Wednesday, March 27, 2024

Story Post: Upgrade Request: Snap 016

Cannot be enacted with 3 votes AGAINST. Josh

Adminned at 28 Mar 2024 18:20:14 UTC

Snap 016 contains a found instance of the BlogNomic name of another Seeker (Nadnavillus).

Your tidal cheque will be 0.01c heavier this month and that’s all down to me. Don’t allow it to affect your voting though, that would violate the rule No Cooperation


Kevan: he/him

27-03-2024 19:45:06 UTC

Hmm, there is a space in the screenshot name which isn’t in the username, though.

Josh: Observer he/they

27-03-2024 19:54:07 UTC

BlogNomic usernames can’t contain spaces.

JonathanDark: he/him

27-03-2024 20:22:15 UTC

for But I think it reveals another gap which should be closed. I made a Proposal about it.

Clucky: he/him

27-03-2024 20:34:47 UTC

against as it does not actually contain the name “Nadnavillus”. It contains a space. And as has been pointed out, BlogNomic usernames can’t contain spaces. So its impossible for it to contain the BlogNomic username

NadNavillus: he/him

28-03-2024 11:52:14 UTC

for I’m famous!

Kevan: he/him

28-03-2024 16:14:26 UTC

Leaning mildly against per Clucky (if I crop a photo of the sign of my local BANJO SHACK, I’m not sure I could be said to have found Josh’s username), but more against per “where the found instance cannot be from a screen” now having enacted.


JonathanDark: he/him

28-03-2024 17:22:18 UTC

I would change my vote, but “where the found instance cannot be from a screen” was not enacted at the time of the upgrade request, so I feel like we’re bound to honor the request with the rules in place at the time of the request, rather than retroactively applying enacted rules in the time span between the request and its closing.

Kevan: he/him

28-03-2024 17:50:32 UTC

Up to you. When you cast your vote the ruleset said you “should vote FOR” based on your belief, and the ruleset is now silent on how you should vote, because this Request either doesn’t specify a valid Upgrade Benchmark, or implicitly specifies the “cannot be from a screen” one that it doesn’t meet. I guess no rule actually compels us to ever vote AGAINST these posts.

Not sure what will happen if this enacts - Josh will either get an Upgrade point with no Benchmark attached to it (so can claim the “not from a screen” one as well later on), or one with the “not from a screen” Benchmark implicitly attached even though this didn’t meet it.

JonathanDark: he/him

28-03-2024 18:11:20 UTC

Hmm, you do have a point. The Upgrade Request is supposed to contain “a single Upgrade Benchmark that it purports to meet”, and at this point, there is no Upgrade Benchmark that matches what this request claims. I forgot that the claimed Upgrade Benchmark is part of the gamestate attached to the request.

CoV against