Tuesday, April 19, 2011

We need a Generic Sheep Land Tracker

Add to the first sentence in rule “land”:

and tracked in a column of the GNDT.

Comments

Purplebeard:

04-19-2011 10:29:09 UTC

Not a proposal, I’m afraid.

Josh: HE/HIM

04-19-2011 10:30:26 UTC

Also, didn’t we establish that we can add GNDT columns without having to be directed by the ruleset?

Josh: HE/HIM

04-19-2011 10:34:41 UTC

I’ve popped it in anyway as I feel like 1.7 explicitly permits me to update the GNDT to reflect the gamestate. Anyone who disagrees can revert.

Ely:

04-19-2011 10:39:06 UTC

Ok. The good news is that I have not even lost the slot :P

Kevan: HE/HIM

04-19-2011 13:46:23 UTC

[Josh] Did we? I’m not sure that would work - it’s fine for us to have invisible gamestate and to decide to track it in the GNDT, but there would be absolutely no legal requirement for the GNDT to be accurate. A flourished endgame scam of “you see, I actually had three extra Land all along, but decided not to track them publicly” seems annoying.

Josh: HE/HIM

04-19-2011 13:59:05 UTC

@Kevan - I accept that, but the rule as it currently exists seems to support my reading.

The GNDT merely represents the Gamestate, and is not the same thing. In the event that the Gamestate and the GNDT are different, any Sheep may correct the GNDT to comply with the Gamestate.

and

If a Sheep feels that the GNDT was altered such that it no longer matches the gamestate (such as by performing an action which was against the Rules (as they were at the time of the alteration), or by any other means), they may simply undo the effects of that alteration.

together seem to imply that the GNDT is a tracking tool rather than an explicit arbiter of gamestate values. A part of me is surprised that hasn’t been the subject of a scam already…

Axmann:

04-19-2011 16:14:12 UTC

against per Josh.

Ely:

04-19-2011 20:20:51 UTC

This is not a proposal, you don’t need to vote it