Monday, January 19, 2009

Call for Judgment: That’s it. DDA/F/B/O/C (I’m the Mad King of it) nukes everything. CfJ dies.

Quorumed -Darth

Adminned at 19 Jan 2009 18:44:42 UTC

Spam CfJs have been used far more than the true use for anonymous CfJs.

Remove the text “If the Member of the Staff wishes, he may post anonymously by choosing “Call for Judgment” from the Author drop-down menu on the OPTIONS tab.” from Rule 1.6 Calls for Judgment.

Comments

Darknight:

01-19-2009 02:26:49 UTC

for Until a time when they can be used the right way again

jmrdex:

01-19-2009 02:33:08 UTC

for

Klisz:

01-19-2009 02:33:59 UTC

for  Explicit author for.

By the way, I’m technically not the Mad King of the DDA/F/B/O/C. I’m the Ultimate Mad King of the DDA/F/B/O/C.

arthexis:

01-19-2009 02:36:23 UTC

for Who knows how to disable it?

Klisz:

01-19-2009 02:39:10 UTC

Wak does, he’s put it in timeout a few times.

Darknight:

01-19-2009 02:45:44 UTC

Oddly enough I think he’s the only one who know.

Klisz:

01-19-2009 02:47:33 UTC

No, 75th also knows. He told me how, but I can’t remember.

Darknight:

01-19-2009 02:48:49 UTC

Ah.

Rodlen:

01-19-2009 02:59:42 UTC

for You are no member of the DDA/F, fool.

Klisz:

01-19-2009 03:00:21 UTC

That’s because it’s the DDB now.

Rodlen:

01-19-2009 03:03:13 UTC

You were never a member.

You attempted to take my position.

*kills Darth Cliche.  Quickly.*

Klisz:

01-19-2009 03:05:38 UTC

*catches the bullet and throws it back at you, like Vader did with Han Solo’s blaster bolt in Episode V*

Rodlen:

01-19-2009 03:06:10 UTC

I never said I shot you, fool.

Yoda:

01-19-2009 03:09:00 UTC

for

Gnauga:

01-19-2009 03:18:41 UTC

for

Klisz:

01-19-2009 03:22:18 UTC

Well fine. However you killed me, I evaded it using the Stereotypical Side of the Force. I then killed you with a friggin’ lightsaber.

Wakukee:

01-19-2009 04:05:50 UTC

for
Already voted for this once.

Wakukee:

01-19-2009 04:06:05 UTC

but not in this thread.

Klisz:

01-19-2009 04:16:44 UTC

Thread?

...

This is BlogNomic, not ForumNomic.

Threads are only in fora.

Klisz:

01-19-2009 04:17:33 UTC

3 more for quorum.

Wakukee:

01-19-2009 04:24:24 UTC

Sorry DC. Habit.

Klisz:

01-19-2009 04:30:13 UTC

‘salright.

Wooden Squid:

01-19-2009 06:33:30 UTC

imperial

Yoda:

01-19-2009 06:40:54 UTC

Can’t vote def on CfJ.

Qwazukee:

01-19-2009 07:13:04 UTC

against  against  against  against  against

There is nothing wrong with CfJ, there is something wrong with spammers. Although I have never used anonymous CfJ, I have thought of many instances where I might need to use them. Please, just don’t abuse the rules.

Bucky:

01-19-2009 08:03:55 UTC

No.  Do not use CfJs as extra proposal slots.

SingularByte:

01-19-2009 12:54:55 UTC

for

Kevan:

01-19-2009 13:57:21 UTC

for

Amnistar:

01-19-2009 14:38:56 UTC

against Per Qwazukee, Anony CfJ has a very valid reasoning, provide another means of combating spam.

teucer:

01-19-2009 14:44:08 UTC

against

Also, this seems like it should be a proposal.

Kevan:

01-19-2009 14:52:21 UTC

CfJs can be raised “if a Member of the Staff feels that an aspect of the game needs urgent attention”, which seems fair enough here.

What’s the valid reasoning for keeping the anonymous CfJs? All we’ve had so far is:-

* Sometimes you might want to fix a problem that’s hurting you without betraying a secret identity (such as a purely werewolf-favouring fix during the Werewolf dynasty). But you can also do this by asking the Emperor to submit a CfJ on your behalf, by arguing your case well or by some sneaky social engineering.

* Sometimes you might want to pull some sort of CfJ scam that lets you win, but if it has your name on it people might work out what you’re up to. But being able to pull off a particular type of scam is not a fundamental right of Nomic players.

Klisz:

01-19-2009 16:58:37 UTC

Hey Qwazukee! You’ve said before that “it’s a bad idea to disagree with someone who has five dynasties named after them”.

By your own logic, you should CoV and get this to quorum.

Qwazukee:

01-19-2009 18:45:46 UTC

Kevan himself has posited that it may be a trap to earn a 6th dynasty. E’s wilier than a roadrunner, e is.

Scamming is a fundamental right of Blognomic players! Else we’d never have fun.

Kevan:

01-19-2009 19:27:58 UTC

Absolutely! But scamming using an anonymous CfJ isn’t a fundamental right (and it’s only actually happened once), and it’s clear that having this mechanic in the ruleset is causing unrelated problems.

Qwazukee:

01-19-2009 19:59:30 UTC

It’s sad that it has to come to this.

In any case, this should be a proposal.

Amnistar:

01-19-2009 20:02:10 UTC

So, my reasoning would be that you want to present a fix of the rules that could cause a disadvantage to other players without causing undue hurt between players.

Preventing someone from winning comes to mind as an action that can cause animosity between players for no reason other than it having happened 4 dynasties back.

Qwazukee:

01-19-2009 20:09:09 UTC

Or, put another way, I don’t want to look like a jerk when I post an unpopular but ultimately important CfJ. Amnistar is correct, although I wasn’t around 4 dynasties ago to know what happened then.

Wooden Squid:

01-19-2009 20:23:20 UTC

for CoV to a legal vote.

arthexis:

01-19-2009 20:25:38 UTC

I think CfJ needs to go. It hurts no one to be brave and just post the issue directly, under your own name.

However, Kevan raises a good point, a Player can ask the Emperor to raise the issue on his behalf. I think we can work with that.

Klisz:

01-19-2009 22:43:44 UTC

1 more…

Yoda:

01-20-2009 02:17:31 UTC

I actually have never revealed this before, but I had someone who had agreed to help me.  I could have just as easily asked him to post the CfJ if the anonymous moniker wasn’t there.

Klisz:

01-20-2009 02:33:29 UTC

...who was he?