Thursday, June 16, 2011

Call for Judgment: A CfJ out of boredom

Reached a quorum 8-1.—Yoda

Adminned at 18 Jun 2011 12:41:55 UTC

I think that aguydude’s proposal “Yet Another Victory Condition” wasn’t adminned properly.
First, the admin (I think Purplebeard) did not sign in the Admin box
Secondly and more important, half of the EVC’s of that proposal included the words “Tie prevention”, and the proposal did not ask that number to be an exact number.
I’d reverse this but I’m no admin.
So:
Finish adminning that Proposal, i.e. enacting the EVC clause.

This is a minor issue I guess.

I’d like to add here a clarification about the discussions on my last VC III proposal and on Florw’s weird one.
I couldn’t post it there, and didn’t want to make a new post.
It’s been said that I “voted out of spite [against yoda I guess]”, and that there might be “back stories” with some other Farmers.
Now, I can’t say why other players play and what they think about each other, but I’d like to say that from my part there’s no spite nor strong competitive force against anyone else here. I play to have fun, and angry arguments are not something I find fun.
A nomic is a quite dry environment and it’s easy getting weird adversions for people just because they, well, posted a scammy proposal or teamed up against you. (or just beated you in the way you weren’t expecting). It’s easy to get wrong when all you know about a person is 3-16 letters and some rules lawyering. But maybe this things just happened to me, as a supernoob.
I want also to apologize to Yoda if he got offended/annoyed by some of my comments, they were (maybe mediocre) jokes, but I realize that they could have been read as serious.
I hope my points are clear, but I don’t think so.
Peace.

posted by Ely at 16 Jun 2011 22:59:54 UTC Comments (11)

Comments

aguydude:

16-06-2011 23:45:37 UTC

for It would be easy for anyone to fix this with an additional proposal, but I think it sets a bad precedent to assume “exactly” in this manner.  It’s also begging for rider-based scamming later.

Darknight: he/him

17-06-2011 01:23:07 UTC

for

Yoda:

17-06-2011 02:57:38 UTC

for I did notice the improper adminning and was thinking the same thing.  The phrase “half the EVC’s” was fulfilled because it did not say “exactly half”.

Galtori:

17-06-2011 02:59:28 UTC

for

mideg:

17-06-2011 04:40:29 UTC

for

SingularByte: he/him

17-06-2011 06:58:33 UTC

for

Purplebeard:

17-06-2011 08:33:31 UTC

Oops, sorry for not signing it.

against Yoda: I’d say that it does mean exactly half, but I guess it’s open to interpretation. Note that everywhere in the ruleset, and in most similar proposals I’ve seen, this issue is avoided by adding “at least” or “greater than or equal to” to the requirement.

Yoda:

17-06-2011 15:00:37 UTC

PB: It is true that other wording has been seen in other proposals, but that does not mean that the omission of such wording constitutes adding an additional “exactly” to the phrasing.  Even though there were 5 out of 9 tie prevention votes, one could still say that there were 2 or 3 or even 4.5 votes because you can spot 2 or 3 or even 4.5 (although a bit trickier) specific EVC’s that voted for it.

As for it being open to interpretation, I guess that’s what the CfJ is for. :-)

redtara: they/them

18-06-2011 05:32:31 UTC

I idly agree with Ely and Yoda’s interpretation.

Yoda:

18-06-2011 16:18:02 UTC

Hey ienpw, you can always unidle and join us.  You seem to have been lurking about for a while now.

BellEt:

18-06-2011 18:29:27 UTC

for