The rules already say this, so it makes no difference to state it again.

The other CfJ circumvents the Diary Entry rules. This CfJ clarifies in what way the Diary rules can be circumvented; namely, that the conditions for making a Diary Entry have to exist for a Diary Entry to exist, no matter what “attempt” is going on.

Shouldn’t we just be correcting the overly-strict rule, rather than mucking around with an ongoing, unwritten consensus?

Go right ahead.

although I’m getting confused to what ongoing effect a CfJ can have on the gamestate, apart from to make one-off corrections to it.

Because it goes against my evil ploy, lol

Because it goes against his evil ploy.

Technically, I don’t think this changes any rules or changes the gamestate. According to rule 1.6 this means it can be failed automatically since it doesn’t actually do anything, other than just stating something. Since nobody has commented on that before me, am I missing something?

The only manner in which this changes the Gamestate currently is by guaranteeing that arthexis’ post is not a Diary Entry. Bucky and has suggested that the post could be a Diary Entry, even though it was made outside of the Diary Room, because of the latest CfJ. A vote For this CfJ is a vote certifying that that post is not a Diary Entry, and that similar posts cannot be Diary Entries.

I checked out for a couple of days and missed this whole debate. Perhaps because I wrote it, I don’t see how the rule was too strict, or more specifically, I don’t see how it could have been less strict and not invite precisely this type of abuse. As to SingularByte’s comment, since legitimate diary posts are part of the gamestate but illegitimate ones are not (any more than “unidle” posts are), I read this CfJ as a declaration that arthexis’ last diary entry is not part of the gamestate.

@SingularByte, the CfJ “Good Enough” changed the gamestate by creating a persistent override of a rule in the ruleset. This CfJ would undo that, so it does affect the gamestate.

9-3 right now.