Monday, July 25, 2011

Call for Judgment: YARGH

Reached quorum 5 votes to 2. Enacted by Kevan. The gamestate shimmers such that Josh’s illegal wiki update is now legal with no penalty.

Adminned at 26 Jul 2011 14:30:32 UTC

Append the following sentence to the end of “Log Entries”

This rule does not affect the validity of the action, but may cause an offender to suffer a penalty as defined elsewhere.

Make the gamestate what it would be if this change had been in effect since the previous time that rule was amended.

Josh’s recent claiming of a crate did not include ‘step’. I don’t want to rewind his and PrinceAnduril’s actions. Really. So instead I will suggest this.



25-07-2011 19:41:05 UTC



25-07-2011 23:53:50 UTC


Kevan: HE/HIM

25-07-2011 23:57:35 UTC

I don’t think this works. If getting the edit summary wrong “does not affect the validity of the action”, then the player will not have “attempted to make an illegal modification to the Arena wiki page”, so isn’t eligible for a Foul.


26-07-2011 00:47:45 UTC



26-07-2011 02:14:20 UTC

An action can be valid but illegal.


26-07-2011 02:23:49 UTC

coppro: How? My brain can’t wrap around that…


26-07-2011 02:55:16 UTC

Is shooting someone in the face a valid action in real life? Yes. Is it legal? No.

Darknight: HE/HIM

26-07-2011 02:59:15 UTC



26-07-2011 06:18:23 UTC

Nomic isn’t real life, and the ruleset is based on the premise that “this is the Ruleset for BlogNomic; all Gladiators shall obey it”.

This kind of thing is exactly why I resisted unnecessary overspecification in logging by the way.


Kevan: HE/HIM

26-07-2011 08:17:18 UTC

against “Valid” and “legal” are very close synonyms in the context of playing a game by some rules. Making it so that unclear edit summaries are legal but Foul-worthy is clearly the correct direction to take this in, though.


26-07-2011 08:45:30 UTC

against per Kevan

Prince Anduril:

26-07-2011 15:17:49 UTC

Coppro: I’m not sure that’s right. ‘Valid’ means ‘legally binding’, and in the context of nomic, a ‘valid action’ is doing something according to the rules. Your example is confused because you are presenting two sets of laws, natural and social, as if they were the same thing, which they aren’t.

I agree with Kevan, but don’t quite get why he voted against, as I see his conclusion as an argument to vote for

Kevan: HE/HIM

26-07-2011 15:43:46 UTC

[Anduril] I’m voting against because the proposed fix will make any edit summary legal, with no Fouls possible for getting it wrong.

Under this proposed rule, a move with a blank edit summary would now be a valid/legal action, and so wouldn’t trigger the “attempted to make an illegal modification to the Arena wiki page” aspect of Fouling. If Coppro is trying to say “getting an edit summary wrong doesn’t make the move illegal, but it counts as a Foul”, then this doesn’t work.

Kevan: HE/HIM

26-07-2011 21:29:43 UTC

Although I may as well CoV in light of the Technically Fowl proposal, which fixes my concern, but doesn’t fix the fact that Josh performed an illegal game action.