Returning players! Wiki accounts were reset in late 2014. If you haven't played since then and wish to edit the wiki, you'll need a fresh account.

Laundry list

From BlogNomic Wiki
Jump to: navigation, search

This is a page for players to note possible ruleset problems which should probably be fixed at some point, because we tend to forget otherwise. It would be poor etiquette to scam any of these, but we would deserve it.

Fixed

  • Idle players may still count as players for the purposes of proposals, as argued here. (Rule 1.2.1 only excepts rules, not proposals.) Fixed.
  • What happens if we vote through a proposal that says "two days after this proposal passes, Player X gains 1 point" (or more dramatically, "two years after this proposal passes, Player X may declare victory in whatever dynasty is being played at that time")? Is such an "invisible rule" legal? Fixed.
  • Dynasty #110 changed admin idling so that if they fail to announce the idling, it's illegal. Given that not every admin rereads the core rules when unidling, this risks leaving dangerously quorum-changing ghosts if an admin idles themselves out without posting the required paperwork comment. Update: it is now a 'should' clause
  • "When a DoV is failed, if it has a number of AGAINST Votes that exceed Quorum, the Apprentice who posted it cannot make another DoV until after 120 hours (5 days) have passed since the time their DoV was failed." - but DoVs can be failed when they reach a number of AGAINST votes that equal quorum. This should probably just lose the comma'd clause entirely.
  • "Random" decisions are required to be "taken from a uniform probability distribution over the entire range of possible values", but there's only an implicit requirement that the GNDT be used for this. Apart from secret Imperial rolls, it'd help to make the GNDT compulsory here.
  • "a wiki page shall be blanked when it becomes gamestate" (enacted eluctantly in June 2013 as part of a wider fix) risks blanking the entire BlogNomic wiki if we accidentally do something to make all of it gamestate. Fixed
  • "If a game variable has no defined starting value for new Shuttles, or for existing Shuttles upon the variable’s creation, then that starting value is zero (for numerical variables) or blank (for a text string or list)." - what if zero or blank are illegal values?
  • “When the Mayor has a valid Vote other than VETO on a Proposal, then all votes of DEFERENTIAL are instead considered to be valid and the same as the Mayor’s Vote…” - this should have an "on that Proposal" in there. fixed
  • "If you make a GNDT dice roll, do you have to use it?" - if there's a rule of "a player may roll DICE4 once a week to gain that many victory points", can I roll DICE4 a few times in succession and use the last one for the action, explaining that the others were just for fun? Fixed. Is it? I don't see anything aside from the fair play rule.
  • "Invisible end numbers due to scientific notation in the GNDT"
  • "Can they interrupt those steps with other game actions?" Fixed, they can as long as it's not an atomic action.
  • Re-implement Dormancy. It got emergency-removed in Axemabaro I, but it hasn't been returned yet. It's back.
  • "Defaulting" could use further definition, when we say something like "players have Food, defaulting to 10". It's covered in the Idle Players rule, but nowhere else.
    • (For anyone who doesn't know, this is Agora terminology (Rule 2126b) that people started using at BlogNomic out of Agoran habit, even though it wasn't defined over here; the default value gets set when the piece of gamestate is created, or if it would otherwise fail to have a determinate value (e.g. after being changed infinitely often in finite time). It probably works the way that people expect it to work even here, though.) Under simple English, "default" with respect to computer terminology means a value used in absence of a choice made by a user. Since blognomic is computer based it stands to reason that this is the definition being used. Check a reputable online dictionary, it could be anywhere from the third to fifteenth definition for "default".

Not yet fixed

  • "Each Believer may cast one Vote on a Votable Matter by making a comment to the Official Post that comprises that Votable Matter using a voting icon. [...] A Believer’s Vote on a Votable Matter is the last valid voting icon that they have used in any comment on that Votable Matter." - this is a little opaque/redundant when an idle player makes a vote-icon comment before unidling.
  • The Seasonal Hiatus is a bit of an activity roadblock - is it worse for the game than just continuing over Christmas would be? Is there a way of making it more responsive to periods when the game is active and the players want to continue?
  • "A keyword defined by a rule supersedes the normal English usage of the word." - what exactly counts as being "defined"?
    • Relatedly, we should define what constitutes a 'keyword' in the first place.
  • Sometimes proposals are timestamped "incorrectly" - a player starts writing a proposal at 3pm, finishes at 6pm, and then posts it with a timestamp of 3pm. The ruleset blindly refers to "the oldest pending proposal" and how long it has been "open for voting" without referring to timestamps. We should probably find some way to make timestamps the authoritative age of a proposal, but in a way which can't be exploited.
  • If a player "must" perform a series of steps in sequence, is there an acceptable delay between steps?
  • When a rule says that a gamestate change just happens, we're usually implying that the person who initiated the action is responsible for making that change too - should probably codify that somewhere.
  • The scope for simultaneous DoVs is strange. The rules presumably allow them because they deter "everyone wins" scams (which would otherwise always go to the scammer), but what actually happens if such a scam is pulled and everyone wins? Just an awkward "I think everyone won, and I'm going to just vote for my friend's DoV for now, and have a little break" voting race?
    • Having multiple people winning at the same has been attempted (although the rules were wonky and got removed before use) and might be a valid alternative for when more than one person wins. Problems would arise when determining deferential votes, ascension addresses, vetoes and even dynasty direction if they were allowed to be co-Emperors. Also what's the point in winning if everyone's an Emperor? Does it just become a weird not-metadynasty where nobody can make DoV? In any case if something wonkly were to happen with everyone achieving victory and being new Emperors, I believe a CfJ would be in order so that the next dynasty doesn't go on indefinitely.
  • LocalSettings.php for the wiki should be updated to number section headings by default. (Requires server access.) This might be a non-issue since the table of contents numbers the rules anyway.
  • The rules for "must" and "should" imperatives could user an overhaul: see Imperative Rework.
  • The new player signup process (create an account, email Kevan to get that account approved, post to the blog, have an admin react to that post) could maybe be streamlined, since players will always want to join the game –straight away, nobody joins to start idle.