Friday, December 19, 2008

Call for Judgment: Uh-huh…

reached quorum, final vote 0-9—Yoda

Adminned at 18 Dec 2008 19:36:58 UTC

Reverse the effects of the Secret Rule.

Too late, sorry.  The word exactly means it has to be done exactly at that time.  It was not.



19-12-2008 00:27:04 UTC

against No, it merely means that it happens at that time, not that it can only happen at that time.


19-12-2008 00:27:19 UTC

It’s automatic, in other words.

arthexis: he/him

19-12-2008 00:28:28 UTC

Per “2.8 Plot Twist Enabler” the Secret Rule has always been a rule, it did not become one by being revealed, even if nobody knew what it was doing.  against

Amnistar: he/him

19-12-2008 00:30:55 UTC


The GDNT =/= the gamestate.  The GDNT = a visual representative of the gamestate.  Thus, even though we did not update the GDNT, the gamestate WAS changed at that time.


19-12-2008 00:41:28 UTC

Each character has to change their own relationship, as stated by the secret rule.  That is an action.

When we learned what we had to do, it was too late (seriously, giving us one second to do the action?) and, even if we had time, we couldn’t do it thanks to the fact that the rule The End prevents us from doing the action of changing our relationship.


19-12-2008 00:41:40 UTC



19-12-2008 00:43:33 UTC

“each Character shall replace his Relationship” both means that it has to be done manually by each character and that it is an action defined by a dynastic rule.

It is too late now, no matter how you interpret the “exactly” part of the rule.


19-12-2008 00:44:05 UTC



19-12-2008 00:46:04 UTC

When a statistic “shall” change, that means it changes automatically.


19-12-2008 00:48:57 UTC

Basically, my complaint is that it is impossible to follow this rule without breaking the rule The End, and vice-versa.

In fact, a few minutes before the Secret Rule was revealed, we were breaking it.  You see, you have to do the action at that time.  It is an action, but one you must do.  If the rule read “At exactly 23:58:00 on 18/12/08, each Character’s Relationship shall be replaced by 0 minus his Relationship.” then I wouldn’t be complaining, and Yoda would be right on his comment.  However, the way the rule is written turns it into an action that must be done by each character.


19-12-2008 00:51:21 UTC

The action happened 1 second before no more actions could be made, and the action was automatic, so it was legal.

You’re just mad that you lost when you thought you couldn’t lose.


19-12-2008 00:51:31 UTC

for  because Rodlen has a point.

Even though I want a metadynasty just as much as Oze, if not more.


19-12-2008 00:51:59 UTC didn’t read a thing I wrote, did you?


19-12-2008 00:52:17 UTC

I was replying to Yoda just there.

Amnistar: he/him

19-12-2008 00:52:38 UTC

Shall: is defined in the rules as “Is required to”

So, at that time we were all required to change, now the rules don’t state that we have to change it right then and there, just that at that time we are required to change it.

However, the rule doesn’t state how many times I’m supposed to change it…not just once, so really my reputation is in a constant state of flux…

for The rule is sadely written poorly because it requires the characters to change their reputation, not simply change their reputation.

Amnistar: he/him

19-12-2008 00:53:39 UTC

And actually, regardless, we CAN’T change our reputations ourselves anymore, since we’re unable to change the gamestate.  So…yea…we CAN’T change our own reputations.


19-12-2008 00:55:39 UTC

You mean relationship.

Amnistar: he/him

19-12-2008 00:56:17 UTC

yea, sorry, confusing elements.

But the rule does require us to change it, but we can’t change it, because the rules say we can’t change it anymore.


19-12-2008 00:56:44 UTC

Yoda, suck it up. Rodlen beat your attempt to beat his attempt at beating you.


19-12-2008 00:59:31 UTC

Actually, there are two routes here:

(1) “Shall” as in, the statistic changes automatically. If we decide on this, the Dynasty is over and we meta the next one.

(2) “Shall” as in, the Characters are required to change the statistic. In this case, we are all currently in violation of the secret rule. We would then have to make CfJs to change our Relationship statistics because they were required to be changed.

In either case, I view the secret rule as valid. And I don’t even particularly want a metadynasty while I’m still getting my feet wet.


19-12-2008 01:00:27 UTC


Amnistar: he/him

19-12-2008 01:00:33 UTC

there aren’t two routes though.  Shall is defined as “Is required to” in the game, regardless of common usage.

The way the sentance is phrased: “The character shall ____” means that the character, which is us players, have to do ____.


19-12-2008 01:01:04 UTC

You don’t want a metadynasty? Then why were you trying to kill Jason?

Kevan: he/him

19-12-2008 01:02:39 UTC

We have “shall” defined as “is required to” right there in the glossary.

That was a pretty uncharitable twist, as twist endings go.


19-12-2008 01:04:14 UTC

If Characters are required to do so at a certain time, that should mean that it happens automatically.


19-12-2008 01:06:05 UTC


Amnistar: he/him

19-12-2008 01:07:13 UTC

nope, because what it means is that at that time characters are required to do this.  However, we can’t do it now.  It doesn’t happen automatically, we’ve already shown you that your phrasing requires activity on the side of the characters.


19-12-2008 01:07:26 UTC

You can’t vote deferential on a cfj either.


19-12-2008 01:07:55 UTC

Amnistar & Kevan:

Alright, if the reading is then that “all of the Characters were required to change their relationships…” then we are all in violation of the rule. The proper course would then be to CfJ all of our relationships and switch them.


One reason and a corollary.

First, being new to the game and seeing a fairly static game mechanic where the guy who was posting the most was winning, and also little interest in the plot from the rest of the players, I wanted to (a) be contrarian to the current leader (Rodlen) so I could have an impact, and (b) spark some interest in the plot.

Second, and following on the first point, I don’t HATE the idea of a metadynasty; not enough to overcome point one, I’d just rather, between the two, play a normal dynasty.

Amnistar: he/him

19-12-2008 01:09:35 UTC

Yoda, you can vote Def on a CfJ, just not on a DoV


19-12-2008 01:23:19 UTC

“All Characters may add votes of agreement or disagreement in comments to this entry”

It says nothing of deferential or abstention.

Amnistar: he/him

19-12-2008 01:25:25 UTC

oh, you’re quite right.  My mistake.


19-12-2008 01:25:26 UTC


my original inclination was to agree with this.  however, hear me out.

it is generally accepted (in t his nomic, at least) that when an illegal action is done, or a required action is missed, that another player who understands the rules better is allowed to adjust the gndt appropriately as if the illegal action had not taken place, or the required action had.

take, for example, rodlen’s readjustment of my incorrectly administered random occurrence, or yoda’s readjustment of eljefe’s bucks after i donated to him.

this is simply another example of that.  we were all explicitly required by the rules to change our relationships at a certain time; since we didn’t, yoda (or any other player) should be allowed to change the gndt as if we had done so, because it was a required action.

sorry rodlen, i sympathize with you, but i can’t in good conscience agree with this cfj, as it would be going against a lot of precedence.


19-12-2008 01:26:21 UTC

this, incidentally, is why i hate hate hate secret rules.

Amnistar: he/him

19-12-2008 01:27:14 UTC

Yoda -  against
Arthexis -  against
eljefe -  against
Amnistar -  for 
Rodlen - for
Darth Cliche - for

3-3 get your votes in people :P.


19-12-2008 01:28:51 UTC

3-4 at the moment

Amnistar: he/him

19-12-2008 01:31:19 UTC

Yea, I was just collecting all the current votes to make it easier to admin in the future.

Amnistar: he/him

19-12-2008 01:32:06 UTC

against in favor of the other CfJ.



19-12-2008 01:33:27 UTC

Cayvie: Except for the fact that we were required to do it manually at a time when we couldn’t (didn’t know what to do) and now we can’t because doing it is now illegal.


19-12-2008 01:43:09 UTC

And we can’t even correct each other’s actions anymore without a CfJ, because that would be making a dynastic rule action be done, illegal under The End, I believe.


19-12-2008 02:08:13 UTC

That’s why the rule The End only covers dynastic actions, leaving proposals, CfJs, and DoVs alone.


19-12-2008 02:08:33 UTC

Plus, the secret rule was made at a time when I was extremely far ahead in both relationship and plot points.  It made me unable to win by any means, as I was too far ahead in relationship to be able to effectively reverse it.

Kind of an anti-Rodlen rule.


19-12-2008 02:09:29 UTC



19-12-2008 02:11:13 UTC

I believe I first began trying to propose the secret rule back when it was still just the sum of relationships, before it was the sum of relationship * pp.  I never changed the idea from then on.


19-12-2008 02:14:53 UTC

Wrong.  You proposed your first secret rule after the relationship x pp thing had passed.


19-12-2008 02:25:50 UTC

against  for same reason as Amnistar.


19-12-2008 02:37:10 UTC

Still, I never intended it as a direct attack against you but merely as an interesting twist at the end of a dynasty.


19-12-2008 02:51:42 UTC



19-12-2008 03:10:34 UTC

against Checksum is wrong.


19-12-2008 03:24:07 UTC

Has this reached quorum yet?


19-12-2008 03:28:36 UTC

Yes, I think it has.