Wednesday, February 21, 2007

Call for Judgment: Chronology II

Timed out and failed, 5-3. Josh

Adminned at 25 Feb 2007 15:31:17 UTC

Description of problem: some Actors have added roles that are against the current rules.

Proposed solution:
Remove all roles from Actors’ filmographies that violate either of the clauses:

* A role of “Nth Minor Character” may only be added if the Actor has been an Extra in three earlier films.
* A named role may only be added if the Actor has been an Nth Minor Character in three earlier films.

If “Making Movies… BACK IN TIME” has passed, however, do not remove any roles that were added after it was enacted.

Actors whose roles have been removed to may add one valid role (per deleted role) as if it had been added at the same time as the deleted role (including the state of the rules).  If any Actor adds a role per the regular rules of the game, e forfeits eir right to replace any remaining deleted role.

Comments

Hix:

02-21-2007 19:06:05 UTC

against honest “mistakes” due to use of ambiguous “earlier films”.  I won’t always condone misinterpretations of ambiguous rules, but this one is harmless, and I think we’re best off letting the “mistakes” stand, passing “Making Movies… BACK IN TIME”, and getting along with the game.

spikebrennan:

02-21-2007 19:30:16 UTC

against per Hix

ChronosPhaenon:

02-21-2007 19:36:25 UTC

against Too complex. If you care about legality, why not just make a CfJ saying the old not-earlier movies are legal?

snowballinhell7001:

02-21-2007 20:31:58 UTC

Chronos: Because they aren’t.
for

Edometheus:

02-21-2007 20:41:23 UTC

Even if we pass “Making Movies… BACK IN TIME!”, those who have chronological errors in eir filmographies will have still been in violation of the rules as they stood at the time when those filmography entries were created. This just allows those people who are in violation of the rules to correct eir mistakes. There is no punishment for those were in violation, ey simply have to edit their filmographies to conform to the current rules.
for

viewtyjoe:

02-21-2007 23:27:06 UTC

against

Seebo:

02-22-2007 12:20:40 UTC

for I agree, this is a decent way to handle things. I hadn’t yet seen this as I was typing up my realism proposal, and I guess this basically does the same thing minus my extra clause about movies before 1927 :)

Amnistar:

02-22-2007 17:45:19 UTC

against