Saturday, October 19, 2013

Proposal: The Fiscal Cliff

Reached quorum and passes, 6-1, with 1 unresolved DEF. Josh

Adminned at 21 Oct 2013 09:28:50 UTC

If there is any content in the wiki page “Sequester”, remove it.

Add a new rule to the ruleset, entitled The Sequester:

MUST: There exists, on the wiki page titled Sequester, a ruleset. Its contents have no effect on the gamestate unless the gamestate has become Polarised. If the gamestate is Polarised, then all rules in the Sequester are treated as being part of the Ruleset, with the same status as Dynastic Rules.

MUST: Unless specifically otherwise stated by another rule or enacted proposal, the gamestate becomes Polarised at 9am on November 1st 2013. If the gamestate is Polarised then any player may update this rule at any time to reflect this fact. The gamestate is not currently Polarised.

MUST: The Sequester page of the wiki may be edited once per day by each MN. An edit made to the Sequester page by an MN may add content but never remove it, unless it violates a clause of this rule or the change is an effect of the passage of a Voteable Matter.

MUST: No rule on the Sequester page may directly award Victory to any MN, nor may they directly edit or repeal any Core Rule of the Ruleset.

Surely an incentive for us to compromise will make it easier for us to do so?

posted by Josh at 19 Oct 2013 17:43:49 UTC Comments (10)

Comments

Murphy:

19-10-2013 19:42:19 UTC

for (possibly not effective or not yet effective)

Kevan: he/him

19-10-2013 21:21:47 UTC

[Murphy] From “Each MN may cast one Vote on a Votable Matter by making a comment to the Official Post that comprises that Votable Matter using a voting icon of FOR, AGAINST, or DEFERENTIAL.” and “A MN’s Vote on a Votable Matter is the last valid voting icon that they have used in any comment on that Votable Matter.”, I’d say your voting icon became a legal Vote when you unidled, but was never considered to have been “cast”. (Which has no effect beyond some unlikely timeout edge cases.)

for

Purplebeard:

19-10-2013 21:55:03 UTC

for

Larrytheturtle:

20-10-2013 00:01:49 UTC

for

turtlemoon:

20-10-2013 02:19:27 UTC

for

turtlemoon:

20-10-2013 03:34:16 UTC

By the way, does having the same “Status” as the dynastic ruleset mean that it becomes part of the dynastic ruleset? For example, when it gains that status, does the Sequester set get MUST headers on it’s paragraphs? (Assuming some version of Disorderly is enacted.)

Clucky: he/him

20-10-2013 04:13:11 UTC

against

My concern mainly lies around the ability to ignore the second paragraph and the unsurness that arises about the state of Polarization. Does ignoring the statement “The gamestate is not polarized” mean the gamestate is polarized?

Also in general, being able to ignore rule 4 is just way too strong.

For example, I could add “If Clucky ever not idle, then replace the contents of the ‘Disorder in the House’ with ‘Clucky has achieved victory’ and repel ever other dynastic rule”

If the ruleset is polarized, I can immediately do that and win. No one would be able to ignore things anymore. And as you can arguably polarize the ruleset right away (at least for you, which is all you need to be able to legally enforce it), this will possibly end the dynasty before it even really starts.

Josh: Mastermind he/they

20-10-2013 10:23:56 UTC

I think I disagree with your initial premise - ignoring the rule that sets the Polarisation status doesn’t make the ruleset Polarised, as it’s a positive test and the absence of the test doesn’t prove the outcome. The latter point is fair but that should hopefully inspire us all to a swift compromise in the interests of the BlogNomicon people.

RaichuKFM: she/her

20-10-2013 16:15:27 UTC

imperial

scshunt:

21-10-2013 12:13:38 UTC

Josh: there are at least two holes in this which would allow editing of the core rules and/or glossary. that’s one of them.