If someone badly words a dynastic rule, it might be possible to stop all voting or proposing or something equally important.

CfJs can fix that easily enough, and if someone garbles a dynastic rule that badly and people actually vote FOR it then they deserve everything they get.

We can’t completely idiot-proof the game, even as it stands it’s possible for people to completely break the game by proposal - often I’ve wondered if I can sneak a “repeal rule 1.4” clause into something innocuous.

The bug that SingularByte mentions is deathly serious; core rules have no special precedence, meaning that a carelessly-enacted dynastic rule could even break CFJs.  We need a better precedence mechanism.

I’m not sure why SingularByte and Coppro think that the current ruleset is any better at dealing with a badly-worded dynastic rule.

There’s a very shaky backdoor of “well, the ruleset doesn’t explicitly define precedence, so we can ignore common sense and vote to resolve ‘players may vote, but players can’t vote’ to mean ‘players can vote’ and carry on playing”, but this doesn’t seem very different from “well, we broke the game, that was interesting, let’s informally agree to start again with a ruleset that doesn’t include that rule”.

Honestly not that concerned with coppro and SingularByte’s point, but changing this rule to “Unless the contrary is specifically stated, a dynastic rule which prohibits a Farmer from taking an action always takes priority over a dynastic rule that explicitly or implicitly permits that action” would probably remove any concerns.

aguy: this prevents us to try some interesting tipically nomic rules interactions.
The Princeps shall comment a Proposal first, no other Senator may comment a Proposal if the Censor closes the discussion. (stupid exemple)

Anyway, we should specify that the specific case has precedence over the general too.
People may not sell Bananas.
The Banana Seller may sell Bananas by increasing their currency by 2.
ergo
The banana Seller may not sell bananas???

Honestly, the points brought up by coppro and singular fall to the makers of proposals and the voters to not let through a proposal that could potentially break the game.

Ely: Your example is exactly what we have right now with your proposal, as the rule clearly dictates how to instantiate zombies yet also says that farmers cannot instantiate zombies.

Josh: Or even better, rule 1.1 (“This is the Ruleset for BlogNomic; all Farmers shall obey it”).  Now no one has to obey the rules!

[Yoda] I agree, my prop is broken (?) without this, but an ipothetical Banana selling proposal is not fixed by this one, so we need something better, in my opinion.
It was not a negative crithic to this one.
Actually I thought the ruleset did include such a rule.

Yoda: it could occur accidentally. For instance, if someone made a rule saying “Farmers with more than 300 FOOs cannot vote”, that might slip through without people realizing it applies to CFJs and DoVs too. If something broke and gave every Farmer more than than 300 FOOs, we would have absolutely no way to fix the game.

Ely: No it doesn’t.  If you wanted to make a rule like that you could, so long as your dynastic rule explicitly states that it is overriding a core rule.

[Aguydude]
I’ll refer also to my “from the bottom” proposal:
NOW:
No rules about precedence, a rule may say “this rule has precedence over any other rule”. Even two or three rules may say that.
Core rules have NO precedence. On contraddiction, we give Victory away (see PB’s victory in the Sheep Dynasty).
The ruleset is easily breakable, and highly interpretative.
The Seller may sell Bananas for common unwritten agreement.

IF THIS PASSES:
We’ll have highly instable precedence rules, with only one parameter (negative overrules positive). The Seller may not sell bananas.

IF “From the bottom…” PASSES:
We have almost the same unwritten rules as now, but they are written.
The Seller sells Bananas.
People must be careful to what they vote FOR to.

[coppro] But “Farmers with more than 300 FOOs cannot vote” would also break the game under the current ruleset, wouldn’t it? Per the glossary definitions of “may” and “can”, we would be permitted to vote but unable to, which seems straightforward enough.