Monday, August 03, 2015

Story Post: Test: Mystery Meat

  • Task: In the comment in which you Accepted the Test, write either A or B. Further instructions will be included in a Post titled “Revealing the Mystery Meat” within one hour of the Acceptance Deadline, the contents of which will then be considered part of the Task.
  • Acceptance Deadline: 11:00, Wednesday 5 August, 2015
  • Completion Deadline: 11:00, Sunday 9 August, 2015
  • Reward: +10 Learning
  • Punishment: -2 Cheese

Comments

Josh: HE/HIM

08-03-2015 11:55:03 UTC

arrow A

I’m not sure that the follow-up post can be considered part of this task, as the relevant rule says that “This [the Test Post] post should include: A Task”, which at the very least implies that the Task can’t be included in anything else for the purposes of success of failure.

Tantusar: HE/THEY

08-03-2015 12:02:36 UTC

However, it doesn’t say there are any limits to what a Task can be. In fact, I could probably replace the text in all the fields with Foobar and it’d still be legal.

(What Foobar would actually entail is another story entirely.)

Josh: HE/HIM

08-03-2015 12:37:56 UTC

Sure, the foobar case would be more complicated, but given that gamestate is defined as “any information which the Ruleset regulates the alteration of”, it’s pretty clear that the follow-on post couldn’t be gamestate, which is very murky.

Kevan: HE/HIM

08-03-2015 12:56:37 UTC

A task of “write A or B, and also do what the ‘Revealing’ post says, if it exists” would be okay. This wording isn’t synonymous, but it’s not too far off: if “further instructions” exist, the implication is that we must follow them as part of the task.

“the contents of which will then be considered part of the Task” certainly has no effect in itself, since (as I think Josh is saying) the ruleset doesn’t allow a Task to redefine itself on the fly. But it might not need to.