Monday, January 19, 2009

Declaration of Victory: I win.

Failed by Kevan - no vote in favours, 14 against (including the Writer), after fourteen hours of voting.

Adminned at 20 Jan 2009 07:50:35 UTC

As per rule 2.10 Victory Man!, I have won.

Comments

Qwazukee:

01-19-2009 21:20:14 UTC

for

Wakukee:

01-19-2009 21:21:56 UTC

for
Scamtacular!

Wooden Squid:

01-19-2009 21:42:00 UTC

oh, wow.

Bucky:

01-19-2009 21:42:11 UTC

“The Ruleset and Gamestate can only be altered in manners specified by the Ruleset. “

You could not have legally added Rule 2.10 to the Ruleset, regardless of what the Admin status of your proposal is.

SingularByte:

01-19-2009 21:42:37 UTC

In rule 1.1, “The Ruleset and Gamestate can only be altered in manners specified by the Ruleset.” The proposal couldn’t be enacted, therefore against

Wakukee:

01-19-2009 21:42:39 UTC

how do you vote, Wooden Squid?

SingularByte:

01-19-2009 21:43:45 UTC

Beaten by 27 seconds!

Wakukee:

01-19-2009 21:44:51 UTC

Doesn’t the ruleset allow the ruleset to be changed if a proposal has passed to change it?

Amnistar:

01-19-2009 21:45:15 UTC

against 

since said rule does not exist.

And really guys, there are loopholes and there are loopholes.

Bucky:

01-19-2009 21:45:59 UTC

It says, “The oldest pending Proposal may be enacted by any Admin (and the Ruleset and/or Gamestate updated to include the specified effects of that Proposal) if…”

It doesn’t specify any changes to the Ruleset/Gamestate if a proposal becomes enacted by other means.

Wakukee:

01-19-2009 21:46:45 UTC

Said rule DOES exist.

Wakukee:

01-19-2009 21:48:40 UTC

That is a limitation on when ADMINS can enact proposals. There are no rules saying that a Demi-admin may not enact proposals.

Oze:

01-19-2009 21:50:52 UTC

Nothing says Oze can’t declare victory any time he wants. That doesn’t mean I can.


against

Bucky:

01-19-2009 21:50:57 UTC

My point is that the statement I quoted is the only place in the Ruleset where a proposal is permitted to change the Ruleset.  Since that statement only applies to proposals enacted by Admins, a proposal enacted by a non-admin will have no effect on the Ruleset.

Wakukee:

01-19-2009 21:52:02 UTC

You can, it just won’t pass.

Wooden Squid:

01-19-2009 21:52:31 UTC

against

Oze:

01-19-2009 21:55:05 UTC

Replace ‘declare’ w/ ‘achieve’....

Meh, I don’t know what I’m talking about…

Wakukee:

01-19-2009 22:01:40 UTC

Quick unrelated question—What is considered an official post and what is considered an unofficial post?

Yoda:

01-19-2009 22:04:02 UTC

1) Only Admins can legally enact: “The oldest pending Proposal may be enacted by any Admin” from rule 1.5 “Enactment”.

2) Only the oldest pending proposal may be enacted: (same quote).

3) Even if you were an admin and it was the oldest pending proposal, you would have to wait until either a quorum of for votes after at least 12 hours or a majority of for votes after at least 48 hours: “if either of the following is true:-
*It has a number of FOR votes that exceed or equal Quorum, has been open for voting for at least 12 hours, and has not been vetoed or self-killed.
*It has been open for voting for at least 48 hours, it has more than 1 valid vote, more than half of its votes are FOR, and it has not been vetoed or self-killed.” from rule 1.5 “Enactment”.

4) Even if you had been able to get this proposal passed legally, its effects could not have applied to its own enactment: “It is noted that where a Proposal would amend the effects of Proposal Enactment, this does not apply to its own enactment unless explicitly stated” from the Glossary.

5) “Scams based on the core ruleset are strongly discouraged except in cases of emergency.” from here.

6) There is nothing that says that if an action is not explicitly prohibited it is permitted.

Gnauga:

01-19-2009 22:04:59 UTC

Yoda = SUPA WIN

Gnauga:

01-19-2009 22:06:42 UTC

Additionally, proposal was enacted illegally. I’ve taken the liberty of cleansing the Ruleset of said criminal proposal.

Yoda:

01-19-2009 22:07:37 UTC

And, in accordance to my delineation of faults, I vote against .

Wak: “Posts following the format specified by a rule are considered official posts.”  In other words, proposals, CfJs, DoVs, Guess posts, and Practice Sessions, to name a few in this dynasty.

Wakukee:

01-19-2009 22:11:27 UTC

what about proposals?

Wakukee:

01-19-2009 22:11:54 UTC

nevermind. read that wrong.

Gnauga:

01-19-2009 22:12:55 UTC

against Is there any way to just mark this is an epic FAILED and continue along our merry way?

Wakukee:

01-19-2009 22:15:01 UTC

try a CFJ.

Yoda:

01-19-2009 22:17:24 UTC

No, because this is a legitimate DoV, not spam.  Besides, what’s with the sudden burst of impatience around here?  Previously, no one ever complained about having to wait for a proposal, CfJ, or DoV to fail.

Also, please note that because this is a hiatus, no one can vote on or post a proposal.

Qwazukee:

01-19-2009 22:21:05 UTC

@ Yoda

1. Nothing says that non-Admins may not enact proposals. In fact, we are only prevented from altering the gamestate/ruleset, as Bucky points out, which is eventually the downfall of this DoV. Technically, we can enact stuff, it fust will have no effect on the gamestate/ruleset.

2. Also not specifically prevented, therefore legal but ineffectual.

3. Has nothing to do with what happened; we are not Admins.

4. Victory Man! remained enacted after it passed, and since it continued to be in the state “enacted” after the fact, it was allowed to earn me victory.

5. If you want people to follow rules, post them somewhere where we are likely to see them!

6. And there is nothing to the opposite effect.

Therefore, all of Yoda’s reasons fail. But Bucky/SingularByte’s reason is something we overlooked. Therefore, CoV against

Gnauga:

01-19-2009 22:21:17 UTC

There’s no sudden burst of impatience. Just me.

Wakukee:

01-19-2009 22:22:06 UTC

Does this time count toward the time needed to enact proposals? Or does time open literally mean the time that the proposal was legal to vote on?

Wakukee:

01-19-2009 22:23:00 UTC

against

Qwazukee:

01-19-2009 22:28:12 UTC

PS you guys better make new rules governing non-Admins quick, because Wak and I have about a bazillion new ways to achieve victory as soon as this comes out of hiatus. Although, to be honest, I like those non-rule rules and will probably follow them in the future.

Wakukee:

01-19-2009 22:30:12 UTC

Fortunently, many of these other ways do not involve using Demi-admin powers. They are legit scams.

Yoda:

01-19-2009 22:30:17 UTC

We have always acted as if the hiatus time counts toward the time to enact proposals.

Wakukee:

01-19-2009 22:37:07 UTC

So time open means the time which a proposal is listed to have been open for, and does not change due to instances such as the site being down or a hiatus being in place?

Yoda:

01-19-2009 22:39:44 UTC

Like I said, that is how we have done it for as long as I have been here.

Yoda:

01-19-2009 22:42:18 UTC

Qwaz: “An action is illegal if a CfJ challenging it would pass, or if most players beleive it to be illegal.” from the same link posted above.  I would venture to say that if you challenged any of the previous statements, you would be met with a CfJ that would pass; therefore, your actions are illegal.

Yoda:

01-19-2009 22:42:51 UTC

Also, the very fact that this DoV is failing should save you the time and the effort.

Qwazukee:

01-19-2009 22:47:48 UTC

Your secret rules are unfair and known only to long-tenured Blognomicers. Like I said, if you wanted us to abide by them, you should have put them somewhere we could see them. THEY ARE NOT BINDING.

I challenge all of your reasons, and I think that a CfJ challenging this DoV would fail if it weren’t for that part of rule 1.1 we missed.

Klisz:

01-19-2009 22:52:17 UTC

...secret?

Klisz:

01-19-2009 22:54:20 UTC

They’re in the Glossary…

Qwazukee:

01-19-2009 22:56:31 UTC

That essay? It is so not in the Glossary.

Klisz:

01-19-2009 22:59:17 UTC

Misremembrance.

Gnauga:

01-19-2009 23:04:29 UTC

It just hit me. Qwaz and Wak are considering creating a proposal that will enable them to win, and then filibustering it with DoV’s until sufficient time has passed to enact it. QUICK. TO THE ANTI-SCAM MOBILE.

Klisz:

01-19-2009 23:09:29 UTC

He can’t legally enact proposals.

“The Ruleset and Gamestate may only be altered in ways specified by the Ruleset.”

“Gamestate is defined as anything which is regulated by the Ruleset.”

Proposals are regulated by the Ruleset, therefore they’re part of the Gamestate. Nowhere does it say that Proposals may be enacted by non-Admins, therefore he can’t enact proposals legally. Q.E.D.

Wakukee:

01-19-2009 23:10:39 UTC

Nice thought Gnauga! I actually considered that for a while, but I now will resort to plan c.

Qwazukee:

01-19-2009 23:14:48 UTC

DC: we CAN enact proposals, they just won’t have any effect on the Ruleset/Gamestate. The enactment of proposals is nowhere defined as affecting the Gamestate/Ruleset. I am suggesting that “enact” be defined to prevent someone from enacting proposals which then do nothing because they weren’t enacted by an Admin.

The Cube:

01-19-2009 23:15:36 UTC

against This is logic based on omission, which is flawed.  My understanding of the rules is that it tells you what you CAN do, and anything not noted, you generally CAN’T do. 

That would be like declaring victory in Monopoly since it’s Tuesday, because it’s never stated in the rules that you can’t. 

And that’s not a hidden rule, that’s just common sense.

Klisz:

01-19-2009 23:18:46 UTC

Qwaz: The enactment doesn’t have to effect the Gamestate, but it’s part of it, because it’s regulated by the Ruleset.

Qwazukee:

01-19-2009 23:19:02 UTC

It ought to be stated in the ruleset, then.

Qwazukee:

01-19-2009 23:19:42 UTC

Same time as DC

Yoda:

01-19-2009 23:20:00 UTC

And, besides, there’s a link to it on the main page of the Blognomic wiki.

Qwazukee:

01-19-2009 23:21:00 UTC

And non-Admins enacting proposals is not regulated by the ruleset, that’s the whole basis of the scam.

Klisz:

01-19-2009 23:21:57 UTC

Enacting proposals in general is regulated by the ruleset.

Qwazukee:

01-19-2009 23:22:37 UTC

I think labeling something as “Essays” is as good a way of hiding it as one can find.

Qwazukee:

01-19-2009 23:24:50 UTC

I would argue that only enacting proposals as an Admin is regulated.

Yoda:

01-19-2009 23:25:53 UTC

Just because something is not regulated in the ruleset does not mean that it is allowable.  In fact, just the opposite is true.

Bucky:

01-19-2009 23:26:29 UTC

Qwazukee, before you try any scams, I would like to call your attention to the “open for voting” language used by the proposal enactment rule, and for good measure bring up the fact that “A Declaration of Victory may not also be any other type of Official Post unless the rules concerning that type of Official Post explicitly state otherwise”

Qwazukee:

01-19-2009 23:30:16 UTC

I know that. Wakukee’s latest scam idea would still work. But as I stated before, I’m not going to do it soon b/c I’m in agreement with the secret ruleset.

Darknight:

01-19-2009 23:31:10 UTC

against Just to state to the brothers that their proposal was not the oldest there for it couldn’t have been enacted, theirfor this DoV has no standing what so ever.

Klisz:

01-19-2009 23:33:02 UTC

Qwaz: For the last time, there is no such thing as the secret ruleset.

Yoda:

01-19-2009 23:33:26 UTC

As I pointed out earlier, scams based on the core rules are strongly discouraged.  There is a reason for that: our rules are not perfect, they can never be; so unless you want to make a proposal that plugs every possible loophole in the core rules, don’t make a scam that exploits it.  These types of scams are not funny, they are annoying, irritating, and downright rude, as nothing else can go on until the DoV fails (which takes 12 hours if arth votes on it).  If you keep trying these types of scams, I will close them as soon as I see them on the reasoning that they are merely spam.  This is a game, so please try to keep the game enjoyable for ALL.

Klisz:

01-19-2009 23:36:11 UTC

Damn… no core rule scams? I had a scam based on the very sentence we keep throwing at Wak and Qwaz…

Yoda:

01-19-2009 23:45:12 UTC

Unless you plan on fixing every loophole that you exploit, don’t even try it.

Klisz:

01-19-2009 23:47:27 UTC

It’s only one loophole which I’m willing to fix.

Wakukee:

01-19-2009 23:48:29 UTC

Yoda: I’m not sure how to fiz the loophole in the scam I was telling you about, since it’s not in the core rules…

Yoda:

01-20-2009 00:01:24 UTC

“Scams based on the properties of EE are strictly forbidden.”

Don’t you guys read?  I gave you the link, why haven’t you read it?

Wakukee:

01-20-2009 00:11:24 UTC

EE?

Wakukee:

01-20-2009 00:11:48 UTC

And yes, I read it.

Klisz:

01-20-2009 00:12:29 UTC

EE = ExpressionEngine, the engine used to run the site.

Darknight:

01-20-2009 00:13:39 UTC

That sercet ruleset is just an idea and not a real ruleset.

Klisz:

01-20-2009 00:19:26 UTC

2 more to quorum, then we just need to wait.

Qwazukee:

01-20-2009 00:29:21 UTC

The secret ruleset keeps getting quoted at me, which is why I keep referencing it.

One scam just happened, spur-of-the-moment, thought it would be fun but it clearly wasn’t. So Yoda, no need to resort to threats; I tried something and it failed. Ok?

Bucky:

01-20-2009 00:35:12 UTC

*sigh*.  You two remind me of myself when I joined.  That is not a good thing.

Gnauga, it’s been done before.  Refer to this proposal.

Wakukee:

01-20-2009 00:38:29 UTC

Uh… Someone just deleted Victory man. I don’t mind that much, but it should not have been deleted, just made illegal.

Klisz:

01-20-2009 00:46:49 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 00:47:30 UTC

Oops. I meant to comment on Amni’s CfJ.

Wakukee:

01-20-2009 00:55:28 UTC

‘Sigh.’ Since apparently scams are hated universally, I won’t run anymore unless its an emergency. And I had an awesome idea for one too. Well, I’ll save it for another time.

Darknight:

01-20-2009 00:59:19 UTC

Not all are hated. Some come up that work. Look up the chronos affair for a good one. Ones like what you pulled are the ones we really hate however.

Gnauga:

01-20-2009 01:00:13 UTC

This has been another episode of BlogNomic drama. Tune in next time for more DRAMATIC ACTION.

Qwazukee:

01-20-2009 01:02:25 UTC

Hmm, it appears arthexis missed this whole thing.

Rodlen:

01-20-2009 01:06:30 UTC

against

Kevan:

01-20-2009 01:22:43 UTC

against

Klisz:

01-20-2009 01:24:29 UTC

Arth, vote so we can get this over with sooner!

Darknight:

01-20-2009 01:45:47 UTC

Quick thing Quaz. Per the last line in the DoV rule. When a DoV is failed, if it has a number of AGAINST votes that exceed Quorum, the Member of the Staff who posted it cannot make another DoV until after 120 hours (5 days) have passed since the time their DoV was failed. Just to let ya know

arthexis:

01-20-2009 01:48:02 UTC

against Sorry, I have been having lots of work and can only connect to BN at certain times of the day. (Don’t worry, it won’t affect my ability to act as Writer, you just have to be patient)

Qwazukee:

01-20-2009 01:49:19 UTC

I wasn’t planning on it, I doubt anyone will guess the theme in that amount of time.

Darknight:

01-20-2009 01:50:19 UTC

Just filling ya in just incase you two had plans again lol

Wakukee:

01-20-2009 01:52:31 UTC

No, I think I may have actually solved the Dynasty!

Qwazukee:

01-20-2009 01:53:20 UTC

I don’t, don’t think Wak does anymore either (although he doesn’t seem quite as penitent about it).

Clucky:

01-20-2009 02:50:39 UTC

against

please stop trying to abuse EE or the core rules and scam your way to victory that way. It takes away from the point of blognomic.

Qwazukee:

01-20-2009 02:52:21 UTC

I believe we’ve been over this. . . .

Klisz:

01-20-2009 04:51:28 UTC

Let’s get this to over 116, to break the record.

For dimensional stability!

Qwazukee:

01-20-2009 04:55:53 UTC

Seeing as there’s nothing else to do for 16 hours. Sorry about that. Maybe there should be a self-kill option for DoVs?

Yoda:

01-20-2009 04:57:57 UTC

Actually, more like 4-5 hours, since arth voted on it.

Qwazukee:

01-20-2009 04:59:15 UTC

Oh right! Well, still, I think that S/K option would have made this a lot smoother.

Qwazukee:

01-20-2009 05:06:08 UTC

Any reason that option doesn’t already exist (I can’t have been the first to think of it)?

Rodlen:

01-20-2009 05:14:57 UTC

“When a DoV is failed, if it has a number of AGAINST votes that exceed Quorum, the Member of the Staff who posted it cannot make another DoV until after 120 hours (5 days) have passed since the time their DoV was failed.”

Maybe that’s why.

Qwazukee:

01-20-2009 05:21:45 UTC

So why not just have the same penalty for a self-killed DoV? Clearly, the problem with a self-killed DoV is just as egregious as that of a quorum-failed DoV.

Qwazukee:

01-20-2009 05:23:41 UTC

And it discourages ingenuine DoVs (especially spam DoVs!) in the same way.