Thursday, May 28, 2009

Call for Judgment: Rotten Fruit Ruining My Life

Quorumed, with 13 for to 1 against -Bucky

Adminned at 30 May 2009 17:20:58 UTC

In Rule 2.10.1 Rotten Fruit, change the text:

that Contestant treats whatever DICE roll they roll as if it were a 10.

to:

that Contestant treats their next DICE roll for the Fruit Effects Table as if it were a 10.

This is simply a clarification of the existing Rule, so I can CfJ it.

This is clearing up the Rule so that it can’t be interpreted as applying ad infinitum. Otherwise, it might be interpreted as “All of a Contestant’s future DICE rolls count as 10s.”

Comments

Rodlen:

05-28-2009 19:21:55 UTC

for

Bucky:

05-28-2009 19:32:30 UTC

Tempted to against this solely because it’s a legislative CfJ.

Klisz:

05-28-2009 20:08:01 UTC

for

Yoda:

05-28-2009 21:27:45 UTC

for lol.  nice catch

Qwazukee:

05-28-2009 21:29:08 UTC

Lol, wasn’t me. . . .

ais523:

05-28-2009 22:11:47 UTC

for to get this one out of the sidebar; legislative CFJs are bad in multiple ways, generally (they can get stuck in the sidebar for days, they don’t use a slot, they don’t respect DEFERENTIAL votes).

Qwazukee:

05-28-2009 22:14:44 UTC

I wasn’t about to use a slot for this, but it seemed a good idea to fix.

I thought you didn’t like DEF votes anyway, ais?

ais523:

05-28-2009 22:32:07 UTC

@Qwaz: Well, I don’t really; it puts a lot of pressure on me, and I don’t believe that I can run a nomic by myself better than a consensus of everyone else can. However, that’s a sort of selfish want; they’re certainly good for BlogNomic in that they help dynasties go the way the emperor wants. I suppose it depends on how open-ended or closed-ended the dynasty is; some are aiming somewhere in particular (like arthexis’ was), some aren’t. As for mine, I know where the flavour is going, but am only going to try to force the rules in a particular direction if nobody else has good ideas, and we’ve had plenty of good ideas so far.

TAE:

05-28-2009 22:33:58 UTC

for It is a legislative CfJ but I think we all know this was the original intent (or at least we will if this gets a quorum of For votes), so I don’t see a reason to vote against this solely on formal grounds.

spikebrennan:

05-28-2009 23:15:29 UTC

for

smith:

05-29-2009 02:31:50 UTC

for huh, I never considered the legislative CfJ distinction.

spikebrennan:

05-29-2009 02:52:34 UTC

The reason for the distinction—well, one of them, anyway, is to make people use one of their limited number of proposal slots to take an action that ought to be taken by proposal.

arthexis:

05-29-2009 03:24:43 UTC

for

Psychotipath:

05-29-2009 05:20:38 UTC

for

Darknight:

05-29-2009 06:54:05 UTC

for

Ienpw III:

05-29-2009 15:57:54 UTC

for

delta:

05-30-2009 06:01:37 UTC

for

Influenza:

05-30-2009 14:11:40 UTC

for