BlogNomic: The First Dynasty of Desertfrog

I’m against this, because it would remove a part of the game that I find fun to both spectate and attempt.

If it does pass, I hope this isn’t used to punish people who have used scams that rely on clarifications of Dynastic content made via the Appendix: for example, a scam relying on people overseeing how default values work or just has a default value somewhere in the process, or how precedence is solved with contradictory Dynastic rules. Arguably, those would be taboo as well because a lot of formal clarification of Dynastic ruletext relies on the Appendix, which would be a pity.

I’d have said that the location of a scam was where the sloppy or malicious ruletext lay: if a scam uses default values or precedences that are only surprising because a dynastic rule has been written poorly or malevolently, it’s a dynastic scam and it’s the active players’ fault for voting it through.

If it’s non-dynastic ruletext that’s at fault, I don’t think the active players should be punished for not having checked twelve pages of non-dynastic rules, line by line, the last time that they joined the game.

I’m generally for this. But I would be interested in seeing how far we could get with a positive wording, like:

Detectives are encouraged to fix loopholes in core, special case, and appendix rules.

which might get people to tell everyone about the scams. I want to hear about them! (well, the good ones)

That sounds like BlogNomic would be happy to see a core scam victory so long as the scammer also closed the loophole behind them (which they would anyway, if they had any sense).

I can agree with that, although not all Core rule scams involve things that the scammer themselves know a good solution to. Personally it has happened to me with rules that involve some kind of tricky IRL logistic, because it’s not as straightforwards as just fixing wording.

For example:

- Garbling the entire ruletext (which would include Core/Appendix/etc) with a loose sentence. I tried it here: (https://blognomic.com/archive/great_scott) , and card came up with the [Core] and such tags in response. Which I find brilliant, and I couldn’t think of a similarly good solution for the problem (and outside of scam protection it works to warn people of important proposals in general). In fact, I didn’t think of it as a solvable problem in the first place because all scams involve surpassing people’s perception in some way and I didn’t think of approaching the problem in the way card did.

- Deliberately timing out Atomic Actions - which I tried during Pokes I and it got Fair Rule’d out, which I consider a poor barrier, but I don’t know a better solution.

When I say “that sounds”, I just mean that Pokes’ suggested positive wording sounds as if it’d be endorsing that, not that I think BlogNomic is currently happy with this idea.

(Any half-decent core scam would close its own loophole, to stop another player from immediately exploiting it in response, so I don’t think it changes anything to say “core scammers should close loopholes if possible” - they always will if they can.)

What’s the definition of scam here? it seems like a tricky word. Are we taking intent into consideration?

I think it’s intentional that Fair Play guidelines are a bit subjective (I know I had to repeatedly fight to get any definition of “spam” in there at all). They don’t trigger anything automatically when tripped, and I can’t imagine players would ever vote to evict a player for breaking Fair Play accidentally.