I will hold that this did not modify the Institutions themselves, but the external game context in which they lay. Furthermore, your interpretation would result in a potential paradox, depending on how you view the chronology of ruleset changes. All in all, I argue that this interpretation is neither accurate nor practical.

what spc said

“Each Institution can be either Powered or Unpowered.” - changing that state is “modifying the Institution”. Yes, it’s impractical and means that all Institutions are permanently Unpowered, but that’s the ruleset we’ve voted into place.

There is no external game context, just the game and the ruleset. Unless the nomic ruleset acknowledges an extra-game state, it doesn’t exist for the purposes of the ruleset, and as both the proposal and the rule it amended are clearly gamestate no external context is either implied or possible.

Thus,  . I personally would prefer a reset that grandfathered the current status quo, but easy come, easy go.

per Josh

This, as far as I understand, gives Chronos and Patrick their instutions from last round for free (as power isn’t reset). It also gives Koen all his money back. Really strikes me as Koen trying to erase a mistake he made the first round

Oh wait, it resets power too. I missed that. So really this is just Koen trying to undo his mistake at the expense of everyone else.

Also there isn’t really a problem. The inactive stuff was all added after the instiutions were all added. Thus they were never changed, they just inherited the inactive state. The only thing that is potentially a problem is that the reactor should’ve have activated. There is no reason to reset the gamestate over that… except y’ know, letting Koen undo his mistake

Oh wait, I need to read better.

There may be a point here, but “lets go by the legal interpretation” isn’t the proper solution which we know how it should’ve all resolved. Its not like anyone played expecting it to all not count. Reset everything to what it is now.

@Josh, I did not mean context external to the game, but rather context outside of the institutions themselves but contained within the ruleset and gamestate. If a rule was created saying “The Reactor shall in fact not be Influenced this round by any means,” that would not alter the Reactor itself, but rather the role that plays inside the gamestate and ruleset. I urge you to consider changing your vote :).

I’m not sure why I would change my vote? The merits of the CfJ seem relatively clear. Powered status is clearly defined as a property of an Institution - “Each Institution can be either Powered or Unpowered” - and there’s no way of getting around that. Yes, it’s annoying, but also sadly accurate.

@Josh the issue is that Koen’s intentions behind doing this don’t feel genuine. The proper thing to do here is to affirm that the current gamestate is the new correct, as that was what everyone intended to be the case, not let someone go back on their mistakes.

I don’t care whether his motivations are genuine or not. The problem that he has described is real and needs fixing. If someone else had caught the error then that would be a different matter, but voting this down leaves the gamestate locked for another however many days, so passing this and accepting the Koen Tax is by far the most rational outcome.

A separate proposal to give people the rewards and penalties they thought they’d gotten from the first Cycle may well get a quorum of support.

If this fails, we’re saying we don’t care that technically all those instiutions were unpowered which is a perfectly reasonable thing to do. Nothing about the gamestate is ‘locked’

Ignoring legal outcomes seems to be not just against the spirit of Nomic, but against the spirit of playing any games at all.

Bottom line for me is, Koen has found a legit issue and presented a fix in such a way that it is both legally necessary and beneficial to him. To you that may be dishonest; to me it’s playing nomic properly and well. Of course it should be resisted as that is also playing nomic properly and well, but not to the point of claiming that the ruleset somehow no longer matters. I’m not sure what we’re playing if illegality is something we are no longer concerned by, or that the game not reflecting the rules is not an issue worth resolving.

weak - I think this is a legitimate issue, but I disagree with this fix

No one is saying the ruleset doesn’t matter. I’m just saying that a mistake was made, everyone assumed a certain outcome, and its silly to go back on that outcome. Its like like there was a loophole someone cleverly abused. Whats done is done. If anyone had been expecting them to be unpowered because of this, I could understand the point. But everyone thought they were powered so why are we resetting everything another cycle?

Theory: the best way to play BlogNomic (or B), from the point of view of winning, is to jam the gamestate some time early in the dynasty, then if it’s going badly, point out that nothing has happened for weeks.

(This sort of thing is why playing BlogNomic to win tends to be no fun for anyone else.)

@ais - depends on your definition of “best”, really. Easiest, certainly. Quickest or most fun, not so clearly. But obviously you can’t be too transparent.

Jamming the ruleset can be fun, though, of course. Of the five dynasties I’ve won, one was a straightforward numberbash using the rules as written, two were scams based on interpretations of rules (one much more valid than the other), and two were as the beneficiary of a consortium who locked down the game to select a winner. I think what you’re talking about is psychologically killing activity by getting rules passed that are impossible to work with, and yes, that would be slightly bullshit. That said, my attempt at victory in the last round was based on that premise and failed due to some arbitrary notion of fairness, so it’s not sovereign.

@Clucky - Because our interpretation of the rules clearly turned out to be wrong. The game isn’t a mass delusion and we can’t overturn ruleset ambiguities by wishing them away.

As an aside, this is all based on the premise that failing this CfJ constitutes a collective acceptance that Koen’s issue goes away. It doesn’t; a failed CfJ has no effect on the gamestate whatsoever. Failing it on the basis that you don’t like Koen’s solution, in fact, means that there isn’t even implicit grounds to argue that there is consensus on the issue, as the reason it will have been voted down is unrelated to the merit of the actual case. In other words, voting this CfJ down will not resolve the problem and leaves the game vulnerable to it reasserting itself at a later date if someone else finds it convenient to do so.

There is also some ambiguity now - does “one Credit to every Player for every Institution which they Directed at least one Credit to” mean in total or just Cycle 1?

  COV

Please notice I’ve gone idle and my vote no longer counts.