Monday, July 26, 2021

Call for Judgment: [Appendix] An arbitrary prioritisation tiebreak

Failed unpopular, 0 votes to 5. Josh

Adminned at 27 Jul 2021 07:55:42 UTC

Add a new builet point at the top level to the end of “Prioritisation”:

  • If the above precedence rules fail to resolve an ambiguity that depends on the order in which rules are applied (e.g. because there are multiple internally consistent sequences in which rules could be applied, or because a contradiction is not covered by the cases above), apply the ambiguity by applying the rules in the following order, skipping any parts of rules that cannot be applied due to being contradicted by earlier rules (or parts of rules) in the sequence:
    1. All Appendix rules, in order from first to last;
    2. All Core rules, in order from first to last;
    3. All Special Case rules, in order from first to last;
    4. All Dynastic rules, in order from first to last.

    If the order of applying sentences/clauses within a single rule matters, apply them in the order in which they are written in the rule.

Because it seems clear by this point that our current precedence tiebreaks don’t cover all situations (especially the situation in which precedence matters but no contradiction exists), let’s add an arbitrary tiebreak that does cover all situations, even if it’s arbitrary.

For what it’s worth, this arbitrary tiebreak was taken from the original ruleset of the original nomic: “110. In a conflict between a mutable and an immutable rule, the immutable rule takes precedence and the mutable rule shall be entirely void.” “211. If two or more mutable rules conflict with one another, or if two or more immutable rules conflict with one another, then the rule with the lowest ordinal number takes precedence.”

Probably this should be a proposal but I’m out of slots, and I’ve been told that this sort of thing is acceptable as a CFJ nowadays (and it does help to resolve an ambiguity that’s currently causing issues).


Clucky: he/him

26-07-2021 16:00:52 UTC

why does this need to be a CfJ this feels like a way to get around a proposal slot.

Josh: he/they

26-07-2021 16:07:56 UTC

against Clearly should be a proposal.


26-07-2021 16:08:06 UTC

Because Josh was getting annoyed at me on Slack for telling him that he needed to use proposals for rules changes that were more than simple clarifications/ambiguity fixes.

I used a proposal slot for “The Sigil/Glyph Exclusion Principle” because of that, but apparently using CFJs for this sort of thing is acceptable nowadays (or at least, Josh got angry at me for saying it was unacceptable).

Also, this is a change that clarifies a current issue with ambiguous rules (so passing it urgently would help), even if it doesn’t do it by amending the rules themselves.

(And yes, I’m out of slots right now.)


26-07-2021 16:09:04 UTC

@Josh: Oh come on. You were getting annoyed with me for saying that your rules fix (to the Glyph/Sigil issue) should be a proposal, and now you’re getting annoyed with me for making a rules fix a CFJ? This seems somewhat hypocritical to me.

Clucky: he/him

26-07-2021 16:15:31 UTC

“If two or more Vampire Lords actively disagree as to the interpretation of the Ruleset, or if a Vampire Lord feels that an aspect of the game needs urgent attention, then any Vampire Lord may raise a Call for Judgement (abbreviated “CfJ”) by posting an entry in the “Call for Judgement” category.”

I don’t see what disagreement this actively resolves, or what urgent matter it addresses. Is something like this good to have in the rules? Sure. But to me it doesn’t really fit what goes into a CfJ.

In Josh’s case, there was an active urgent matter in the rules he was trying resolve. Hence the CfJ.

Brendan: he/him

26-07-2021 16:15:56 UTC



26-07-2021 16:18:35 UTC

@Clucky: there isn’t a disagreement in Josh’s CFJ either. Josh doesn’t think that the glyphs legally gave Influence; he’s just trying to make a proposal to make them give Influence anyway, and made them as a CFJ for some reason.

I would understand it having been made as a CFJ if Josh thought that the influence gains were legal, but as far as I can tell, he didn’t.

Clucky: he/him

26-07-2021 16:20:28 UTC

“or if a Vampire Lord feels that an aspect of the game needs urgent attention”


26-07-2021 16:27:54 UTC

Ais, yameroooo

Josh: he/they

26-07-2021 16:29:55 UTC

ais, why would I make a CfJ of a proposal. I have a slot.

You’re just wrong! Or rather - I believe you are so locked into factionalism that you might be incapable of performing the necessary mental exercise to work out why you are butting your head against a culture that you insist that you understand but which you clearly actually don’t.

I am exhausted with arguing with you. It’s been an entire dynasty of this and I’m tired. I’m happy that my vote on this is consistent with my vote on other CfJs. That’s gonna have to do ya. Figure it out. You’re a smart boy, maybe once you’ve stepped away from this dynasty it’ll click.

Kevan: City he/him

26-07-2021 19:45:41 UTC

against Not in itself urgent.

lemon: she/her

26-07-2021 22:09:03 UTC



26-07-2021 23:52:44 UTC

against I’ll let someone else repropose this, then: I get no benefit from adding the rule, and slots are valuable this dynasty, so I guess the ambiguity (which is actually mattering right now, as it mostly determines what happens in “Dust to Dust”) can stay in the ruleset until someone else cares enough to fix it.