Saturday, December 14, 2013

Call for Judgment: Actioneering

Quorum of against votes so it fails 0-7. -RaichuKFM

Adminned at 15 Dec 2013 17:01:03 UTC

Several days ago, a rule passed which allowed for my Power to be reduced by a weekly communal action. That action was immediately undertaken.

A few days later, a proposal passed which changed the amount that my Power can be reduced by as a result of that Action.

Today, an Oligarch asserted that changing the number constituted the application of a new action, and carried it out again.

Now, I don’t think it does, and have reverted the change. But thinking about it, I can see that the ruleset is not unambiguous about this. It seems best to resolve this by CfJ. So, if this CfJ is enacted, amend the Gamestate to reflect the fact that my Power was reduced by 20 today as a result of that communal weekly action, and add the following to the Glossary:

Any specificly-described activity in the Ruleset is an Action. Each specifically-described activity is a single Action and any activities that have substantively different descriptions constitute separate Actions.



12-14-2013 13:38:30 UTC

To which I obviously against - note that CfJs can’t be self-killed.


12-14-2013 16:26:31 UTC

for This has come up before(I don’t remember when) and is why it is better to keyword acts. If it was “as a weekly communal action, an oligarch may preform the drain act. When an oligarch preforms the drain act they reduce the depots power by 50/20.” then I would agree with you. As it is though the act is defined as “reducing the power of the despot 50”. It was changed to a different act of “reducing the power of the despot by 20”.


12-14-2013 16:31:08 UTC

against Actually, I still feel it is a separate act but I think your definition of action could cause problems. If you could do the same thing under 2 separate rules(say reducing the despots power) then would they be one act? and who decides “substantively different descriptions”. That is just going to cause more CFJs by people disagreeing over a painfully vague term.


12-14-2013 16:34:51 UTC

against  on policy as the rule change should be in a proposal.


12-14-2013 16:43:09 UTC

We should probably make a new CFJ to lower your power that doesn’t have a rule change in it

Clucky: HE/HIM

12-14-2013 17:28:20 UTC

I’m with Larry and Bucky here.

I feel like it is a separate action. Hence why try to do the whole “May do X. When they do X…” thing.

But I think the glossary adds to the confusion because “substantively different” is well defined.

Currently, everything works without needing extra definitions. Have has anyone reduced the despots power by 20 this week? No? Then you can perform the “reduce the despots power by 20” action. Seems clear cut to me.

Kevan: HE/HIM

12-14-2013 19:02:34 UTC

against Because the rule change is too restrictive - it would mean that if this rule had been written the usual way (“As a Weekly Communal Action, an Oligarch may Drain the Despot. When the Despot is drained…”), any amendment to the effects of a Drain would give that Action a “substantively different description” and allow it to be reused.

[Bucky] I’m not sure when we dropped the requirement for CfJs to include “measures that should be taken to resolve it”, but it always seems silly not to fix the problem we’re voting on. “Oh no, an ambiguous rule, let’s vote on how to interpret it, correct the score totals and leave the ambiguous wording.” CfJs are probably overdue a bigger overhaul, though.


12-14-2013 19:39:55 UTC

against Per everybody else’s complaints about the glossary.


12-15-2013 09:26:58 UTC



12-15-2013 18:19:39 UTC

I think it would be better to come with a better wording or solve things directly in the proposals to change rules with timed actions.