Call for Judgment: Actioneering
Quorum of against votes so it fails 0-7. -RaichuKFM
Adminned at 15 Dec 2013 17:01:03 UTC
Several days ago, a rule passed which allowed for my Power to be reduced by a weekly communal action. That action was immediately undertaken.
A few days later, a proposal passed which changed the amount that my Power can be reduced by as a result of that Action.
Today, an Oligarch asserted that changing the number constituted the application of a new action, and carried it out again.
Now, I don’t think it does, and have reverted the change. But thinking about it, I can see that the ruleset is not unambiguous about this. It seems best to resolve this by CfJ. So, if this CfJ is enacted, amend the Gamestate to reflect the fact that my Power was reduced by 20 today as a result of that communal weekly action, and add the following to the Glossary:
Action
Any specificly-described activity in the Ruleset is an Action. Each specifically-described activity is a single Action and any activities that have substantively different descriptions constitute separate Actions.
This has come up before(I don’t remember when) and is why it is better to keyword acts. If it was “as a weekly communal action, an oligarch may preform the drain act. When an oligarch preforms the drain act they reduce the depots power by 50/20.” then I would agree with you. As it is though the act is defined as “reducing the power of the despot 50”. It was changed to a different act of “reducing the power of the despot by 20”.
Actually, I still feel it is a separate act but I think your definition of action could cause problems. If you could do the same thing under 2 separate rules(say reducing the despots power) then would they be one act? and who decides “substantively different descriptions”. That is just going to cause more CFJs by people disagreeing over a painfully vague term.
Josh: Mastermind he/they
To which I obviously
- note that CfJs can’t be self-killed.