“Add a new rule”

“This rule of the BlogNomic ruleset has precedence over”

“No Gambler may”

I’m going to need to have a long hard think about the substance of this Proposal.

“for the purposes of this ruleset”

Unless I’m overthinking this, it seems very tricky to actually confirm from here that something has legally happened in another game, when any of that game’s documents could be faked or mistaken. Saying “if a player has won game 987654 at boardgamearena.com” would only leave us open to inside-job manipulation from an admin of that site; for a blog game where we all have write access to its gamestate and rules pages, it’s a lot more like nailing jelly to a wall.

@Tantusar we’re all going to have to have a long hard think; this hasn’t been posted in the serious expectation of passing

@Kevan The assumption of player goodwill is doing a lot here, I accept.

One issue: the second bullet point has to include an exemption from proposal limits.

Nomic is a game of scams, though. The easy one here is that “There exists a trial game of BlogNomic, which is found at wp.blognomic.com” - I can challenge you to a game of noughts and crosses in blog comments there, and we agree to call it “a trial game of BlogNomic”. If we pin things down more carefully and refer to “the game whose rules are on the wiki page Second Switch Ruleset”, a player could still edit that page (illegally) to define a new game, and the EE ruleset wouldn’t be able to tell the difference. I’m not sure any level of accuracy solves the problem, when we’re always looking in to the other game from the outside.

Nomic is a game of scams, but some scams are more worthy than others. There’s about fifty different players, over the years, who had the opportunity to (legally) repeal the whole ruleset and annoint themselves the Forever Emperor of BlogNomic; many of the current players are on that list. It hasn’t happened because even BlogNomic has standards. While we expect scams in regular gameplay, it’s not completely unreasonable to expect that the existential meta-context of the game would preclude egregious fuckery.

I’m not following the Wordpress game at all - if it’s a light tire-kicking exercise with a lot of overlap, then perhaps none of its players would object to an EE-dynastic scam to end it? But you’re probably right.

I’ve just been toying with rules like this already and finding it interesting how you can’t determine “the winner of Wordpress dynasty” from here, in a manner that’s anywhere near bulletproof. The best I could come up with would be to say that 75th Trombone may declare here who the winner of the Wordpress dynasty is (if they’re the Emperor over there?), and whatever they say goes.

Appreciate this being a straw poll to clarify what’s actually happening with the switch games, but there are some grey areas. (The biggest one is maybe “Proposals made at BlogNomic.com may affect the trial game as if the trial game were part of the gamestate governed by this ruleset.”, where the may is flapping around as either “have permission to” or “have the possibility to” - if I’m an admin enacting “replace X with Y” here at EE, am I also expected to check the Wordpress ruleset and replace it there?)