Tuesday, March 14, 2006

Call for Judgment: Moods galore

Passed 9-3, timed out. Enacted by smith. (well, I’ll need Angry Grasshopper’s help)

Adminned at 17 Mar 2006 14:26:53 UTC

Does the line:

A Gostak may change the Mood of one other Gostak often by one value toward Ecstatic or by one value toward Depressed.

read to you to with the meaning ‘once per day, affecting one other Gostak at maximum’, or ‘only once per Gostak per day’? The first time I read it seemed the latter, but admittedly my reading was quick. The second time it still seems the same way.

Is ‘one other’ a numerical quanity, or an article?

If this CFJ passes and the majority of FOR votes include the string “It’s a number”, then the rule reads as the former, and all of my actions were illegal and are reverted. A Gostak may change the mood of any Gostak, once per day.

If this CFJ passes and the majority of FOR votes include the string “It’s an article”, then the rule reads as the latter, and the actions are legal. Each Gostak may change the mood of any other Gostak no more than once per day.


My understanding of English makes me believe the latter, but what do I know? Please refrain from including both strings because you think it would be amusing. ;)

 

Comments

90000:

03-14-2006 02:09:05 UTC

for it’s a number

Personman:

03-14-2006 02:09:43 UTC

against It’s a number. I think English is pretty clear about this, actually. (I showed my dad and he agreed, and told me to you that, quote, “My daddy said so.” So I think that settles it, really :)

However, your reiteration is both incorrect and, in my opinion, more vague than the original - it should read, Once per day, a Gostak may choose a *different* Gostak and change eir mood *by one towards Ecstatic or one towards Depressed.* If this CfJ passes, your wording would come into effect, and the whole system would be messed up. Therefore, I am voting against this CfJ.

Bucky:

03-14-2006 03:33:41 UTC

Personman:  If you feel strongly about this, write up your own CfJ.

Bucky:

03-14-2006 03:50:23 UTC

Oh, and AG still did some perfectly legal distimming and one legal mood change.

Hix:

03-14-2006 04:47:49 UTC

against

Shadowclaw:

03-14-2006 10:11:23 UTC

against

predisastered:

03-14-2006 14:28:33 UTC

for it’s a number

smith:

03-14-2006 16:38:12 UTC

for It is a number. I think an article would be ‘another Gostak’.

Rodney:

03-14-2006 19:47:47 UTC

for It’s a number

Angry Grasshopper:

03-14-2006 20:53:18 UTC

Well, I gotta vote.

for

It’s an article. Personman, you’re also correct, it’s once per day against some other Gostak.

I’ll wait for this to pass (or fail alternatively) and then revert my illegal changes, if they’re still in the GNDT.

Sorry all.

Pangolin:

03-14-2006 22:19:16 UTC

for It’s a number.

Elias IX:

03-14-2006 22:21:54 UTC

for It’s a number.

smith:

03-14-2006 23:11:07 UTC

for (re-voting using correct keyphrase) it’s a number

Kevan:

03-15-2006 13:11:16 UTC

for It’s a number. Although you aren’t actually specifying any fixes to the ruleset.

Purplebeard:

03-15-2006 20:16:45 UTC

for It’s a number.