Call for Judgment: Gutter journalism harms us all
Timed out and passed, 4-3. Josh
Adminned at 07 Feb 2013 02:00:13 UTC
In this tabloid headline, which I understand to be leaked from a Special Advisor in Purplebeard’s office, I am made the target of mockery for two statements which purport to contradict one another. However, they do not - they simply have contextual meanings that are both true in their own situations. “Contradiction” requires there to be a logical incomparability between the two statements, but the ruleset allows that credibility can go up as well as down.
The passage of this CfJ will cause Josh’s Credibility to be restored to its value before Purplebeard’s false allegation, and Purplebeard’s credibility to be reduced by 2 as his dirty tricks are exposed. Additionally, the following line is added to the end of tthe rule entitled Commitments:
If the effects of a specific Tabloid Headlined are overturned by a later proposal or CfJ, the author of the Tabloid Headline loses 2 Credibility.
With Josh on this. By this logic you could go far as to say “RaichuKFM said “yes” but then on the NEXT proposal he said “no”!” or something similarly stupid. I commend the originality of the attempt however.
because a Point of Order has not been sought, because this gives Josh carte blanche to abuse his own credibility before restoring it with the CFJ’s enactment, because it retroactively punishes Purplebeard’s actions, because it attempts to make a material but not urgent rule change via CFJ, and because the rule change doesn’t work as intended anyway.
Purplebeard:
The statements themselves are in direct opposition, even though their contextual meanings and in-game interpretations are perfectly compatible.