Wednesday, May 13, 2009

Call for Judgment: STOP THE MUSIC!!!

Fails FINALLY… 9-0 (9 against)—Wakukee

Adminned at 17 May 2009 13:25:29 UTC

Revert all changes made to the GNDT in the last 24 hours. Add 24 hours to the time before Devenger is allowed to end the bribery stage.

ais has been cheating, or is mistaken about the bribe rules. We need to revert it so that the changes can be made propery. The bribe values are all wrong.

Comments

Wakukee:

05-13-2009 20:07:41 UTC

for

Wakukee:

05-13-2009 20:11:07 UTC

against  Doh! Misread the ruleset… my bad.

Klisz:

05-13-2009 20:20:14 UTC

against

Bucky:

05-13-2009 20:24:57 UTC

:?:

Kevan:

05-13-2009 21:00:57 UTC

Presumably relating to this; I’d misread “X is at least the Recipient’s Bribe Value” as “X is the Recipient’s Bribe Value”, and Wakukee perhaps had as well.

Devenger:

05-13-2009 21:08:02 UTC

Well, thanks a lot for mistaking my clever game mechanic for an ignorable grammatical feature, Wakukee. Please assume you are mistaken as opposed to the general populace in future… or at least put in your CfJ what you think the error of rule interpretation is, instead of being so confident you are right you don’t need to state it!

against

Bucky:

05-13-2009 21:15:19 UTC

against

Wakukee:

05-13-2009 21:19:39 UTC

Sorry… Kevan was right though. It was that note.

Darknight:

05-13-2009 21:53:10 UTC

against lol to be honest i fell into the same mind set too.

Qwazukee:

05-14-2009 03:43:47 UTC

against

Kevan:

05-14-2009 09:02:00 UTC

I think it was a combination of the slightly-odd wording “X is at least Y”, and the fact that it was called a “Bribe Value” rather than “Minimum Bribe” or something. It obviously makes sense that corrupt officials will also accept larger bribes, but I was thinking about it on a more abstract level (in a world where someone can successfully bribe me against my will).

Devenger:

05-14-2009 09:39:48 UTC

In future I’ll try and be clearer and possibly provide an example, but since we have no opportunity to put flavour text within the body of a rule, that task is much harder without opening up scarier opportunities for unique interpretations.

ais523:

05-14-2009 11:27:03 UTC

against

Kevan:

05-14-2009 18:23:56 UTC

Adding “For example: if ais523 had a Bribe Value of 7…” to a rule is safe and unambiguous enough, isn’t it?

Not a problem, anyway - misreading a completely unambiguous rule is all part of the fun of Nomic.

Yoda:

05-15-2009 22:28:06 UTC

against It’s not really important now…

Wakukee:

05-16-2009 00:01:49 UTC

I know, but noone will vote it down…

smith:

05-16-2009 12:08:14 UTC

against

ais523:

05-16-2009 14:29:47 UTC

Please people vote this down, “Revert all changes made to the GNDT in the last 24 hours.” would do something entirely different now we’re in a different dynasty…