Monday, January 19, 2009

Call for Judgment: Because apparently there not being a rule prohibiting it means that it’s allowed.

Quorumed -Darth

Adminned at 19 Jan 2009 18:44:28 UTC

In Core Rule 1.5 Enactment, immediately before the sentence, “Whenever an Admin marks a proposal as enacted or failed, he must also mark his name, and report the final tally of votes (or the fact that the proposal was self-killed or vetoed),” add the sentence, “Non-Admins may not enact or fail proposals.”

Comments

Wakukee:

01-19-2009 23:33:42 UTC

for

Klisz:

01-19-2009 23:33:47 UTC

for

Darknight:

01-19-2009 23:34:17 UTC

for

Klisz:

01-19-2009 23:36:38 UTC

Hey Amni, remember that you have to explicitly vote on your own CfJ.

Amnistar:

01-19-2009 23:44:21 UTC

for

whoops.

Gnauga:

01-19-2009 23:48:10 UTC

for

Amnistar:

01-19-2009 23:48:17 UTC

Actually you know what.

No.  Forget I posted this.
against
This sets a horrible precidence.  The rules clearly state the actions that are ALLOWED to be taken as part of the Blognomic game.  If we start listing actions that aren’t allowed to be taken then we have to ensure that every contingency is covered, because if it’s not dissallowed, based on the very nature of the rules, then it’s obviouslly allowed.  I’d prefer it the other way, if it’s not stated as allowed, it’s not allowed.

Yoda:

01-19-2009 23:49:49 UTC

against per amni

Darknight:

01-19-2009 23:50:15 UTC

against very well said

Klisz:

01-20-2009 00:18:02 UTC

against

Qwazukee:

01-20-2009 00:34:47 UTC

What about things that are legal but not mentioned in the ruleset, like making Story Posts? Nowhere does it explicitly say that people can make story posts (except to apply to be new citizens, I think), yet no one would argue that these are illegal.

Amnistar:

01-20-2009 00:39:32 UTC

they also have no effect on the game, except where they are explicitly mentioned.

Qwazukee:

01-20-2009 00:45:21 UTC

Hmm, so things are only prohibited by exclusion if they would effect the gamestate/ruleset?

Klisz:

01-20-2009 00:47:42 UTC

From Rule 1.7 Gamestate Tracking:
“Any Member of the Staff may post to the blog at any time, but may only make official posts to the blog when the Ruleset allows it.”

Klisz:

01-20-2009 00:48:05 UTC

Posted at the same time as Qwaz.

Qwazukee:

01-20-2009 00:50:23 UTC

against Fair enough.

Qwazukee:

01-20-2009 00:51:47 UTC

Wish I’d let this conversation take place before that DoV. . . .

Amnistar:

01-20-2009 00:52:41 UTC

don’t worry about it Qwaz.  We all make mistakes.

Wakukee:

01-20-2009 00:53:17 UTC

against

Wakukee:

01-20-2009 00:53:32 UTC

COV

Rodlen:

01-20-2009 01:03:14 UTC

against

Gnauga:

01-20-2009 01:05:02 UTC

against COV per Amni’s Supercrazyawesome speech.

Kevan:

01-20-2009 01:20:52 UTC

against Rule 1.1.

Klisz:

01-20-2009 01:22:30 UTC

What about Rule 1.1?

Kevan:

01-20-2009 01:27:54 UTC

“The Ruleset and Gamestate can only be altered in manners specified by the Ruleset.” - not meaning to be obscure, I thought someone had already quoted this in another relevant thread.

Klisz:

01-20-2009 01:30:43 UTC

Yes, they have, about twenty million times, in Qwaz’s DoV.

arthexis:

01-20-2009 01:48:59 UTC

against CoV

arthexis:

01-20-2009 01:49:58 UTC

Wait… why did I say CoV? I hadn’t voted before. Anyways, this would set a bad precedent if it where to pass

jmrdex:

01-20-2009 02:12:45 UTC

against