Sunday, August 22, 2021

Proposal: Walking the Walk

Fails 2-8 with Quorum AGAINST. This is within 48 hours of posting, so the silent Legislators gain Empathy.-Bucky

Adminned at 23 Aug 2021 01:40:13 UTC

Add the following to the list in the “The Veto List”

It fulfills the requirements of every new entry which, were it to be enacted, would be added to this list



22-08-2021 02:49:31 UTC

I like this, and plan to vote for it. (Are we still using flavour-arrows? If we were, I’d give this an arrow.)


22-08-2021 03:10:29 UTC

This is ambiguous in its effect; it could, hypothetically, apply to the entire universe of proposals that will never be written but which would (if they existed and were legally enacted) add an entry to the list.

Even if it doesn’t, it’s trivial to render any proposal misfit under that regime by writing a later (possibly misfit!) proposal that adds a contrary entry to the list. One proposal can render the entire queue misfit that way. In short, if this passes, Clucky trivially wins.

Of course, one could interpret the antecedent “it” in “were it to be enacted” as the proposal rather than every new entry, but no reason to leave that open.  against in favor of Self Consistency whose grammar is far less ambiguous.

Clucky: he/him

22-08-2021 03:28:10 UTC

proposals are only effected by the queue at the time their proposal was made.

the “it” here pretty clearly refers to the proposal itself (as entries cannot be enacted)

furthermore, if you did actually have worries would’ve been very easy to edit the proposal to fix them. but I guess you just wanna be rude


22-08-2021 03:30:46 UTC

If I’m interpreting the ascension address and first proposal correctly, tactically shutting edit windows is not only in the spirit of the dynasty but also essentially required for it to function.


22-08-2021 03:33:20 UTC

I think we could do with some sort of ruleset-based clarification on how edit windows should work this dynasty (otherwise, whether I notice a Misfit within its edit window or not may end up having a major effect), and am planning on proposing one unless someone else gets there first.

Clucky: he/him

22-08-2021 03:33:32 UTC

“tactically” there is really no good reason to vote on anyone else’s proposal. All you’re doing is helping them possibly win.

but that would lead to a rather reductive, unfun dynasty for everyone.


22-08-2021 03:36:29 UTC

Regarding the ambiguity, the rules definition of Enact does only apply to Votable Matters, but an entry can be enacted in the ordinary sense. As the Appendix says, “If a Proposal proposes a change to this rule that would require server-level access to the BlogNomic site to fully enact its effects...”

Clucky: he/him

22-08-2021 03:37:48 UTC

its still clear enough. and still could’ve been easily rectified if you weren’t either telling the truth and playing a reductive version of the game that will simply lead to nothing passing, or have some scam up your sleeve you’re misleading people about

Clucky: he/him

22-08-2021 03:47:57 UTC

also remember: every proposal made with the next 12 hours, and probably longer than that, is not bound by this rule. So even if I were to try and argue some weird phrasing around how “it to be enacted” applies… I’m not the one who’d win. It would be someone else. Except even then, we’d have 72 hours to pass a CfJ to fix the issue. So I really don’t see the worry.


22-08-2021 03:48:15 UTC

@Clucky: Every time a proposal passes, you’re resetting the victory timer. So voting through other people’s proposals is actually helping your own victory chances by giving yourself more time to become the leader (unless you’re already in the winning spot yourself).


22-08-2021 03:48:58 UTC

No scam intended; instead, I legitimately read this entry as requiring compliance with (at minimum) all entries in pending proposals when I first read it, and didn’t spot the reading you intended until after I’d finished my own proposal.

It’s a separate issue that the first proposal doesn’t play nice with edit windows, for more reasons than merely that preventing a flawed but well-intended proposal from being fixed prevents it from scoring.


22-08-2021 03:54:46 UTC

@ais523 re: edit windows, I think the cleanest solution is to accept that Legislators are expected to close each others’ edit windows ASAP and to veto any misfit you notice during its edit window.

The next cleanest solution would be to abolish the edit window entirely (or reduce it to 15 minutes) and embrace the cutthroat nitpicking.

Clucky: he/him

22-08-2021 03:57:40 UTC

or you know. people could just not be rude and not kill people’s edit windows in order to try and get a game play advantage.


22-08-2021 04:27:14 UTC

I suppose I will have to be rude on every applicable proposal, then, until what I see as the critical incompatibilities between The Veto List and open edit windows have been resolved to my satisfaction.


22-08-2021 09:32:35 UTC


Josh: he/they

22-08-2021 10:40:34 UTC

If this enacts it becomes a game of making doomed proposals that retroactively make an earlier, rival pending proposal Misfit, right?

against as nothing would ever get done; once a day, someone just posts “Add the the misfit list ‘cannot have the following proposal titles’ [lists all proposal titles]” and that it’s queue’s dead.

Kevan: City he/him

22-08-2021 11:07:29 UTC

[Josh] Misfittedness is defined at the point of proposal (“If, using the definition of “Misfit” at the time a proposal was posted…”), which should rule out the retroactive stuff.

Janet: she/her

22-08-2021 13:31:50 UTC


Darknight: he/him

22-08-2021 14:40:08 UTC


Raven1207: he/they

22-08-2021 16:51:11 UTC


Kevan: City he/him

22-08-2021 18:55:46 UTC

against as although it’s not retroactive, it does still seem broken in referring to later proposals whether or not they’ve enacted, if that’s what it’s doing.

With this rule in place, if I propose “add a new requirement: must be proposed by Kevan”, doesn’t that mean everyone has to follow that requirement while my proposal is still pending? (Or after, even, it’s not impossible for a failed proposal to become enacted by a CfJ or something.)

Clucky: he/him

22-08-2021 19:21:03 UTC

Not sure I follow Kevan.

If you propose “add a new requirement: must be proposed by Kevan” then your proposal passes the new requirement its adding.

But while your proposal is pending, “add a new requirement: must be proposed by Kevan” isn’t in the rules, so why would it apply to other proposals? Are you suggesting the “it” in “were it to be enacted” doesn’t refer to the proposal?

Kevan: City he/him

22-08-2021 19:26:18 UTC

Hmm, I think this is because I (and others?) are reading “entry” as “blog entry” rather than “list entry”.

Clucky: he/him

22-08-2021 19:34:40 UTC

I agree the “it” is maybe somewhat confusing and this overall could’ve been worded better (but is clear enough to pass any CfJ challenging it), but as far as what “entry” refers to, I think the “would be added to this list” bit means it pretty clearly refers to list entries. Blog entries might contain things that would be added to the list, but the blog entry itself even if its enacted would not be added to the list.

Kevan: City he/him

22-08-2021 19:48:16 UTC

Proposals can do what they like, though, a scam proposal could be phrased as “upon enactment, add this entire proposal to the list then remove all words except etc”. And we’ve got a live victory condition.

Clucky: he/him

22-08-2021 19:54:56 UTC

I mean yeah. I guess in that case the blog entry would be added to the list. But it would also be a new list entry added to the list. So arguing that “entry” means “blog entry” and not “list entry” feels like a big stretch

Yeah… maybe you can argue something with the what the “it” is referring to. As I’ve already stated I would’ve definitely apricated being shown the curiosity needed to fix the ambiguity rather than having edits simply get locked as soon as the issue was raised. But what’s done and done, and I think trying to argue the “it” in “it to be enacted,” refers to anything other than the same “it” in “It fulfills the requirements” is enough of a stretch that its not something I’m particularly concerned over.

lemon: she/her

22-08-2021 20:17:26 UTC



22-08-2021 20:42:31 UTC

I hadn’t seen the reading of “blog entry” at all, for what it’s worth (especially as we normally call those “posts”, although “entry” is also an accurate description of them).

Kevan: City he/him

22-08-2021 20:53:09 UTC

The non-dynastic ruleset uses the unqualified term “entry” to mean “blog entry” a dozen or so times.


22-08-2021 20:56:30 UTC

against This wording is probably too ambiguous to use.

Clucky: he/him

22-08-2021 21:03:31 UTC

I feel like by that argument Kevan, all proposals made after ais’s first proposal got enacted are misfit because they do not add a new blog entry to the list