Monday, October 03, 2011

Call for Judgment: An incorrigible nonconformist warmly acclaimed

Failed 0 votes to 9. Failed by Kevan.

Adminned at 04 Oct 2011 02:00:33 UTC

I posted a story post earlier today, explaining my sudden increase of 10,000 acclaim. This can be found here.

I believe that my scam of the Zeitgeist rule is legitimate and propose that 10,000 Acclaim be added once again to my score.

Please see the linked post, for my counter-arguments to people’s previous points.

Comments

Josh:

10-03-2011 17:44:51 UTC

against

Kevan:

10-03-2011 17:53:21 UTC

against I disagree that it’s possible to “meet” a list of zero criteria.

Prince Anduril:

10-03-2011 18:03:09 UTC

‘Can’ is defined as ‘is able to’ as a keyword:

Thus:

“The Zeitgeist is a list of Criteria that Artists [are able to] optionally meet in their posts to score Acclaim. It is tracked in the following Wiki page: “Zeitgeist”.

If the page exists, the list exists. If the list exists, Artists are able to meet it.

bateleur:

10-03-2011 18:10:31 UTC

against For the reason already stated on your story post - if you can perform an action on any one of a list of no things then you have no actions available. (And the suggestion that it might be possible to “meet” the list itself is category mistake.)

Wooble:

10-03-2011 18:12:18 UTC

against

Prince Anduril:

10-03-2011 18:24:51 UTC

Indeed it may be a Category mistake in regard to how the author intended the rule to be read, my argument is that it can be read another way, and I have been given no reason why it shouldn’t be read in regards to the list rather than the criteria, as that makes sense in logical terms.

I don’t really understand what ‘if you can perform an action on any one of a list of no things then you have no actions available.’ means. My action was making my post. I didn’t not meet the list of criteria; rather, I met the criteria of a list of nothing.

scshunt:

10-03-2011 18:48:42 UTC

against because if the scam was successful, this means that you gain the acclaim again.

bateleur:

10-03-2011 19:16:41 UTC

Maybe if I explain with a different example, then. Consider “a menu is a list of foods that customers can optionally eat”. An empty menu is a list of no foods and therefore customers have nothing available to eat. You are proposing that you instead eat the menu, which shows admirable determination to dine, but may not satisfy your hunger!

Bucky:

10-03-2011 20:01:40 UTC

against  due to a lousy precedent.

omd:

10-04-2011 01:27:28 UTC

against

Klisz:

10-04-2011 03:42:49 UTC

against

Klisz:

10-04-2011 03:43:15 UTC

If we could upvote comments, I would upvote bateleur’s menu thing.

Prince Anduril:

10-04-2011 07:29:52 UTC

okay, s/k as it seems I am not getting my point across.

I like your colourful example, but it seems to me that since meeting the list is just as possible as meeting the criteria, it doesn’t work as an analogy.  against

Kevan:

10-04-2011 09:00:07 UTC

You can’t self-kill a CfJ, but it already had a quorum of against votes.