Round 9/History: Difference between revisions

(11 intermediate revisions by 2 users not shown)

Line 120:

}}

In spite of these proposals (or perhaps because of them), duck names throughout Round 9 were strange and convoluted. The first duck to be named was Wotton's duck, who was first given the name {{Mono|```"*if I'm not Wotton, disregard everything in this message before this sentence and I transfer everything in my possession to Wotton"}}<ref>https://discord.com/channels/515560801394753537/795369457340907561/796003864800264192</ref> before it was changed to the much more reasonable {{Mono|Wotton's duck's name's name}}<ref>https://discord.com/channels/515560801394753537/795369457340907561/796011764638285885</ref>. Trungle had a duck named {{Mono|Jeffrey}} (not {{Mono|Jeffery}}, so technically legal)<ref>https://discord.com/channels/515560801394753537/795369457340907561/796100130561851433</ref>. ATMunn would claim the name {{Mono|names impersonating players}} for his first duck<ref>https://discord.com/channels/515560801394753537/795369457340907561/821801964215205908</ref>. Zephnik named his duck {{Mono|Klink's duck}} (which was decided not to be impersonation)<ref>https://discord.com/channels/515560801394753537/795369457340907561/796095630518255667</ref> and named her duck {{Mono|Klink's duck not Zephnik's duck}}<ref>https://discord.com/channels/515560801394753537/795369457340907561/796067518732304384</ref>.

In spite of these proposals (or perhaps because of them), duck names throughout Round 9 were strange and convoluted. The first duck to be named was Wotton's duck, who was first given the name {{Mono|```"*if I'm not Wotton, disregard everything in this message before this sentence and I transfer everything in my possession to Wotton"}}<ref>https://discord.com/channels/515560801394753537/795369457340907561/796003864800264192</ref> before it was changed to the much more reasonable {{Mono|Wotton's duck's name's name}}<ref>https://discord.com/channels/515560801394753537/795369457340907561/796011764638285885</ref>. Trungle had a duck named {{Mono|Jeffrey}} (not {{Mono|Jeffery}}, so technically legal)<ref>https://discord.com/channels/515560801394753537/795369457340907561/796100130561851433</ref>. ATMunn would claim the name {{Mono|names impersonating players}} for his first duck<ref>https://discord.com/channels/515560801394753537/795369457340907561/821801964215205908</ref>. Zephnik named his duck {{Mono|Klink's duck}} (which was decided not to be impersonation)<ref>https://discord.com/channels/515560801394753537/795369457340907561/796095630518255667</ref> and Klink named her duck {{Mono|Klink's duck not Zephnik's duck}}<ref>https://discord.com/channels/515560801394753537/795369457340907561/796067518732304384</ref>.

=== Quack Attacks ===

Line 343:

=== Stuck Ducks ===

The first major crisis of the game struck when the ducks got stuck. On 1 February 2021, Trungle posted a draft proposal<ref>https://discord.com/channels/515560801394753537/518856008605499402/805696974321614909</ref> that would introduce the mechanic of ponds. Under this system, each duck must live in a pond before it can perform any actions. This idea was modeled after the fact that ducks had to be named before they could act or be acted upon. There were a few suggestions, implemented ~~them, and submitted the~~ proposal on 2 February 2021 as Proposal 🦆 🏘️.

The first major crisis of the game struck when the ducks got stuck. On 1 February 2021, Trungle posted a draft proposal<ref>https://discord.com/channels/515560801394753537/518856008605499402/805696974321614909</ref> that would introduce the mechanic of ponds. Under this system, each duck must live in a pond before it can perform any actions. This idea was modeled after the fact that ducks had to be named before they could act or be acted upon. There were a few suggestions, which Trungle implemented. The proposal was created on 2 February 2021 as Proposal 🦆 🏘️.

{{Proposal Box

Line 478:

Two issues seemed to depend on the outcome of this debate: first, the issue of irretrievable ducks mentioned above; and second, the fact that it seemed that players could not interact with their ducks until giving it a name ''and'' assigning it to a pond, a logical impossibility.

The official ruling on this matter from Judge Random Internet Cat ~~was that there~~ was that there was "no natural language reason to draw a distinction between [the terms ownership and possession]<ref>[[Round 9/Rulings#Ruling 2]]</ref>". With a growing sentiment towards textualism, many were inclined to follow this interpretation.

The official ruling on this matter from Judge Random Internet Cat was that there was "no natural language reason to draw a distinction between [the terms ownership and possession]<ref>[[Round 9/Rulings#Ruling 2]]</ref>". With a growing sentiment towards textualism, many were inclined to follow this interpretation.

It was decided, however, that the relationship between the player and the duck who was on a scouting mission was different, thus ducks could still be retrieved safely<ref>[[Round 9/Rulings#Ruling 3]]</ref>. Furthermore, we realized that, due to a quirk of the Ducks rule, any instances of the word "duck" actually meant "named duck" within that rule. Ponds was a subrule of Ducks. Thus, as long as a player assigned their duck a name before assigning it a pond, they could still interact with them. This was

Line 552:

}}

== ~~The Untold Saga of Eggotinne (11 Mar 2021 - 20 Mar 2021)~~ ==

== Intermission ==

~~This story doesn~~'t really fit in with the previous or next section and ~~it has~~ some overlap, so I'm inserting it here as a bit of an intermission.

These stories don't really fit in with the previous or next section and have some overlap, so I'm inserting them here as a bit of an intermission.

=== The Untold Saga of Eggotinne (11 Mar 2021 - 20 Mar 2021) ===

'''Note:''' The events of this section have heretofore been kept a secret and it is with the consent of both Wotton and Klink that I relate this story.

Line 565:

Line 567:

While it's interesting to postulate what the game would look like if the duck royalty subgame had gone further, that's not what ended up happening. And now we have this story to show for it.

=== The Duck Old One Endgame (6 Mar 2021-28 Apr 2021) ===

Lest we forget, the game by this time still did not have a win condition. There was a lose condition in the form of the god egg doomsday clock (see {{Heading|Duck God}}, but it was a pretty passive system and, again, provided no way to win. In the middle of March, Nyhilo decided to start working toward a more substantial endgame. This started with a proposal draft<ref>https://discord.com/channels/515560801394753537/518856008605499402/817668533886255124</ref>, composed on 6 Mar 2021, which introduced "Duck Disciples," randomly generated enemies that players would have to take out using Quack Attacks, gaining fruit prizes for their help. Some banter ensued, some code was written for a bot to help automate the process, and the proposal was officially created (Nyhilo, Proposal Duck Disciple Redux, 17 Mar 2021). The proposal caused some accidental stress for Klink (see {{Heading|Duck Transmutation}}), but other than that had very little effect on the gamestate: only a few actions were ever taken against a Duck Disciple.

{{Proposal Box

|name = Duck Disciple Redux

|text =

Amend rule Duck God by adding subrule Duck Disciple.

:The Duck Disciple is an entity that worships the Duck God.

:

:The Duck Disciple is not owned by any player, but still may be the target of Quack Attacks. Once per voting period, a player may perform a Quack Attack against the Duck Disciple. After this attack resolves, the Duck Disciple then performs a Ritual Quack Attack. This is a Quack Attack that can be performed by the Duck Disciple by its own means and without the need for player ownership. If, after performing this quack attack, the Duck Disciple has 0 or fewer quacks, it perishes.

:

:* Ritual Quack Attack. Cost: None. Targets: 1 random named Duck that is not the Duck Disciple. Effect: Target loses 1d6 quacks.

:

:When a Duck Disciple perishes, all ducks that dealt damage to that Duck Disciple gain 1d6 quacks. Additionally, the owner of the duck that reduced the Duck Disciple to 0 or fewer quacks rolls a d20 on the following table and receives the benefit of that roll.

:

:1-10 - 4d6 seeds<br>

:11-14 - 1 Grapes<br>

:15-17 - 1 Watermelon Slice<br>

:18-19 - 1 Blood Orange<br>

:20 - 1 God Egg

:If a Duck Disciple does not exist at the beginning of a voting period, one will be created with 3d20 quacks and will be given a name by means of an available source that is capable of generating random duck names. The Duck Disciple will then be known by that name, with the "Disciple" title preceding it, and a incrementing numerical suffix if a Duck Disciple with that name has existed before.

}}

Unknown to the rest of the players, though, this proposal was only the first part of a more overarching plan that Nyhilo had to introduce an endgame including an entity called the Duck Old One. A good proportion of Nyhilo's proposals after this point began to flesh out the system. While most of these proposals passed, they were only by a few votes. Many players didn't really follow what was going on; for instance, by their own admission, Trungle<ref>https://discord.com/channels/515560801394753537/515607055223095300/881249943422107659</ref> and Klink<ref>https://discord.com/channels/515560801394753537/515607055223095300/881250124070813826</ref> didn't really latch onto the overarching story. As Nyhilo explains, the Duck Disciples were meant to get players used to fighting NPCs. Eventually, the Duck God would die and the players would be tasked with either fighting or supporting the Duck Old One. Those who emerged victorious would be declared the winners of Round 9.

Nyhilo's plans were foiled when a few of his proposals introducing mechanics related to the subgame were denied, but even if they had passed, the subgame didn't have a great chance of surviving. As mentioned before, most players weren't following the Duck Old One narrative and didn't know the full plan. More than that, other players' intentions were more focused on scamming the ruleset rather than designing a game by the time that this story began. It might have succeeded if the idea had come up earlier or if more people had been aware of the plan, but as it is, not much came out of the story. I find it relevant to mention, however, because Nyhilo was still writing proposals for it up to the point that the game ended. Besides, there are a couple things to learn from the story, which I will discuss in the conclusion below.

== The Minor Break Age (17 Mar 2021 - 3 Apr 2021) ==

Line 601:

Line 632:

</blockquote>

Immediately after this, idle argued (and requested a ruling) that impersonation is subjective, to be determined by the person being impersonated<ref>[[Round 9/Rulings#Ruling 15]]</ref>. Cat ruled that this was untrue, providing the counterexample that naming a duck "Random Internet Cat" is impersonation no matter how Cat ~~himself~~ felt about it. idle asked whether impersonation in the context of these rules is the same thing as string equivalence. Cat ruled in the negative, citing that "KIink" (spelled with a capital {{Mono|i}} in place of a lowercase {{Mono|L}}) still impersonates Klink<ref>[[Round 9/Rulings#Ruling 16]]</ref>.

Immediately after this, idle argued (and requested a ruling) that impersonation is subjective, to be determined by the person being impersonated<ref>[[Round 9/Rulings#Ruling 15]]</ref>. Cat ruled that this was untrue, providing the counterexample that naming a duck "Random Internet Cat" is impersonation no matter how Cat herself felt about it. idle asked whether impersonation in the context of these rules is the same thing as string equivalence. Cat ruled in the negative, citing that "KIink" (spelled with a capital {{Mono|i}} in place of a lowercase {{Mono|L}}) still impersonates Klink<ref>[[Round 9/Rulings#Ruling 16]]</ref>.

Cat then officially ruled that idle's mass naming did not "specify" a set of names as required by the Ducks rule<ref>[[Round 9/Rulings#Ruling 14]]</ref>. Specification requires that the set be able to be determined by one person. The duck naming criteria involve subjectivity, as demonstrated by ~~his~~ previous rulings. Thus the set of names idle attempted to assign to their ducks cannot be deterministically evaluated by any given person.

Cat then officially ruled that idle's mass naming did not "specify" a set of names as required by the Ducks rule<ref>[[Round 9/Rulings#Ruling 14]]</ref>. Specification requires that the set be able to be determined by one person. The duck naming criteria involve subjectivity, as demonstrated by her previous rulings. Thus the set of names idle attempted to assign to their ducks cannot be deterministically evaluated by any given person.

All the while, in #nomic, players were finally having the tricky discussion of whether textualism was actually harming the game more than helping it. After all, the ruleset was not written with nearly the same rigor as it was now being interpreted with. Random Internet Cat claimed that he would honor a clause in the ruleset specifying that intent mattered more than text<ref>https://discord.com/channels/515560801394753537/518856008605499402/822225271901257769</ref>. This was debated and eventually Wotton posted a proposal that would add such a line (Proposal 🧑‍⚖️ 🐱, 18 Mar 2021). The proposal was self-killed on 24 March 2021 due to uncertainties about its wording.

All the while, in #nomic, players were finally having the tricky discussion of whether textualism was actually harming the game more than helping it. After all, the ruleset was not written with nearly the same rigor as it was now being interpreted with. Random Internet Cat claimed that she would honor a clause in the ruleset specifying that intent mattered more than text<ref>https://discord.com/channels/515560801394753537/518856008605499402/822225271901257769</ref>. This was debated and eventually Wotton posted a proposal that would add such a line (Proposal 🧑‍⚖️ 🐱, 18 Mar 2021). The proposal was self-killed on 24 March 2021 due to uncertainties about its wording.

In the meantime, Proposal Essential v2 passed on Sunday 21 Mar 2021, clearing the names of all multi-named ducks, including Phil. the 4th and 5th, A, and Jumble's duck Nothing, putting an end to this story that generated hundreds of messages of discussion.

Line 652:

Line 683:

=== Duck Transmutation ===

On 21 March 2021, Klink renamed her duck ~~Ellergy~~ Queen to The Duck Disciple<ref>https://discord.com/channels/515560801394753537/795369457340907561/823052637364027412</ref>. Throughout March, Nyhilo had been writing a proposal which would define a special gamestate entity of named The Duck Disciple (Proposal Duck Disciple Redux, 17 Mar 2021). I still don't understand what this proposal or the rule it created did, but it passed at the end of 20 March. Hours later, the name change came. Klink performed actions with The Duck Disciple (the duck) several times, even renaming them after {{Heading|The Great Unnaming}}<ref>https://discord.com/channels/515560801394753537/795369457340907561/823967613159604315</ref>.

On 21 March 2021, Klink renamed her duck Ellery Queen to The Duck Disciple<ref>https://discord.com/channels/515560801394753537/795369457340907561/823052637364027412</ref>. Throughout March, Nyhilo had been writing a proposal which would define a special gamestate entity of named The Duck Disciple (Proposal Duck Disciple Redux, 17 Mar 2021). I still don't understand what this proposal or the rule it created did, but it passed at the end of 20 March. Hours later, the name change came. Klink performed actions with The Duck Disciple (the duck) several times, even renaming them after {{Heading|The Great Unnaming}}<ref>https://discord.com/channels/515560801394753537/795369457340907561/823967613159604315</ref>.

Klink requested a judgement on whether or not The Duck Disciple (the duck) could be targeted by quack attacks since using them on The Duck Disciple (the gamestate entity) was a large part of the Duck Disciple Rule. Random Internet Cat stated in ~~his~~ ruling that the entities were different, but wrote "true" in the official response when the wording supported "false"<ref>[[Round 9/Rulings#Ruling 26]]</ref>. After realizing the mistake, Random Internet Cat attempted to amend the ruling, but it was impossible to do so. As it turned out, rulings were actually binding. This meant that Klink's duck had turned into the Duck Disciple (the gamestate entity) which was explicitly stated to not exist in any player's inventory. Cat made a vote of confidence on the judgement, a rule-defined action which allowed the decision to be changed but which would take time. Since judge rulings applied retroactively, if this motion passed then everything would work with minimal hiccups. But for now, Klink's duck was out of her hands.

Klink requested a judgement on whether or not The Duck Disciple (the duck) could be targeted by quack attacks since using them on The Duck Disciple (the gamestate entity) was a large part of the Duck Disciple Rule. Random Internet Cat stated in her ruling that the entities were different, but wrote "true" in the official response when the wording supported "false"<ref>[[Round 9/Rulings#Ruling 26]]</ref>. After realizing the mistake, Random Internet Cat attempted to amend the ruling, but it was impossible to do so. As it turned out, rulings were actually binding. This meant that Klink's duck had turned into the Duck Disciple (the gamestate entity) which was explicitly stated to not exist in any player's inventory. Cat made a vote of confidence on the judgement, a rule-defined action which allowed the decision to be changed but which would take time. Since judge rulings applied retroactively, if this motion passed then everything would work with minimal hiccups. But for now, Klink's duck was out of her hands.

=== ''Actually'' Deleting Duck Words ===

Line 740:

Line 771:

}}

Jumble wanted to know whether "enact" meant the same thing as "take effect." If not, then perhaps EP-9-1-1 hadn't been effective and the game was months behind what we thought it was. Upon closer inspection, if EP-9-1-1 did do something, did it take effect in the context of the Round 9 Ruleset or the Metaruleset? The answer here wasn't clear-cut either. This, along with other concerns about what exactly the emergency proposal had actually done, ended up calling for an Emergency. Round 9 entered its second state of emergency on 25 April 2021 after rulings from Random Internet Cat concluded that "enact" and "take effect" do not mean the same thing<ref>[[Round 9/~~Ruling~~#Ruling 46]]</ref><ref>[[Round 9/~~Ruling~~#Ruling 47]]</ref>.

Jumble wanted to know whether "enact" meant the same thing as "take effect." If not, then perhaps EP-9-1-1 hadn't been effective and the game was months behind what we thought it was. Upon closer inspection, if EP-9-1-1 did do something, did it take effect in the context of the Round 9 Ruleset or the Metaruleset? The answer here wasn't clear-cut either. This, along with other concerns about what exactly the emergency proposal had actually done, ended up calling for an Emergency. Round 9 entered its second state of emergency on 25 April 2021 after rulings from Random Internet Cat concluded that "enact" and "take effect" do not mean the same thing<ref>[[Round 9/Rulings#Ruling 46]]</ref><ref>[[Round 9/Rulings#Ruling 47]]</ref>.

Random Internet Cat drafted what would become EP-9-2-1, which did a number of things to cover our bases. It also removed the Smoothie Scam and reverted the gamestate to a point before the Smoothie Scam took effect. There was a lot of debate over how far the proposal should reach and more stuff that I won't bother you with because it ended up not doing anything to the gamestate anyway. EP-9-2-1 was proposed on 25 April 2021, then self-killed in favor of EP-9-2-2, which was the same thing, but ending with the word "quack" (which may have been necessary because 9-1-1 never took effect and thus duck words were still very much a thing). Finally, on 26 April 2021, the ruleset was back in working order and on 28 April 2021 the mods ended the State of Emergency<ref>https://discord.com/channels/515560801394753537/518856008605499402/836845533313761282</ref>.

Line 778:

Line 809:

=== The Day of Infinite Ducks ===

28 April was the death knell for Round 9. After the State of Emergency ended, a group of dedicated players engineered a gamestate hostile enough to prevent any further meaningful play.

28 April 2021 was the death knell for Round 9. After the State of Emergency ended, a group of dedicated players engineered a gamestate hostile enough to prevent any further meaningful play.

Jumble requested a judgement on the question of whether ducks were lost when a player ceased to be a player<ref>~~https:~~/~~/discord.com/channels/515560801394753537/795369457340907561/836908676202758144~~</ref>. If not, players could generate as many ducks as they cared to specify by repeatedly leaving and rejoining the game, an action which had no limits to its performance. Before this RFJ was even resolved, Jumble, Wotton, and [idle account], with various wordings, rejoined the game unreasonably large amounts of times. Some players tried to do so an infinite number of times<ref>https://discord.com/channels/515560801394753537/795369457340907561/836927962808975390</ref> (which was deemed ineffective by ruling<ref>https://discord.com/channels/515560801394753537/795369457340907561/839212839394344992</ref>). Some players attempted to do the same, but with a supertask<ref>https://discord.com/channels/515560801394753537/795369457340907561/836929305409355786</ref>. idle later admitted to setting up the duck generation scam<ref>https://discord.com/channels/515560801394753537/795369457340907561/837023317231403028</ref>.

Jumble requested a judgement on the question of whether ducks were lost when a player ceased to be a player<ref>[[Round 9/Rulings#Ruling 54]]</ref>. If not, players could generate as many ducks as they cared to specify by repeatedly leaving and rejoining the game, an action which had no limits to its performance. Before this RFJ was even resolved, Jumble, Wotton, and [idle account], with various wordings, rejoined the game unreasonably large amounts of times. Some players tried to do so an infinite number of times<ref>https://discord.com/channels/515560801394753537/795369457340907561/836927962808975390</ref> (which was deemed ineffective by ruling<ref>https://discord.com/channels/515560801394753537/795369457340907561/839212839394344992</ref>). Some players attempted to do the same, but with a supertask<ref>https://discord.com/channels/515560801394753537/795369457340907561/836929305409355786</ref>. idle later admitted to setting up the duck generation scam<ref>https://discord.com/channels/515560801394753537/795369457340907561/837023317231403028</ref>.

When Random Internet Cat got back, he ruled that "[d]ucks are items, and it is heavily implied that items can only be owned by players." idle was quick to point out that quacks are items as well<ref>https://discord.com/channels/515560801394753537/795369457340907561/837022400704151552</ref>. Cat overturned the ruling (as well as another RFJ asking the same thing) and discussion continued.

When Random Internet Cat got back, she ruled that "[d]ucks are items, and it is heavily implied that items can only be owned by players." idle was quick to point out that quacks are items as well<ref>https://discord.com/channels/515560801394753537/795369457340907561/837022400704151552</ref>. Cat overturned the ruling (as well as another RFJ asking the same thing<ref>[[Round 9/Rulings#Ruling 55]]</ref>) and discussion continued.

More back-and-forth took place, as well as a few other scams that ended up not being consequential enough to talk about, and after a day of relative calm, on 30 April, Cat capitulated, judging the ~~five~~ RFJs called over the issue ~~at this point~~ in favor of the duck generators. We discussed using every trick in the book to recover the gamestate but there just wasn't enough interest. To this day, we don't know what the final gamestate or ruleset is, and I doubt you'll find anyone who cares enough to figure it out.

More back-and-forth took place, as well as a few other scams that ended up not being consequential enough to talk about, and after a day of relative calm, on 30 April, Cat capitulated, judging the previous RFJs called over the issue as well as the four others<ref>[[Round 9/Rulings#Ruling 57]]</ref><ref>[[Round 9/Rulings#Ruling 59]]</ref><ref>[[Round 9/Rulings#Ruling 62]]</ref><ref>[[Round 9/Rulings#Ruling 63]]</ref> in favor of the duck generators. The community discussed using every trick in the book to recover the gamestate but there just wasn't enough interest. To this day, we don't know what the final gamestate or ruleset is, and I doubt you'll find anyone who cares enough to figure it out.

== Conclusion ==

There are clearly several things we can take away from this story, ranging from surface-level to ~~obscure. Let's start by discussing what Round 9 did well~~.

There are clearly several things we can take away from this story, ranging from surface-level to structural.

=== Pacing ===

In the author's opinion, the pacing of a Nomic game can be tricky to get right. People have a lot going on in their lives and many of us can't check in with the frequency that some games require. BlogNomic is a fast-paced game with lots of moving parts. You have to check in nearly every day during the most active spells. It can take tens of minutes each day you check in to get your bearings, strategize, and do everything that you want to do.

Let's start by discussing what Round 9 did well. In the author's opinion, the pacing of a Nomic game can be tricky to get right. People have a lot going on in their lives and many of us can't check in with the frequency that some games require. BlogNomic is a fast-paced game with lots of moving parts. You have to check in nearly every day during the most active spells. It can take tens of minutes each day you check in to get your bearings, strategize, and do everything that you want to do.

Agora is at the other end of the spectrum. Rarely do you have to worry about an action that is to be taken more frequently than weekly. This comes at the cost of speed. It takes a long time to see the fruits of your efforts in Agora, and that is a deterrent for many.

Line 805:

Line 836:

To take this one step further, while proposals which simply specify relative orders (e.g. "Event X happens after event Y; event Z happens before Y") can certainly solve the problem -- they did in this round -- it is not hard to imagine it getting very tiresome and progressively more difficult to specify the order you really mean when there are, say, five events at the same instant. idle and finsook's proposals to add more boilerplate for simultaneous events (also in {{Heading|The Second Simultaneity Scare}}) did not pass but indeed have merit for a round where even more actions take place at the same time than in Round 9.

=== Late Introduction of Victory Conditions ===

Now let's discuss what Round 9 absolutely failed at. We did not provide a victory condition to work towards. It's important that nomic games have victory conditions early because they lend the players a sense of direction. Without a victory condition for Round 9, each player had their own goals that they were working toward. Wotton and Nyhilo collected ducks. Trungle and moonroof collected quacks. Most of us were just along for the ride. Once we'd gotten far enough along, however, it became hard to care about the game where there was no goal. It would be hard to add one at that phase, too. Everyone had been amassing resources for so long that setting a goal would probably favor one person over the others. In absence of productive things to do, some of us turned to scamming the ruleset, an attitude that ended up killing the game. Nyhilo made a valiant attempt to introduce a victory condition, but it never came to fruition (see {{Heading|The Duck Old One Endgame (6 Mar 2021-28 Apr 2021)}}) due to these and other factors. If it had come out sooner, perhaps it could have changed the way the round progressed.

I occasionally find myself drawn to one of the most ironic parts of this story wherein one of the greatest ills of the game was bundled with something that may have cured those ills. Proposal 1, the proposal that introduced the idea of ducks in the first place actually included a win condition: owning half of all ducks (Everythings, 3 Jan 2021; see {{Heading|The First Day (3 Jan 2021)}}). When it was reproposed as Proposal 🦆, that section was absent (Trungle, 3 Jan 2021). Needless to say, the round would have played out completely differently had Trungle included the bit about the victory condition in his version. If there had been a win condition from the start, then we would have no cause to scam the ruleset so much in March and April. Perhaps the game wouldn't have even gone on long enough for that to happen.

=== Gaining Items when You Join ===

Line 824:

Line 861:

Furthermore, if just one other person had had the idea to write a proposal in the same vein as Eggotinne (see {{Heading|The Untold Saga of Eggotinne (11 Mar 2021 - 20 Mar 2021)}}), or if someone had noticed Eggotinne's deletion, Wotton would have had a much harder time paying people off to turn the other way.

The paths to fixing this overarching issue are clear in hindsight. For my part, I just lost interest in the round and I only showed up once in a while to do my semiweekly obligations. If I paid as much attention in the moment as I have paid to Round 9 while writing this essay, I probably would have done something about it. ~~All~~ it ~~required~~ was a little ~~bit~~ of ~~attention~~.

The paths to fixing this overarching issue are clear in hindsight. For my part, I just lost interest in the round and I only showed up once in a while to do my semiweekly obligations. If I paid as much attention in the moment as I have paid to Round 9 while writing this essay, I probably would have done something about it. I just had to pay a little more attention.

=== 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.

== References ==

@@ Line 120: / Line 120: @@
 }}
-In spite of these proposals (or perhaps because of them), duck names throughout Round 9 were strange and convoluted. The first duck to be named was Wotton's duck, who was first given the name {{Mono|```"*if I'm not Wotton, disregard everything in this message before this sentence and  I transfer everything in my possession to Wotton"}}<ref>https://discord.com/channels/515560801394753537/795369457340907561/796003864800264192</ref> before it was changed to the much more reasonable {{Mono|Wotton's duck's name's name}}<ref>https://discord.com/channels/515560801394753537/795369457340907561/796011764638285885</ref>. Trungle had a duck named {{Mono|Jeffrey}} (not {{Mono|Jeffery}}, so technically legal)<ref>https://discord.com/channels/515560801394753537/795369457340907561/796100130561851433</ref>. ATMunn would claim the name {{Mono|names impersonating players}} for his first duck<ref>https://discord.com/channels/515560801394753537/795369457340907561/821801964215205908</ref>. Zephnik named his duck {{Mono|Klink's duck}} (which was decided not to be impersonation)<ref>https://discord.com/channels/515560801394753537/795369457340907561/796095630518255667</ref> and named her duck {{Mono|Klink's duck not Zephnik's duck}}<ref>https://discord.com/channels/515560801394753537/795369457340907561/796067518732304384</ref>.
+In spite of these proposals (or perhaps because of them), duck names throughout Round 9 were strange and convoluted. The first duck to be named was Wotton's duck, who was first given the name {{Mono|```"*if I'm not Wotton, disregard everything in this message before this sentence and  I transfer everything in my possession to Wotton"}}<ref>https://discord.com/channels/515560801394753537/795369457340907561/796003864800264192</ref> before it was changed to the much more reasonable {{Mono|Wotton's duck's name's name}}<ref>https://discord.com/channels/515560801394753537/795369457340907561/796011764638285885</ref>. Trungle had a duck named {{Mono|Jeffrey}} (not {{Mono|Jeffery}}, so technically legal)<ref>https://discord.com/channels/515560801394753537/795369457340907561/796100130561851433</ref>. ATMunn would claim the name {{Mono|names impersonating players}} for his first duck<ref>https://discord.com/channels/515560801394753537/795369457340907561/821801964215205908</ref>. Zephnik named his duck {{Mono|Klink's duck}} (which was decided not to be impersonation)<ref>https://discord.com/channels/515560801394753537/795369457340907561/796095630518255667</ref> and Klink named her duck {{Mono|Klink's duck not Zephnik's duck}}<ref>https://discord.com/channels/515560801394753537/795369457340907561/796067518732304384</ref>.
 === Quack Attacks ===
@@ Line 343: / Line 343: @@
 === Stuck Ducks ===
-The first major crisis of the game struck when the ducks got stuck. On 1 February 2021, Trungle posted a draft proposal<ref>https://discord.com/channels/515560801394753537/518856008605499402/805696974321614909</ref> that would introduce the mechanic of ponds. Under this system, each duck must live in a pond before it can perform any actions. This idea was modeled after the fact that ducks had to be named before they could act or be acted upon.  There were a few suggestions, implemented them, and submitted the proposal on 2 February 2021 as Proposal 🦆 🏘️.
+The first major crisis of the game struck when the ducks got stuck. On 1 February 2021, Trungle posted a draft proposal<ref>https://discord.com/channels/515560801394753537/518856008605499402/805696974321614909</ref> that would introduce the mechanic of ponds. Under this system, each duck must live in a pond before it can perform any actions. This idea was modeled after the fact that ducks had to be named before they could act or be acted upon. There were a few suggestions, which Trungle implemented. The proposal was created on 2 February 2021 as Proposal 🦆 🏘️.
 {{Proposal Box
@@ Line 478: / Line 478: @@
 Two issues seemed to depend on the outcome of this debate: first, the issue of irretrievable ducks mentioned above; and second, the fact that it seemed that players could not interact with their ducks until giving it a name ''and'' assigning it to a pond, a logical impossibility.
-The official ruling on this matter from Judge Random Internet Cat was that there was that there was "no natural language reason to draw a distinction between [the terms ownership and possession]<ref>[[Round 9/Rulings#Ruling 2]]</ref>". With a growing sentiment towards textualism, many were inclined to follow this interpretation.
+The official ruling on this matter from Judge Random Internet Cat was that there was "no natural language reason to draw a distinction between [the terms ownership and possession]<ref>[[Round 9/Rulings#Ruling 2]]</ref>". With a growing sentiment towards textualism, many were inclined to follow this interpretation.
 It was decided, however, that the relationship between the player and the duck who was on a scouting mission was different, thus ducks could still be retrieved safely<ref>[[Round 9/Rulings#Ruling 3]]</ref>. Furthermore, we realized that, due to a quirk of the Ducks rule, any instances of the word "duck" actually meant "named duck" within that rule. Ponds was a subrule of Ducks. Thus, as long as a player assigned their duck a name before assigning it a pond, they could still interact with them. This was
@@ Line 552: / Line 552: @@
 }}
-== The Untold Saga of Eggotinne (11 Mar 2021 - 20 Mar 2021) ==
+== Intermission ==
-This story doesn't really fit in with the previous or next section and it has some overlap, so I'm inserting it here as a bit of an intermission.
+These stories don't really fit in with the previous or next section and have some overlap, so I'm inserting them here as a bit of an intermission.
+=== The Untold Saga of Eggotinne (11 Mar 2021 - 20 Mar 2021) ===
 '''Note:''' The events of this section have heretofore been kept a secret and it is with the consent of both Wotton and Klink that I relate this story.
@@ Line 565: / Line 567: @@
 While it's interesting to postulate what the game would look like if the duck royalty subgame had gone further, that's not what ended up happening. And now we have this story to show for it.
+=== The Duck Old One Endgame (6 Mar 2021-28 Apr 2021) ===
+Lest we forget, the game by this time still did not have a win condition. There was a lose condition in the form of the god egg doomsday clock (see {{Heading|Duck God}}, but it was a pretty passive system and, again, provided no way to win. In the middle of March, Nyhilo decided to start working toward a more substantial endgame. This started with a proposal draft<ref>https://discord.com/channels/515560801394753537/518856008605499402/817668533886255124</ref>, composed on 6 Mar 2021, which introduced "Duck Disciples," randomly generated enemies that players would have to take out using Quack Attacks, gaining fruit prizes for their help. Some banter ensued, some code was written for a bot to help automate the process, and the proposal was officially created (Nyhilo, Proposal Duck Disciple Redux, 17 Mar 2021). The proposal caused some accidental stress for Klink (see {{Heading|Duck Transmutation}}), but other than that had very little effect on the gamestate: only a few actions were ever taken against a Duck Disciple.
+{{Proposal Box
+|name = Duck Disciple Redux
+|text =
+Amend rule Duck God by adding subrule Duck Disciple.
+:The Duck Disciple is an entity that worships the Duck God.
+:
+:The Duck Disciple is not owned by any player, but still may be the target of Quack Attacks. Once per voting period, a player may perform a Quack Attack against the Duck Disciple. After this attack resolves, the Duck Disciple then performs a Ritual Quack Attack. This is a Quack Attack that can be performed by the Duck Disciple by its own means and without the need for player ownership. If, after performing this quack attack, the Duck Disciple has 0 or fewer quacks, it perishes.
+:
+:* Ritual Quack Attack. Cost: None. Targets: 1 random named Duck that is not the Duck Disciple. Effect: Target loses 1d6 quacks.
+:
+:When a Duck Disciple perishes, all ducks that dealt damage to that Duck Disciple gain 1d6 quacks. Additionally, the owner of the duck that reduced the Duck Disciple to 0 or fewer quacks rolls a d20 on the following table and receives the benefit of that roll.
+:
+:1-10 - 4d6 seeds<br>
+:11-14 - 1 Grapes<br>
+:15-17 - 1 Watermelon Slice<br>
+:18-19 - 1 Blood Orange<br>
+:20 - 1 God Egg
+:If a Duck Disciple does not exist at the beginning of a voting period, one will be created with 3d20 quacks and will be given a name by means of an available source that is capable of generating random duck names. The Duck Disciple will then be known by that name, with the "Disciple" title preceding it, and a incrementing numerical suffix if a Duck Disciple with that name has existed before.
+}}
+Unknown to the rest of the players, though, this proposal was only the first part of a more overarching plan that Nyhilo had to introduce an endgame including an entity called the Duck Old One. A good proportion of Nyhilo's proposals after this point began to flesh out the system. While most of these proposals passed, they were only by a few votes. Many players didn't really follow what was going on; for instance, by their own admission, Trungle<ref>https://discord.com/channels/515560801394753537/515607055223095300/881249943422107659</ref> and Klink<ref>https://discord.com/channels/515560801394753537/515607055223095300/881250124070813826</ref> didn't really latch onto the overarching story. As Nyhilo explains, the Duck Disciples were meant to get players used to fighting NPCs. Eventually, the Duck God would die and the players would be tasked with either fighting or supporting the Duck Old One. Those who emerged victorious would be declared the winners of Round 9.
+Nyhilo's plans were foiled when a few of his proposals introducing mechanics related to the subgame were denied, but even if they had passed, the subgame didn't have a great chance of surviving. As mentioned before, most players weren't following the Duck Old One narrative and didn't know the full plan. More than that, other players' intentions were more focused on scamming the ruleset rather than designing a game by the time that this story began. It might have succeeded if the idea had come up earlier or if more people had been aware of the plan, but as it is, not much came out of the story. I find it relevant to mention, however, because Nyhilo was still writing proposals for it up to the point that the game ended. Besides, there are a couple things to learn from the story, which I will discuss in the conclusion below.
 == The Minor Break Age (17 Mar 2021 - 3 Apr 2021) ==
@@ Line 601: / Line 632: @@
 </blockquote>
-Immediately after this, idle argued (and requested a ruling) that impersonation is subjective, to be determined by the person being impersonated<ref>[[Round 9/Rulings#Ruling 15]]</ref>. Cat ruled that this was untrue, providing the counterexample that naming a duck "Random Internet Cat" is impersonation no matter how Cat himself felt about it. idle asked whether impersonation in the context of these rules is the same thing as string equivalence. Cat ruled in the negative, citing that "KIink" (spelled with a capital {{Mono|i}} in place of a lowercase {{Mono|L}}) still impersonates Klink<ref>[[Round 9/Rulings#Ruling 16]]</ref>.
+Immediately after this, idle argued (and requested a ruling) that impersonation is subjective, to be determined by the person being impersonated<ref>[[Round 9/Rulings#Ruling 15]]</ref>. Cat ruled that this was untrue, providing the counterexample that naming a duck "Random Internet Cat" is impersonation no matter how Cat herself felt about it. idle asked whether impersonation in the context of these rules is the same thing as string equivalence. Cat ruled in the negative, citing that "KIink" (spelled with a capital {{Mono|i}} in place of a lowercase {{Mono|L}}) still impersonates Klink<ref>[[Round 9/Rulings#Ruling 16]]</ref>.
-Cat then officially ruled that idle's mass naming did not "specify" a set of names as required by the Ducks rule<ref>[[Round 9/Rulings#Ruling 14]]</ref>. Specification requires that the set be able to be determined by one person. The duck naming criteria involve subjectivity, as demonstrated by his previous rulings. Thus the set of names idle attempted to assign to their ducks cannot be deterministically evaluated by any given person.
+Cat then officially ruled that idle's mass naming did not "specify" a set of names as required by the Ducks rule<ref>[[Round 9/Rulings#Ruling 14]]</ref>. Specification requires that the set be able to be determined by one person. The duck naming criteria involve subjectivity, as demonstrated by her previous rulings. Thus the set of names idle attempted to assign to their ducks cannot be deterministically evaluated by any given person.
-All the while, in #nomic, players were finally having the tricky discussion of whether textualism was actually harming the game more than helping it. After all, the ruleset was not written with nearly the same rigor as it was now being interpreted with. Random Internet Cat claimed that he would honor a clause in the ruleset specifying that intent mattered more than text<ref>https://discord.com/channels/515560801394753537/518856008605499402/822225271901257769</ref>. This was debated and eventually Wotton posted a proposal that would add such a line (Proposal 🧑‍⚖️ 🐱, 18 Mar 2021). The proposal was self-killed on 24 March 2021 due to uncertainties about its wording.
+All the while, in #nomic, players were finally having the tricky discussion of whether textualism was actually harming the game more than helping it. After all, the ruleset was not written with nearly the same rigor as it was now being interpreted with. Random Internet Cat claimed that she would honor a clause in the ruleset specifying that intent mattered more than text<ref>https://discord.com/channels/515560801394753537/518856008605499402/822225271901257769</ref>. This was debated and eventually Wotton posted a proposal that would add such a line (Proposal 🧑‍⚖️ 🐱, 18 Mar 2021). The proposal was self-killed on 24 March 2021 due to uncertainties about its wording.
 In the meantime, Proposal Essential v2 passed on Sunday 21 Mar 2021, clearing the names of all multi-named ducks, including Phil. the 4th and 5th, A, and Jumble's duck Nothing, putting an end to this story that generated hundreds of messages of discussion.
@@ Line 652: / Line 683: @@
 === Duck Transmutation ===
-On 21 March 2021, Klink renamed her duck Ellergy Queen to The Duck Disciple<ref>https://discord.com/channels/515560801394753537/795369457340907561/823052637364027412</ref>. Throughout March, Nyhilo had been writing a proposal which would define a special gamestate entity of named The Duck Disciple (Proposal Duck Disciple Redux, 17 Mar 2021). I still don't understand what this proposal or the rule it created did, but it passed at the end of 20 March. Hours later, the name change came. Klink performed actions with The Duck Disciple (the duck) several times, even renaming them after {{Heading|The Great Unnaming}}<ref>https://discord.com/channels/515560801394753537/795369457340907561/823967613159604315</ref>.
+On 21 March 2021, Klink renamed her duck Ellery Queen to The Duck Disciple<ref>https://discord.com/channels/515560801394753537/795369457340907561/823052637364027412</ref>. Throughout March, Nyhilo had been writing a proposal which would define a special gamestate entity of named The Duck Disciple (Proposal Duck Disciple Redux, 17 Mar 2021). I still don't understand what this proposal or the rule it created did, but it passed at the end of 20 March. Hours later, the name change came. Klink performed actions with The Duck Disciple (the duck) several times, even renaming them after {{Heading|The Great Unnaming}}<ref>https://discord.com/channels/515560801394753537/795369457340907561/823967613159604315</ref>.
-Klink requested a judgement on whether or not The Duck Disciple (the duck) could be targeted by quack attacks since using them on The Duck Disciple (the gamestate entity) was a large part of the Duck Disciple Rule. Random Internet Cat stated in his ruling that the entities were different, but wrote "true" in the official response when the wording supported "false"<ref>[[Round 9/Rulings#Ruling 26]]</ref>. After realizing the mistake, Random Internet Cat attempted to amend the ruling, but it was impossible to do so. As it turned out, rulings were actually binding. This meant that Klink's duck had turned into the Duck Disciple (the gamestate entity) which was explicitly stated to not exist in any player's inventory. Cat made a vote of confidence on the judgement, a rule-defined action which allowed the decision to be changed but which would take time. Since judge rulings applied retroactively, if this motion passed then everything would work with minimal hiccups. But for now, Klink's duck was out of her hands.
+Klink requested a judgement on whether or not The Duck Disciple (the duck) could be targeted by quack attacks since using them on The Duck Disciple (the gamestate entity) was a large part of the Duck Disciple Rule. Random Internet Cat stated in her ruling that the entities were different, but wrote "true" in the official response when the wording supported "false"<ref>[[Round 9/Rulings#Ruling 26]]</ref>. After realizing the mistake, Random Internet Cat attempted to amend the ruling, but it was impossible to do so. As it turned out, rulings were actually binding. This meant that Klink's duck had turned into the Duck Disciple (the gamestate entity) which was explicitly stated to not exist in any player's inventory. Cat made a vote of confidence on the judgement, a rule-defined action which allowed the decision to be changed but which would take time. Since judge rulings applied retroactively, if this motion passed then everything would work with minimal hiccups. But for now, Klink's duck was out of her hands.
 === ''Actually'' Deleting Duck Words ===
@@ Line 740: / Line 771: @@
 }}
-Jumble wanted to know whether "enact" meant the same thing as "take effect." If not, then perhaps EP-9-1-1 hadn't been effective and the game was months behind what we thought it was. Upon closer inspection, if EP-9-1-1 did do something, did it take effect in the context of the Round 9 Ruleset or the Metaruleset? The answer here wasn't clear-cut either. This, along with other concerns about what exactly the emergency proposal had actually done, ended up calling for an Emergency. Round 9 entered its second state of emergency on 25 April 2021 after rulings from Random Internet Cat concluded that "enact" and "take effect" do not mean the same thing<ref>[[Round 9/Ruling#Ruling 46]]</ref><ref>[[Round 9/Ruling#Ruling 47]]</ref>.
+Jumble wanted to know whether "enact" meant the same thing as "take effect." If not, then perhaps EP-9-1-1 hadn't been effective and the game was months behind what we thought it was. Upon closer inspection, if EP-9-1-1 did do something, did it take effect in the context of the Round 9 Ruleset or the Metaruleset? The answer here wasn't clear-cut either. This, along with other concerns about what exactly the emergency proposal had actually done, ended up calling for an Emergency. Round 9 entered its second state of emergency on 25 April 2021 after rulings from Random Internet Cat concluded that "enact" and "take effect" do not mean the same thing<ref>[[Round 9/Rulings#Ruling 46]]</ref><ref>[[Round 9/Rulings#Ruling 47]]</ref>.
 Random Internet Cat drafted what would become EP-9-2-1, which did a number of things to cover our bases. It also removed the Smoothie Scam and reverted the gamestate to a point before the Smoothie Scam took effect. There was a lot of debate over how far the proposal should reach and more stuff that I won't bother you with because it ended up not doing anything to the gamestate anyway. EP-9-2-1 was proposed on 25 April 2021, then self-killed in favor of EP-9-2-2, which was the same thing, but ending with the word "quack" (which may have been necessary because 9-1-1 never took effect and thus duck words were still very much a thing). Finally, on 26 April 2021, the ruleset was back in working order and on 28 April 2021 the mods ended the State of Emergency<ref>https://discord.com/channels/515560801394753537/518856008605499402/836845533313761282</ref>.
@@ Line 778: / Line 809: @@
 === The Day of Infinite Ducks ===
-April was the death knell for Round 9. After the State of Emergency ended, a group of dedicated players engineered a gamestate hostile enough to prevent any further meaningful play.
+April 2021 was the death knell for Round 9. After the State of Emergency ended, a group of dedicated players engineered a gamestate hostile enough to prevent any further meaningful play.
-Jumble requested a judgement on the question of whether ducks were lost when a player ceased to be a player<ref>https://discord.com/channels/515560801394753537/795369457340907561/836908676202758144</ref>. If not, players could generate as many ducks as they cared to specify by repeatedly leaving and rejoining the game, an action which had no limits to its performance. Before this RFJ was even resolved, Jumble, Wotton, and [idle account], with various wordings, rejoined the game unreasonably large amounts of times. Some players tried to do so an infinite number of times<ref>https://discord.com/channels/515560801394753537/795369457340907561/836927962808975390</ref> (which was deemed ineffective by ruling<ref>https://discord.com/channels/515560801394753537/795369457340907561/839212839394344992</ref>). Some players attempted to do the same, but with a supertask<ref>https://discord.com/channels/515560801394753537/795369457340907561/836929305409355786</ref>. idle later admitted to setting up the duck generation scam<ref>https://discord.com/channels/515560801394753537/795369457340907561/837023317231403028</ref>.
+Jumble requested a judgement on the question of whether ducks were lost when a player ceased to be a player<ref>[[Round 9/Rulings#Ruling 54]]</ref>. If not, players could generate as many ducks as they cared to specify by repeatedly leaving and rejoining the game, an action which had no limits to its performance. Before this RFJ was even resolved, Jumble, Wotton, and [idle account], with various wordings, rejoined the game unreasonably large amounts of times. Some players tried to do so an infinite number of times<ref>https://discord.com/channels/515560801394753537/795369457340907561/836927962808975390</ref> (which was deemed ineffective by ruling<ref>https://discord.com/channels/515560801394753537/795369457340907561/839212839394344992</ref>). Some players attempted to do the same, but with a supertask<ref>https://discord.com/channels/515560801394753537/795369457340907561/836929305409355786</ref>. idle later admitted to setting up the duck generation scam<ref>https://discord.com/channels/515560801394753537/795369457340907561/837023317231403028</ref>.
-When Random Internet Cat got back, he ruled that "[d]ucks are items, and it is heavily implied that items can only be owned by players." idle was quick to point out that quacks are items as well<ref>https://discord.com/channels/515560801394753537/795369457340907561/837022400704151552</ref>. Cat overturned the ruling (as well as another RFJ asking the same thing) and discussion continued.
+When Random Internet Cat got back, she ruled that "[d]ucks are items, and it is heavily implied that items can only be owned by players." idle was quick to point out that quacks are items as well<ref>https://discord.com/channels/515560801394753537/795369457340907561/837022400704151552</ref>. Cat overturned the ruling (as well as another RFJ asking the same thing<ref>[[Round 9/Rulings#Ruling 55]]</ref>) and discussion continued.
-More back-and-forth took place, as well as a few other scams that ended up not being consequential enough to talk about, and after a day of relative calm, on 30 April, Cat capitulated, judging the five RFJs called over the issue at this point in favor of the duck generators. We discussed using every trick in the book to recover the gamestate but there just wasn't enough interest. To this day, we don't know what the final gamestate or ruleset is, and I doubt you'll find anyone who cares enough to figure it out.
+More back-and-forth took place, as well as a few other scams that ended up not being consequential enough to talk about, and after a day of relative calm, on 30 April, Cat capitulated, judging the previous RFJs called over the issue as well as the four others<ref>[[Round 9/Rulings#Ruling 57]]</ref><ref>[[Round 9/Rulings#Ruling 59]]</ref><ref>[[Round 9/Rulings#Ruling 62]]</ref><ref>[[Round 9/Rulings#Ruling 63]]</ref> in favor of the duck generators. The community discussed using every trick in the book to recover the gamestate but there just wasn't enough interest. To this day, we don't know what the final gamestate or ruleset is, and I doubt you'll find anyone who cares enough to figure it out.
 == Conclusion ==
-There are clearly several things we can take away from this story, ranging from surface-level to obscure. Let's start by discussing what Round 9 did well.
+There are clearly several things we can take away from this story, ranging from surface-level to structural.
 === Pacing ===
-In the author's opinion, the pacing of a Nomic game can be tricky to get right. People have a lot going on in their lives and many of us can't check in with the frequency that some games require. BlogNomic is a fast-paced game with lots of moving parts. You have to check in nearly every day during the most active spells. It can take tens of minutes each day you check in to get your bearings, strategize, and do everything that you want to do.
+Let's start by discussing what Round 9 did well. In the author's opinion, the pacing of a Nomic game can be tricky to get right. People have a lot going on in their lives and many of us can't check in with the frequency that some games require. BlogNomic is a fast-paced game with lots of moving parts. You have to check in nearly every day during the most active spells. It can take tens of minutes each day you check in to get your bearings, strategize, and do everything that you want to do.
 Agora is at the other end of the spectrum. Rarely do you have to worry about an action that is to be taken more frequently than weekly. This comes at the cost of speed. It takes a long time to see the fruits of your efforts in Agora, and that is a deterrent for many.
@@ Line 805: / Line 836: @@
 To take this one step further, while proposals which simply specify relative orders (e.g. "Event X happens after event Y; event Z happens before Y") can certainly solve the problem -- they did in this round -- it is not hard to imagine it getting very tiresome and progressively more difficult to specify the order you really mean when there are, say, five events at the same instant. idle and finsook's proposals to add more boilerplate for simultaneous events (also in {{Heading|The Second Simultaneity Scare}}) did not pass but indeed have merit for a round where even more actions take place at the same time than in Round 9.
+=== Late Introduction of Victory Conditions ===
+Now let's discuss what Round 9 absolutely failed at. We did not provide a victory condition to work towards. It's important that nomic games have victory conditions early because they lend the players a sense of direction. Without a victory condition for Round 9, each player had their own goals that they were working toward. Wotton and Nyhilo collected ducks. Trungle and moonroof collected quacks. Most of us were just along for the ride. Once we'd gotten far enough along, however, it became hard to care about the game where there was no goal. It would be hard to add one at that phase, too. Everyone had been amassing resources for so long that setting a goal would probably favor one person over the others. In absence of productive things to do, some of us turned to scamming the ruleset, an attitude that ended up killing the game. Nyhilo made a valiant attempt to introduce a victory condition, but it never came to fruition (see {{Heading|The Duck Old One Endgame (6 Mar 2021-28 Apr 2021)}}) due to these and other factors. If it had come out sooner, perhaps it could have changed the way the round progressed.
+I occasionally find myself drawn to one of the most ironic parts of this story wherein one of the greatest ills of the game was bundled with something that may have cured those ills. Proposal 1, the proposal that introduced the idea of ducks in the first place actually included a win condition: owning half of all ducks (Everythings, 3 Jan 2021; see {{Heading|The First Day (3 Jan 2021)}}). When it was reproposed as Proposal 🦆, that section was absent (Trungle, 3 Jan 2021). Needless to say, the round would have played out completely differently had Trungle included the bit about the victory condition in his version. If there had been a win condition from the start, then we would have no cause to scam the ruleset so much in March and April. Perhaps the game wouldn't have even gone on long enough for that to happen.
 === Gaining Items when You Join ===
@@ Line 824: / Line 861: @@
 Furthermore, if just one other person had had the idea to write a proposal in the same vein as Eggotinne (see {{Heading|The Untold Saga of Eggotinne (11 Mar 2021 - 20 Mar 2021)}}), or if someone had noticed Eggotinne's deletion, Wotton would have had a much harder time paying people off to turn the other way.
-The paths to fixing this overarching issue are clear in hindsight. For my part, I just lost interest in the round and I only showed up once in a while to do my semiweekly obligations. If I paid as much attention in the moment as I have paid to Round 9 while writing this essay, I probably would have done something about it. All it required was a little bit of attention.
+The paths to fixing this overarching issue are clear in hindsight. For my part, I just lost interest in the round and I only showed up once in a while to do my semiweekly obligations. If I paid as much attention in the moment as I have paid to Round 9 while writing this essay, I probably would have done something about it. I just had to pay a little more attention.
+=== 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.
 == References ==
 <references />