Though I wouldn’t call it legalizing as it is not illegal atm, but rather inofficial.

what mideg said

So, since it’s a “may” clause and it doesn’t specify what the number is supposed to be, would it be fair to say that one can change those numbers?  Because I’ve been doing so in order to better organize the garden patch as I go along (instead of using 0 which looks a lot like O).

Since it is a ‘may’ clause, you may also decide not to use it and then use it again with a new number. So, yes. I did that in the past already, too. I figure that the numbers are just a representation of the Gamestate, thus making them easier to correctly interpret is good.

Everyone uses ‘-’ as a symbol for nothing, too, which is not covered by rules. Or using a matrix representation. Or using blanks as borders. We could make rules for everything. :-)

CoV due to realizing that this is trivial, too.

Trivial

trivial

Trivial

It’s not clear to me that this actually does something; this is not covered by the rules nor is it part of gamestate, so it is already legal.

I don’t like the idea of adding more rules if those rules have no effect.

CoV because it says to add the text before the period at the end of the previous sentence.  Yes, it’s picky, but this rule is also not necessary.

Meaningless and trivial.

The wiki page is gamestate and “can only be altered in manners specified by the Ruleset.” Therefore, changing a square to a meaningless numeral is illegal.

mideg: the matrix representation and dashes for empty squares were already there when Farmland was enacted, therefore they are now gamestate as well.

Yoda: that’s a minor typographical error that can be corrected by any admin.

@Pb: Not exactly. There was ‘a’ matrix representation and there were dashes, but of we look into these things with this preciseness, the dashes that were there when the page became Gamestate had no meaning at all. And every new plot would be completly empty, without dashes.

Gamestate != representation of gamestate.

Also, the rule “Farmland” says specificly: “Each Farmer has a Plot that is tracked on the Garden Patch wiki page.” Thus, not the Garden Patch page itself is Gamestate, but it is used to track the Gamestate. Thus, using representation not specified in the rules is legal.

In my opinion, if this proposal passes, we have to change the Garden Patch page and remove any symbol not covered in the Ruleset: Headings, the columns which denote the shade, spaces and so on.

The definitions are a little bit more wonky than that. I agree that the Garden Patch is explicitly defined as a representation of part of the gamestate. However, the wiki page itself is also gamestate because it is “information which the Ruleset regulates the alteration of.” (see the Appendix)

In my opinion, the ruleset does not regulates the alteration of the wiki page Garden Patch, at least not completely. Thus, I regard only those parts of the Garden Patch as Gamestate that are regulated by the Ruleset, for example the brackets of fences.

“Information” is not necessarily equal to “wiki page”.

I agree with mideg here. Unless someone can provide a legitimate scam based on non-gamestate information on a wiki page, I honestly don’t see anything wrong with it. The numbers are helpful guides, like the shade numbers on the top. In fact, in the case of a shed the shade numbers are actually incorrect.

And actually wasn’t there a scam a while back based on gamestate names? IIRC, he created a gamestate entity with a name that granted him victory. So, making the actual text of the wiki page gamestate seems to me to be a dangerous precedent.

Sorry, he = Josh.

I still disagree with that scam. Just because a string of text is gamestate doesn’t make it binding as if it were a rule.

By the way, I’m not saying that the numbers and shade indicators aren’t helpful or desirable, but that their legality is ambiguous at the very least. I’d feel much better if the meanings of numerals for zombies and dashes for empty spaces were clearly defined in the ruleset.