Sunday, August 08, 2021

Call for Judgment: [Appendix] By any means

Enacted popular, 7-2. Josh

Adminned at 09 Aug 2021 07:38:11 UTC

In “Official Posts”, change

A post that is illegal in this manner cannot subsequently be made legal by any means.


A post that is illegal in this manner cannot subsequently be made legal by any means, except for the legal enactment of a CFJ. An illegal CFJ cannot cause itself to become legal.

It’s a problem if there are certain sorts of problem that we aren’t legally allowed to fix via CFJ.

This needs urgent attention because there currently at least two CFJs that aim to make illegal proposals legal, but under the current text of the rules, that’s something that CFJs simply can’t do – those proposals cannot be made legal by any means, and a CFJ is some means. Trying to fix this issue via proposal would require the queue to clear, leading to a chicken-and-egg problem because the CFJs are trying to fix issues with the proposal queue (and also probably delay the start of the dynasty somewhat as we wait for yet another fix CFJ), so fixing the issue by CFJ instead (ideally before “It Was All A Dream” enacts) seems like the most prudent course of action.


lemon: she/her

08-08-2021 06:50:15 UTC


Josh: he/they

08-08-2021 07:09:43 UTC

against I don’t find this to be urgent enough to warrant a CfJ.


08-08-2021 07:27:00 UTC

This appendix bug is blocking “Unpaid Overtime”, the CFJ needed to actually allow the dynasty to start. I think that’s fairly urgent.


08-08-2021 07:36:36 UTC

Like, the likely scenario if you vote this down is: “Unpaid Overtime” passes; then “Floor Plans” ends up getting enough votes to pass, it gets adminned, but the ruleset doesn’t change as a consequence because the proposal was once illegal. Maybe an admin changes it in the ruleset and gets reverted. We then either need to duplicate the changes it would have made via proposal, or have Jumble repeat the proposal. Alternatively, some admin correctly marks “Floor Plans” as illegal before it can be enacted, maybe despite the CFJ that’s trying to make it legal. Any of those courses of action are likely to delay the start of the dynasty somewhat, for no gain for anyone.

Meanwhile, if this can be passed quickly enough (before “Unpaid Overtime” is), we can use our existing fix CFJs to fix everything, without requiring a fourth attempt to start the dynasty.

So I think that this is probably the second-most urgent fix out of any of those pending at the moment (the most urgent is to fix the loophole via which idle admins can enact proposals that don’t meet the requirements to be enacted, probably using the existing CFJ with that purpose).

lemon: she/her

08-08-2021 07:43:19 UTC

yeah this does seem pretty urgent

Clucky: he/him

08-08-2021 07:46:34 UTC

against  if a cfj makes something legal it’s legal, regardless of what if the rules says

Josh: he/they

08-08-2021 07:51:59 UTC

I think the problem we have here is a tension between the “uphold” keyword and the clause in Official Posts, and prioritisation would suggest that the official posts clause has more weight than the uphold keyword; I agree that that could use fixing. But Clucky is correct that the enacted effects of votable matters are, at least by convention, not constrained by the ruleset in this way. It’s up to us to figure out how to square that circle but it’s not urgent and can be unpicked at our leisure.

Kevan: City he/him

08-08-2021 09:27:20 UTC

“cannot subsequently be made legal by any means” in the voice of the Appendix - which “has precedence over any other Rule” - seems heavyweight enough to need fixing.

I don’t share Clucky’s view that a CfJ is some metagame agreement that can get around anything, up to and including (from past discussions on this, if I’ve understood Clucky correctly) “CfJs cannot be made”.


Lulu: she/her

08-08-2021 10:41:16 UTC


Chiiika: she/her

08-08-2021 10:57:14 UTC

for 1. The Appendix has precedence over any other Rule;

Chiiika: she/her

08-08-2021 11:00:17 UTC

I don’t think metagame agreements are better than the Rule itself unless the Game itself is compromised by the Ruleset.

Raven1207: he/they

08-08-2021 23:45:40 UTC


Clucky: he/him

09-08-2021 01:44:53 UTC

why would we want to put restrictions on what a CfJ can do?

That is removing a potentially useful backdoor tool to get out of someone accidentally (or maliciously) breaking the game.

Janet: she/her

09-08-2021 02:41:51 UTC