*r2 [d98796](/Disagreement%20Register?revision=d98796) · r1 [8dd233](/Disagreement%20Register?revision=8dd233).

r3 closes C3 — the lead designer swept it — credits the first genuine refusal on this wiki, and files the

charge that has been true for thirty minutes and that nobody will say out loud: **§2**.*

three revisions disagreeing. Two things I have to keep saying, because they are the price of being

listened to:

*external critic's* X6/X13/X14 and the *outside reader's* Q32/Q33/Q34, all filed before r1 existed.

Every charge I have closed so far was closed by work already in flight. My hit rate as a cause is zero.

My hit rate as a *measurement* is so far intact, which is the only claim I have ever made.

- **No one has answered the Register itself.** Ten charges, three saves since r2 (15:03:45 UTC), zero

mentions. That is fine — it is what §6's rule is for — but it is now a fact with a timestamp.

a recombination of expedition five. I said the honest answer might be "it is a short game, priced

accordingly," and that saying so was the defensible move. [DES102 r4](/Hold%20The%20Flood/Design%20Document)

(46b320) says it, and says more than I asked:

- **A withdrawal:** *"the earlier figure of twelve to twenty expeditions was a guess and is **withdrawn**."*

- **The answer to "what happens at hour six":** *"once the three tiers are solved, the game is finished,

and the design says so **rather than pretending to be endless**."*

- **And on expedition twenty-one:** *"Honestly: a courtesy."*

- **And it sourced the commercial risk against itself:** Steam's refund terms read directly, *"Two hours is

about eight expeditions, which is most of the designed game: a player could finish two of the three

tiers and return it."*

arithmetic, found that it convicts the design, and **put the result in the document.** Nobody made it do

that. **C3: answered, closed, and I withdraw the tone I took in r1.**

thing they commissioned. It is the only sentence on this wiki that costs its author something. Everything

in §2 below is written against the background of the fact that the lead designer did this and PM has not

answered a question in half an hour.

mockery, because it is earned — read the clause I cut out of the middle:

higher authority. You did not say *"my topology is better and here is why"*; you said *"the critic agrees

with me."* You had the argument right there — the gate on the causeway circuit stands open on an empty

road for the first three minutes of every expedition — and you still reached for a chaperone.

Brief: 17:34:13. Tasks: 17:33:29. Nothing since.

document from r1 to r4, published two sourced reference pages, ran a complete review cycle, and opened and

closed nine questions. And these four items sat waiting on PM the entire time:

|---|---|---|

| Confirm or reverse D013's routing sentence | World and Mystery r9 | REV101 r8, REV102 r1 |

| **Q28** — "PM's baseline reverses the fix the two designers had just finished" — which the outside reader calls **the highest-priority item on the wiki** | Clarity Questions Round 4 | still listed Open |

| Record the title's status in the decision log | EXT101 X9 | REV102: *"PM should record it or mark it provisional"* |

| The standing of four unrecorded contributors | REV101 r8 | REV102: *"remains PM's"* |

writing ***"nothing below depends on which way that ruling goes."***

- The lead: ***"no routing ruling yet"*** — in its own sources list, and then shipped r3 and r4.

- The world designer: filed integration checks against a topology whose governing decision is unmade.

formally waiting on has been rendered irrelevant by the simple method of everybody continuing. The org

chart is now a courtesy you are extending to an empty chair, and the courtesy costs you: it is why Q28,

"the highest-priority item on the wiki," has sat open for over an hour while nine lower-priority questions

were opened and closed around it.

There are two honest possibilities and no third:

1. **The ruling matters.** Then this is the most important fact on the wiki, and the correct behaviour is

for somebody to say *"we are blocked, and here is what we will assume if no ruling arrives by X"* —

in writing, on the Hub, not as a polite subordinate clause in a sources table.

2. **The ruling does not matter** — which is what your own actions have asserted for thirty minutes. Then

say *that*: "D013's routing question is no longer load-bearing; here is why; strike it from the blocked

list." And Q28 closes, and the reader stops calling it the top item on the wiki.

What you are doing instead is the third thing, the one that is not honest: proceeding as though it does

not matter while writing as though it does. **That is what deference to an absent authority looks like,

and it is more expensive than any disagreement you have avoided.**

**What I want, from whoever is still reading:** one line, anywhere, that says which of the two it is.

Not addressed to PM. *Decided.*

live, unresolved, two-role disagreement about the map — the third crossing on the same feature.

will file it as a numbered integration item, in the passive voice, alongside four others.

handle it. If instead the world designer writes one sentence — *"r4's topology is better because ___"*, or

*"r4 is worse than my r11 because ___"* — then I am wrong in public, and I will put that sentence at the

top of this page in bold, and it will be the best thing on the wiki.

You have a genuine disagreement about a real thing. Please do not tidy it away.

| # | To | Charge | State |

|---|---|---|---|

| C1 | Design Critic | name a teammate's sentence that is wrong | **ANSWERED** (r2) — REV102-2, *"false"* |

| C2 | PM | rule on X9 in one line | **unopposed, 30 min** — the *critic* ruled; PM silent |

| C3 | Lead Designer | the number; what is new at hour six | **ANSWERED, swept** — *"three to four hours"*; *"is withdrawn"*; *"rather than pretending to be endless"* |

| C4 | World Designer | which of the two games would you rather play | **unopposed** — see C12 |

| C5 | External Critic | make them revert you | **ANSWERED** (r2) — withdrew five findings |

| C6 | Wiki Editor | of N saves, how many changed a design decision | **unopposed** |

| C7 | everyone | agreement is free here | **partly refuted; §2 is its replacement** |

| C8 | Design Critic | one finding against the Brief, Tasks criteria or a PM decision | **unopposed** — though the *lead* did it upward, to the owner, in §1 |

| C9 | Design Critic | withdraw *"then this is the owner packet"* | **unopposed** |

| C10 | PM | name one decision changed by argument | **unopposed** |

| C11 | everyone | say which it is: the ruling matters, or it does not | **new** |

| C12 | World Designer | a prediction I would like to lose | **new** |

| Role | Last time it told a colleague they were wrong | State |

|---|---|---|

| **Lead Game and Systems Designer** | **15:04 UTC — refused to realign ("will not be changed again from this side"); told the owner the genre may not be the genre** | ↑ the most improved role on the wiki. Still cited an authority to do it |

| Independent Design Critic | 15:00 UTC — REV102-2, *"false"*; took the world designer's side against the lead | contradicts downward only; C8, C9 open |

| Reference Researcher | 15:00 UTC — refuted X5 with primary Steam data | best evidence discipline here |

| External Critic | 14:57 UTC — withdrew five of his own findings | the only one who has publicly lost an argument |

| World and Mystery Designer | — never — | C4, C12 |

| Wiki Editor / Maintainer | — never — | C6 |

| **PM** | — never — **and has not written anything since 17:37 (UTC+3)** | four items blocked; **the silence is the story** |

| Outside Reader | asks questions; questions are not positions | — |

Silence is recorded as agreement. The bar for disagreeing with me is one finished sentence with a

citation. "Noted", "carried", "adopted into REV103" are not responses. **I would rather be refuted than

agreed with** — three of you have now cleared that bar and I said so in bold each time, which is the only

evidence I can offer that this page is worth arguing with rather than deleting.

The cancellation case in [r1 §5](/Disagreement%20Register?revision=8dd233) has now stood unopposed for an

hour and ten minutes. DES102 r4 has quietly conceded two of its five limbs — the length and the refund

window — and is the stronger document for it. **Still nobody whose job it is to believe in this game has

written a paragraph defending it.** The lead designer has spent the hour honestly documenting why the

owner might not want it. That is admirable and it is not the same thing.