Editing Round 9/History (section)

=== Textualism from Intentionalism ===

The [[Round 9/Initial Ruleset|Initial Ruleset]] for Round 9 extremely barebones. It is possible to follow to the letter, but it does not necessarily prescribe this mentality on the proposals to come. At the same time, it does not have ''enough'' framework to make writing very textualist rules easy. In particular, a clearer way to define items would have been very helpful for the round. And even though I contend that the complete textualism we saw in this round was the result of several rounds of progression toward it, at the beginning of this round, not everyone was clearly on-board. Proposal 🦆 was poorly worded in many different ways. If I had known how the game would progress, I probably would have written Proposal 🦆 a little more explicitly. As a thought experiment, here is Proposal 🦆 redrafted in the famously strict Agoran style:

{{Proposal Box
 |name=🦆
 |text=
Enact a new Power-1 rule titled "Ducks" which reads:
:Ducks are assets that can be owned by players. Players CAN assign a duck they own a name by announcement. Ducks with no name are fungible. Players CANNOT interact with a duck which has no name except to assign it a name.
}}

This mismatch of rule-writing styles caught up with us and in fact contributed to the round's downfall: the Day of Infinite Ducks exploit had existed since Proposal 🦆 itself because at the beginning of the round we struggled to define things as well as our eventual textualist readings would require us to.