This is getting confusing.

Josh: Why not?

Ugh.

Including a joke as part of an important CfJ is a little bit off, though - we already have a couple of oddly-named look-at-me dynasties that cite a vague “consensus” for drawing attention to themselves.

(Not that a “known as” clause has any legal effect, because what a dynasty is known as isn’t gamestate. And not that I really object to it being known as anything.)

Yeah, I’m effectively voting against because of that - should there ever be intra-dynasty mechanics again, will this still be a dynasty? While it doesn’t matter what a dynasty is “known as”, this is official ratification, and that makes it tricky from a possible future legislative standpoint.

It’s fine, proposals can only “change the Ruleset or Gamestate” so the sentence does nothing. We can update the wiki and say “look, a quorum voted for this”, but it’s not binding.

I think we really need to nail down “if the current ruleset doesn’t refer to it, it doesn’t exist” and dispel the worry that a proposal or mechanic can have floating invisible effects that can be invoked months later.

Yes, I think we have a problem with the definition of gamestate, and whether it includes invisible elements, but I tend to hold the opposite opinion to you, I think - that the gamestate can be detatched to an extent from the ruleset, and that if a proposal states something then it’s binding regardless of whether a rule enforces it or not. (The retheme proposal, for example, edited all other proposals in the queue - was that legal?)

For my money there should be an “invisible gamestate” page in which non-rule resolutions are tracked.

The Retheme was fine because proposals are gamestate. I’m fairly confident that invisible ongoing effects can’t actually exist under the current ruleset (if they aren’t rules then they’re gamestate, and by Rule 1.1 gamestate can’t affect anything by itself; and lingering “a week after this proposal enacts, do a thing” effects can’t work, because enacting a proposal requires the admin to apply “the specified effects of that Proposal” as they affect the ruleset and gamestate and then close it).

Isn’t your “invisible gamestate” page just a rule by another name?

I think that a successful counter-argument could be mounted along the lines that 1.1 allows for the gamestate to be modified “in manners specified by the Ruleset”, which more or less explicitly means that proposals can directly affect the gamestate without having to go through the ruleset (“Any Worker may submit a Proposal to change the Ruleset or Gamestate”). Enacting an invisible gamestate can be done at the time of enactment if you assume that that there is such a thing; as you say, an “invisible gamestate” effect isn’t that different from a rule.

I think that an invisible gamestate page would be more like a core game document than a ruleset appendage; the supremacy of the ruleset would not be troubled by it.

There’s precedent of including this sort of thing in a CFJ, although it was ignored and we don’t generally speak of the First Metadynasty of Rodlen.

Although I would like to play with a metamachine.

Josh: Additionally, it specifically says “This dynasty shall be known as” It doesn’t imply anywhere that it would stop this from being a dynasty.

CoV. If this is enacted, this dynasty will have to be known as “The First Machine of Scshunt” instead of “The Third Machine of Scshunt” because the first two dynasties were not known as “machines” at their times. In the Historical Dynasties page, we will have to change this dynasty only to “machine”. It would be strange to have only one of the dynasties a “machine”.

This has not been enacted yet so why is the title of this page “The Third Machine of Scshunt”?

Because this passed: http://blognomic.com/archive/retheme/
And according to the rules, there are no dynasties, only machines.

oh.

For entertainment, I’d like to note that the Ruleset clearly states there are 100 Machines, no more.

Yes. That.

DEF does nothing on a CFJ.

The fact that this critical fix CFJ timed out is pretty good evidence for BlogNomic having a limit to its tolerance of prolonged high levels of activity.