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.)
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.
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.
BlogNomic is an online Nomic: a self-modifying game where changing the rules is part of the game. Players make blog posts proposing additions or alterations to the ruleset, discussing and casting votes in the comments: if enough vote in favour, the rules are changed and play continues.
The game has been running since 2003 and resets every month or so. Have a look around the wiki for more information and history. New players are always welcome and can join in the game at any time.
BlogNomic is powered by pMachine ExpressionEngine.
Josh: Observer he/they
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.