Cuddlebeam taking something from the initial list?

I believe so: the relevant CfJ is done :P

No - to be on the safe side, the CfJ didn’t reset the crate. I’ll post a fresh crate when I’m back online from an actual computer, at some point.

I was set to have 7 Health instead of 8 so my priority is now lower than Pine’s. They go first.