Wednesday, July 20, 2016

Call for Judgment: 7-10 Split

Times out and passes 3-2. -RaichuKFM

Adminned at 22 Jul 2016 19:48:01 UTC

If the proposal “Light up the Scoreboard” failed, this does nothing.

If the proposal “Light up the Scoreboard” was enacted, remove the following text from the rule “[OFF] Official Positions”:

If a Scribe ever has 2 or more Official Positions at the same time, that Scribe Scores.

Then, rename the rule “[OFF] Official Positions” to “Official Positions”.

If the proposal “Light up the Scoreboard” is pending, modify the the text of the proposal “Light up the Scoreboard” by removing everything in it before this text:

Rename the rule “Vanity”

Let’s actually make “Split Concerns” work.

Comments

Bucky:

07-20-2016 18:33:13 UTC

for

Clucky:

07-20-2016 18:39:24 UTC

against what is the point of contention that is actually being resolved here?

Bucky:

07-20-2016 18:53:49 UTC

Larry mentioned in a comment to “Dud Deliberation” that he thought Split Concerns should have worked as is.

Bucky:

07-20-2016 18:55:06 UTC

Cov imperial  until I better understand what this CfJ is trying to do.  Is it alleging that Split Concerns should have worked or trying to re-apply the effects of Split Concerns?

Clucky:

07-20-2016 18:57:43 UTC

I read Larry’s comment as they want to make Split Concerns work, not that they feel it should’ve worked.

RaichuKFM:

07-20-2016 19:38:06 UTC

for I think Larry thinks it should have worked, but his grounds are wrong.

But I think the flavor text here implies this is to apply the changes of Split Concerns, since it didn’t work, and I’m for that.

Clucky:

07-20-2016 19:51:53 UTC

A CfJ should be to resolve a dispute. If you think the rule is good but the CfJ is wrong, file another proposal to fix instead of abusing CfJs

RaichuKFM:

07-20-2016 20:06:34 UTC

Clucky.

“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, then any Scribe may raise a Call for Judgement (abbreviated CfJ) by posting an entry in the “Call for Judgement” category.”

Qwertyu63 clearly seems to think this requires urgent attention.

If Calls for Judgement were only for dispute resolution, and anything else was “abuse”, how could we fairly, say, fix the game if Proposals were unambiguously illegal to make? (That’s happened before, although maybe not unambiguously.) Because it’s unambiguous, there would be no dispute, so you would think a Call for Judgement would be improper, in that situation; but they’re clearly meant to be how we resolve such things? And have been used as such.

They’re how we deal with a Mad King Anthony.

The rules disagree with you, and I’m sure if we polled most players they’d disagree, too.

I understand that precedent and majority opinion, uncodified in the rules, ought to have zero weight in debates like this,

But the rules disagree with you, too!

Clucky:

07-20-2016 20:27:21 UTC

This is not a matter that needs urgent attention

RaichuKFM:

07-20-2016 20:31:18 UTC

That’s a subjective, and it’s not for you to decide; as long as one Scribe thought this was a matter that required urgent attention, it was legal to make. (And, considering that it was effecting a pending Proposal, ideally before it resolved, it totally required urgent attention.)

This isn’t an abuse of CfJs, so don’t vote against it for that reason; if you have another reason to vote against, go ahead, but, come on.

RaichuKFM:

07-20-2016 20:32:21 UTC

*affecting a pending Proposal (or its results), ideally before it resolved,

Clucky:

07-20-2016 21:03:12 UTC

It is for me to decide. I’m the one voting.

This is content I feel should’ve been submitted via proposal and using a CfJ to submit it violates the spirit of CfJs, so I’m voting against.

Bucky:

07-21-2016 05:39:27 UTC

against  per Clucky.

Larrytheturtle:

07-22-2016 16:35:13 UTC

for I think it would have worked as a proposal but I don’t think this hurts anything