Friday, December 19, 2008

Call for Judgment: The current checksum is wrong, though.

Destroyed by compromise—Rodlen

Adminned at 18 Dec 2008 22:19:40 UTC

For the current secret rule, the checksum is ad7e987099dbaba794e1f1867ab4e88f, instead of the 64b0ae5b13b7ed6bdb34c1bb60e1af53 in the ruleset.  Therefore, the secret rule Yoda gave us is incorrect.

Remove the dynastic rule “Plot Twist Enabler”.

Ignore the effects of the secret rule that was given to us by Yoda.



19-12-2008 03:15:09 UTC



19-12-2008 03:15:39 UTC

Check it yourself, if you feel like it.

Amnistar: he/him

19-12-2008 03:16:25 UTC


Sorry I typod it in mine, but this is what I was going for.


19-12-2008 03:18:06 UTC


Scrivener’s error.


19-12-2008 03:18:24 UTC

For accountability’s sake,  against .  I’m not happy about it, though.


19-12-2008 03:18:41 UTC

For accountability’s sake,  for .  I’m not happy about it, though.


19-12-2008 03:19:34 UTC


Amnistar: he/him

19-12-2008 03:19:56 UTC


We have a rule for typos, this, however, does not fall under those rules.


19-12-2008 03:20:57 UTC



19-12-2008 03:21:41 UTC

This is a case where the typo can’t be verified as a typo.


19-12-2008 03:22:57 UTC

There is a secret rule.

The secret rule is the one Yoda posted.

Therefore, I enforce that rule. And you should do.


(1) The checksum is NOT the rule—it is a way to verify the rule.

(2) There is no rule that says, “The rule only counts if the checksum is properly validated.”

(3) That being said, we should all use independent judgment to determine what the secret rule is.

(4) Given that the original secret rule matches up to the checksum, I see no valid reason to believe the second secret rule is not equally valid.

Amnistar: he/him

19-12-2008 03:23:58 UTC

from the rules:  “There is a hidden subrule to this Rule, called “Plot Twist”, whose MD5 checksum is “64b0ae5b13b7ed6bdb34c1bb60e1af53”.”

So, the secret rule has that checksum, this rule does not, therefor, this is not the secret rule.


19-12-2008 03:24:24 UTC

The checksum is the rule.

“There is a hidden subrule to this Rule, called “Plot Twist”, whose MD5 checksum is “64b0ae5b13b7ed6bdb34c1bb60e1af53”.”


19-12-2008 03:24:34 UTC

And you all know that the second secret rule is exactly as Yoda posted it. None of you have called him a liar, and I don’t think any of you will call him a liar.

So your argument can only be that the secret rule isn’t valid because the checksum doesn’t work. It doesn’t have to. There’s no requirement.


19-12-2008 03:26:04 UTC

Allow me to rephrase:

Whatever refers to that checksum looks exactly like the rule Yoda put forward, the only difference assuredly being a misplaced space or comma or some other such nonsense that would in no way effect the rule.

This is scrivener’s error.


19-12-2008 03:26:46 UTC

It has to.  The rule we have is not the real secret rule, as they don’t share a checksum.  We don’t know what the ruleset’s checksum means.  That checksum is the actual secret rule, so we don’t know what the actual secret rule is.


19-12-2008 03:28:12 UTC

I was replying to your first comment.


19-12-2008 03:28:14 UTC

The Glossary says:

A keyword defined by a rule supersedes the normal English usage of the word.

Therefore, as written, Rule 2.8 defines Rule 2.8.1’s checksum as the given value, regardless of what the authoritative implementation’s output is (which is no longer considered a checksum because that definition has been superceded.)

As a result, I change my vote to against .

Amnistar: he/him

19-12-2008 03:29:02 UTC

yea, eljefe, you have to understand, Nomic is not based on Intent, it’s based on the written rules.  This is just how it works, you have to be very careful with your rules for just this reason.  It doesn’t matter if everyone KNOWS that you can only increase your relationships by 1 for each plot seed you make, the fact that the rules don’t state it means it’s legal to do more.

Thus, the rules STATE that the secret rule yoda has given us is NOT the real secret rule.  Unless someone can quickly figure out what the secret rule is, we’re better off removing it from the game.

Amnistar: he/him

19-12-2008 03:30:13 UTC

Eljefe, see hwat bucky did there?  THAT is how you word-toss in a real nomic >:P.

Well done bucky.

Clucky: he/him

19-12-2008 03:30:23 UTC

Um yeah. The rule has a checksum. Yoda has to post the rule with the correct check sum.

While Yoda’s post was illuminating about what the original rule was, and while it contained and interesting version of the original rule that would’ve been quite annoying for Rodlen, it clearly didn’t contain the secret rule.


19-12-2008 03:30:31 UTC

That’s like saying we don’t know what was on a destroyed photocopy when we (a) have the original document, and (b) have no reason to suspect the copier machine or photocopy was tampered with.

We have the original document—the first checksum rule that works. Looking at what Yoda says the second secret rule is, we have no reason to believe that actually is not it—it’s the exact same but with the date changed. No reason to suspect foul play.

So yes, I argue, we do know the secret rule.


19-12-2008 03:31:34 UTC

And, because the MD5 thing is very hard to break, we won’t figure it out, leaving the secret rule unknown.

Amnistar: he/him

19-12-2008 03:35:06 UTC

It’s not a matter of fowl play Eljefe.  We’re not saying that the secret rule Yoda posted wasn’t the intended secret rule when the proposal was made, but because of the difference in checksum, that is NOT the secret rule that is in the ruleset.


19-12-2008 03:36:03 UTC

Yoda has to give the secret rule that the ruleset defines.  He didn’t.  He gave us a different, fake secret rule.


19-12-2008 03:36:20 UTC

Also, it took me a minute…but Bucky hit something there.

Per Blognomic, the Yoda’s second secret rule has the checksum 64b0ae5b13b7ed6bdb34c1bb60e1af53.

From Bucky’s reading Yoda isn’t wrong, the website that gives a different checksum is wrong.

Is that what you’re sayin, Buckaroo?


19-12-2008 03:37:53 UTC

The website that gave the different checksum is defined in the ruleset as the website that gives the correct checksum.


19-12-2008 03:38:11 UTC


bucky’s got the right argument down.

Amnistar: he/him

19-12-2008 03:39:45 UTC

Unfortunatley, bucky’s reasoning falls flat:

“(For Blognomic purposes, the MD5 implementation at found at shall be considered authoritative.) “

Therefore, the checksum is still valid with it’s original definition.


19-12-2008 03:40:20 UTC

“(For Blognomic purposes, the MD5 implementation at found at shall be considered authoritative.)”

That cripples Bucky’s argument.

Amnistar: he/him

19-12-2008 03:43:18 UTC

Rodlen, we need to stop cross-positng :D


19-12-2008 03:50:41 UTC

“Subrules of this Rule cannot modify the Ruleset.”

Which would seem to denote that the website is a reference material and not the sole determiner of the secret rule. If the checksum determines the secret rule and not vice versa, then the subrule is modifying the ruleset because…

“The rule’s text shall be held by the Narrator rather than included in the Ruleset; however, it is still considered part of the Ruleset.”

Yoda is the Narrator, Yoda has the rule, the rule is part of the Ruleset.

Even if the reference is not a sub-rule, the rule is still determined by Yoda and not the checksum device.


19-12-2008 03:50:47 UTC

Well, we have the right argument.  Now we just have to wait for people to vote for this CfJ.


19-12-2008 03:54:03 UTC

But the checksum is given as secret rule proof.  If it is wrong, then there is an incorrect secret rule.

Plus, you just said that the checksum determines the secret rule, meaning that the checksum changes the ruleset, not the secret rule.


19-12-2008 03:56:26 UTC

The ruleset defines the secret rule as that checksum, just for proof of not being modified.  If it is wrong, than Yoda is giving us a fake secret rule, as defined by the ruleset.

Basically, the ruleset makes the only legal secret rule the one with the right checksum.


19-12-2008 04:11:17 UTC

I disagree, obviously.

What we’re voting on is whether you believe Yoda or not.


19-12-2008 04:13:10 UTC

5-2. Need four more votes to get quorum.


19-12-2008 04:25:03 UTC

@Rodney:Even conceding that the Yoda’s version of the secret rule is incorrect, all evidence points to the conclusion that the actual secret rule, while not the one given, would have an identical effect.  In this case, Yoda has failed to publish the secret rule, but his failure doesn’t have any effect on who wins.


19-12-2008 04:30:01 UTC

RodLEN, Bucky. I think he got on your case about that before.

Darknight: he/him

19-12-2008 04:32:08 UTC



19-12-2008 04:41:50 UTC



19-12-2008 05:43:18 UTC

Grudgingly against per Bucky.

I don’t know enough to not trust Yoda or any other emperor, being new to BlogNomic, but I want the accountability this requires. That said… well, several years of other Nomic experience has taught me to embrace the kind of reasoning Bucky’s arguing for here.

arthexis: he/him

19-12-2008 06:08:17 UTC