Saturday, June 25, 2016

Call for Judgment: Illegal CfJ passing

Reaches quorum and passes 4-1. -RaichuKFM

Adminned at 25 Jun 2016 21:48:43 UTC

Revert the passing of http://blognomic.com/archive/quorum_is_one#comments

 

RaichuKFM has passed a CfJ, claiming to have reached Quorum, despite only having 1 FOR vote when Quorum was 5 at the time.

I reverted their illegal passing of the CfJ but then they reverted my reversal so instead of getting in an edit war i’m doing the right thing and using another CfJ

of course, if people are in the habit of illegally passing CfJs there is nothing stopping anyone from illegally failing this one, but hopefully it won’t come to that

Comments

Larrytheturtle:

25-06-2016 18:17:01 UTC

against anyone who was a proxy didn’t count towards quorum? You didn’t address that? If you have a different interpretation I would be happy to hear it.

RaichuKFM: she/her

25-06-2016 18:18:02 UTC

against Doesn’t do anything. Calls for Judgement enact, not pass.

And a CfJ really isn’t necessary, at this point?

Either quorum was 1, and the CfJ enacting was legal, and I win; or it wasn’t, so it didn’t, and I didn’t. We can hash it out in the DoV comments, we don’t need a mess of Calls for Judgement.

Clucky: he/him

25-06-2016 18:19:34 UTC

Yes a CfJ is necessary.

If your DoV fails, you’ve still enacted your CfJ.

Clucky: he/him

25-06-2016 18:22:06 UTC

Like I said in the other post larry

1) “The proxy” clearly implies there is ever only one “Proxy”

2) There is nothing that granted Riachu the power to grant give people official positions. The rules clearly state “May be GRANTED an official position. Not may GRANT”

Clucky: he/him

25-06-2016 18:25:18 UTC

Furthermore, wherein did the original CfJ fulfill

“If two or more Scribes actively disagree as to the interpretation of the Ruleset, or if a Scribe feels that an aspect of the game needs urgent attention”?

The “lol I win” part of the CfJ did not address a conflict between two Scribes, and as not an aspect of the game demeaning urgent attention, so should not be permitted.

Brendan: he/him

25-06-2016 18:31:28 UTC

for

Larrytheturtle:

25-06-2016 18:33:35 UTC

Sorry, read this first and didn’t notice the discussion on the dov.

Per 1. I can honestly read it both ways where if it was intended to be a single position and not. I don’t think the case for it being a single position is strong enough to undo Raichukfm’s action.

Per 2. This is the stronger point in my opinion. The question comes down to “if X can be done, does that imply that people have the power to do it”. I feel that it does but I fully understand if someone disagrees and we will just have to wait and see how people vote.

RaichuKFM: she/her

25-06-2016 18:38:12 UTC

I’m going to repeat, this literally doesn’t do anything.

Calls for Judgement don’t pass, they enact.

Clucky: he/him

25-06-2016 18:48:31 UTC

eh if you want to post a CfJ when this passes arguing semantics, by all means continue to slow the game now

Larrytheturtle:

25-06-2016 18:49:00 UTC

True this doesn’t do anything. I still want to comment my opinion. “a Scribe feels that an aspect of the game needs urgent attention” is vague enough almost anything can be CFJ worthy. It is what a scribe feels so we can’t really say he is wrong about what he feels.

Clucky: he/him

25-06-2016 18:50:40 UTC

it clearly goes against the spirit of the game

Larrytheturtle:

25-06-2016 18:52:54 UTC

This is literally a game of semantics so I don’t think it is unfair for Raichu to say we should use a different CFJ and his is only 20 minutes older so he is hardly delaying the game.

p.s. I really need to stop posting before I check if any comments have happened since I started to type.

RaichuKFM: she/her

25-06-2016 18:53:06 UTC

No, I just, posted a CfJ already to actually fix the problems that this one… doesn’t. (And, if we’re not allowed to argue semantics in a Nomic, I think I might have misunderstood the… premise.)

Also, what Larry said, and some things I expounded upon in the actual DoV. The “I arguably made everyone else not a Scribe” required urgent attention, and my CfJ undid that; whatever one has to say about the legality of resolving it, it was legal to make.

Clucky: he/him

25-06-2016 18:54:16 UTC

that part was fine

the “I win / repel this rule” wasn’t

Clucky: he/him

25-06-2016 18:54:48 UTC

actually, you could even argue the “repel this rule” was fine, given it was potentially abusable

Clucky: he/him

25-06-2016 18:55:21 UTC

but putting “I win” in a CfJ when prior to the CfJ there was no claim to victory is 100% against the spirit of the game in my book

Bucky:

25-06-2016 21:20:04 UTC

for

Quorum was higher than 1 as that CfJ was allegedly resolved.

RaichuKFM: she/her

25-06-2016 21:28:03 UTC

Okay. Uh. Vote FOR on the other one, and AGAINST on my DoV.

This doesn’t do anything.

For, like, the third time: There’s no passing of “Quorum is One” to revert; there’s a resolution, and an enactment, but no passing.

Bucky:

25-06-2016 21:40:01 UTC

for

RaichuKFM: she/her

25-06-2016 21:43:17 UTC

I don’t… get the point, here.

I’m not even telling you not to vote FOR on this one, just that doing so is useless. Because… it’s useless.

There’s another CfJ to vote on that will actually put gamestate back the way you think it works.

RaichuKFM: she/her

25-06-2016 21:47:51 UTC

for Getting this out of the way.