@ZackDS don’t worry I made a formal request on doxxed channels to correct the flag.
wow henry your game is on pubic broadcast station your gonna be famous this is great
A user realized they can send props in game. Pretty cool!
I think proposing on the nns biweekly may be cheaper than paying for advertising.
@dominicwilliams I think your ai flagged our game as “off chain” it is in-fact 13 canisters each burning like 22 tcycles a day. Please correct your ai.
The assigned category “non-actionable” is valid, as it is not related to improving the IC protocol or governance. Agreed, that a part of the reasoning (provided by the LLM) is not correct.
Thanks so much for affirming. We respect the tag. But we just want it to be clear that the game is intact 100% on chain.
your wrong henry is actully of the chain if you think about it
On 14 September 2026 a user submitted NNS proposal 143915, a Motion titled “Delulu.game: a 100% On Chain MMORPG running on the ic”.
The classifier canister xhfiu-7yaaa-aaaal-qvdja-cai returned the verdict nonActionable for it, with this reason, which the front end at nns.internetcomputer.org displays under the heading “This proposal has been flagged due to the following reasons”:
“This proposal primarily advertises an off-chain game and lacks any substantive suggestion for improving the Internet Computer protocol or governance.”
The game is not off-chain.
It runs in seventeen canisters on the Internet Computer: four world backends on module 0x52db7a9c20a0 (5r3gp, 3nrbc, l5yya, 2j4oq), a certified asset canister serving the client (coqqu), three ICRC-1 ledgers, and supporting canisters, three of which are controlled by SNS root canisters. Every one answered as Running when queried on 17 September 2026. The proposal’s own summary, which your system was given, says so in its second line. We are happy to supply the full canister inventory and the queries that reproduce it.
We are not disputing the second half of the sentence. We are asking to correct a statement of fact that is wrong and checkable. Specifically:
- Call re_evaluate(143915), or otherwise correct the stored reason so that it no longer states the game is off-chain.
- Tell us whether this classification was produced by an automated or AI system, and state that on the page where verdicts are displayed, so that readers know what they are reading.
- Publish the criteria a proposal is assessed against, and an appeal route a proposer can use before or during the voting period.
- Confirm whether a flagged proposal is removed from the default voting list, as the front-end source indicates, and if so, state that on the proposal page. A reader who is shown a proposal with a warning is in a different position from one who is never shown it.
We are glad to review a correction before it is posted.
It makes common sense for the same user to submit another proposal with this and the necessary steps required to check this fact.
We are glad to review a correction for the proposal before it is submitted.
is easy to fix guys the game is off the chain like twista pay a tent to the tale guys thanks you
Was this voted in by the NNS?
I found no NNS proposal authorizing this AI-classification system.
I searched the official proposal API across:
all Motion proposals;
InstallCode and UpdateCanisterSettings proposals;
NNS canister installation, upgrade, root-upgrade, and start/stop proposals;
and found no proposal referencing the classifier’s canister ID or approving this specific AI classification/default-hiding system.
Moreover, the classifier is not exclusively NNS-controlled: NNS Root is one controller, but it has two additional controllers. That means its existence or upgrades do not necessarily require an NNS vote.
here is an especially relevant precedent: proposal 83447, “Spam Prevention II”, proposed updating the NNS dapp to hide low-support proposals by default and provide an “unhide” checkbox. That proposal was rejected. It was not exactly the present AI scheme, but it proposed a closely related default-visibility restriction—and voters rejected it.
So the most accurate conclusion is:
The proposal was not removed from the NNS. An LLM-operated canister classified it as non-actionable, after which the ICP Dashboard omitted it from the default proposal list.
I found no evidence that NNS governance voted to approve that capability; the evidence instead points to a Dashboard-side feature deployed without a specific NNS authorization proposal.
You can just check the code of the dashboard it’s open source like delulu game. Both 100% on chain.
i just have a relly good idea dont hide henry propose hide all the propose if you want peeple see the propose you pay 300 icp at the booth its good idea
Hold on a second, mate.
Are you sayin’ we should hide legitimate proposals?
But people can pay 300 ICP for an ad slot?
Are you havin’ a bloody laugh, mate?
Now that I think about it though,
We might actually make some money.
I opened the console and all I saw was code. I can’t read it. I asked Jeeves and it didn’t know either.
At no point, in your rambling incoherent responses, were either of you even close to anything that could be considered a rational thought.
Everyone in this room is now dumber for having listened to them.
I award you no points, and may god have mercy on your souls.
Who called reevaluate on the cansiter?
Supposedly an “ai”
you can just agree to diss you dont need to be mean it dont mean were wrong its just a pin man