Thursday, October 22, 2009

Proposal: [Theft] Meet the Players

Can’t pass with 11 votes against. Failed by Kevan. -2 to Arthexis.

Adminned at 23 Oct 2009 14:48:11 UTC

Create a sub-rule “Player Pages” under rule “Ruleset Theft”

A player must have a page in the player category BlogNomic wiki at the time he places a vote. The page must have the name of the player as the page’s title. Votes made during times when a player does not have such a page in the player category wiki are considered null and void not counted for the purposes of enacting or failing Proposals. This rule takes precedence over all other rules.

Add the following sentence to the end of rule “Buying Votes (orange)”:

If a Player’s vote on a Proposal cannot be counted due to the effects of rule “Player Pages”, that Player cannot buy additional votes.

dotNomic rule 303. Player Pages. Seems like this can motivate players into actually maintaining a wiki page.

posted by arthexis at 22 Oct 2009 03:15:10 UTC Comments (19)

Comments

Klisz:

22-10-2009 03:29:02 UTC

for

redtara: they/them

22-10-2009 03:34:26 UTC

for I was actually thinking of proposing a similar rule earlier today.

Bucky:

22-10-2009 04:03:37 UTC

against due to extreme ambiguity as to what it means to ‘have’ a page.  This is so vague that varying standards could be used to (a) deny nearly everyone a vote, (b) deny everyone without a wiki account a vote, or (c) deny anyone who hasn’t previously won a dynasty a vote.

Excalabur:

22-10-2009 04:42:19 UTC

All players should have wiki accounts.  If they don’t, if they speak up I’ll give ‘em one.  for 

Arguments about the interpretation of a rule have a solution in this game: they’re called CfJs.  The natural reading of this rule is pretty obvious, and I think any differing interpretation would lose a CfJ.

arthexis: he/him

22-10-2009 04:56:50 UTC

@bucky: Oh c’mon! I thought we were over this senseless grudge? Or are you still voting me down just to keep your lead, uh?

Darknight: he/him

22-10-2009 05:15:35 UTC

imperial

Kevan: he/him

22-10-2009 09:47:38 UTC

against This will invalidate a lot of votes on later proposals in the queue, as I don’t think anybody has a wiki page named after them at the moment (user pages are “User:Name”, not “Name”), and the rule says that votes are invalid if you didn’t have a wiki page at the time you cast them.

Also, admin are free to delete (and prevent the recreation of) specific wiki pages.

Josh: Observer he/they

22-10-2009 11:02:54 UTC

against Enacting admins can delete pages to get desired proposal results.

Josh: Observer he/they

22-10-2009 11:03:34 UTC

(If the pages were protected by the ruleset then this could be amusing and worthwhile.)

spikebrennan:

22-10-2009 13:46:59 UTC

against

Klisz:

22-10-2009 14:04:42 UTC

against CoV

Excalabur:

22-10-2009 14:13:51 UTC

against Per details Kevan noticed.  I do really, really like the idea.

Oze:

22-10-2009 14:57:57 UTC

against

ais523:

22-10-2009 15:22:15 UTC

against because BlogNomic doesn’t have a general rule against admins wilfully deleting gamestate, instead all the cases need to be special-cased in.

Kevan: he/him

22-10-2009 15:57:31 UTC

We have a general rule to protect gamestate, it’s just that the wiki pages described here don’t count as gamestate, because we aren’t regulating the alteration of those pages. (“Gamestate is defined as any information which the Ruleset regulates the alteration of.”)

Do you think we should change our definition of gamestate to include information referenced by the ruleset (but not given any explicit mechanisms of change)?

arthexis: he/him

22-10-2009 22:45:21 UTC

Meh, vetoing it myself for a reproposal veto

arthexis: he/him

22-10-2009 22:48:32 UTC

Oh wait, I can’t veto my own proposals, duh…

Qwazukee:

23-10-2009 06:20:44 UTC

against wiki isn’t gamestate, hard to make gamestate effectively.

Wooble:

23-10-2009 15:08:15 UTC

against