Wednesday, October 19, 2011

Call for Judgment: Because We Don’t Have Enough of These Yet 2

failed by CfJ “http://blognomic.com/archive/compromise_mark_4_again” -Bucky
unfailed by coppro - the enactment was illegal
Times out and refails, 0-12.—Brendan

Adminned at 21 Oct 2011 16:49:45 UTC

Be gentle, its my second time.

After some discussion with more experienced players, I have concluded that we are attempting to solve the 2.1 - 3.2 conflict from entirely the wrong end. Banning official posts from being in any other official category not only generates bugs, but prohibits all sorts of interesting and good ideas. It is not only impractical, but unwise to universally prevent posts from being in multiple categories. While scams may be possible using certain combinations, dangerous combinations should be banned specifically. Do we really want to prevent all rules which classify official posts?

One concern that was brought up was a potential scam involving posts that were simultaneously DoVs and CfJs, and perhaps Proposals as well. Thus, remove the complete prohibition on categorization of official posts by changing, in rule 3.2,

A proposal, or declaration of victory cannot simultaneously be any other type of official post unless otherwise specified by dynastic rules.

to

No entry may be more than one of the following official types of post: Proposal, Call for Justice, and Declaration of Victory.

The concern was also raised, in the current ruleset, that Critiques could then be made secretly - however, this is not prevented by the current prohibition. Thus, require Critiques to be labeled as such by changing, in rule 2.4

An Artist may post a Critique of another Artist’s non-Critique Work of Art

to

An Artist may post a Critique of another Artist’s non-Critique Work of Art by posting an entry in the “Critique” category.

Personally, I do not see a problem with allowing Critiques to also be Proposals or CfJs, though that may be better dealt with at a later time.

If the CfJ “Manual Ratification” passes after this, make the same change to Rule 2.4 and replace, in Rule 3.2, “A proposal, call for judgment, or declaration of victory cannot simultaneously be any other type of official post unless otherwise specified by dynastic rules” instead of “A proposal, or declaration of victory cannot simultaneously be any other type of official post unless otherwise specified by dynastic rules” in the renewed ruleset.

The idea here is that the solution to the controversy is to get rid of the ban on categorizing posts, clearing up the current bugs and opening up the game. I would argue that our core posts should be in play for hierarchical and webbed categorization. I also address a small bug dealing with secret Critiques. It may be wise to undo the changes in other CfJs which made Proposals no longer Works of Art, though again, that may be better dealt with later.

Comments

southpointingchariot:

10-20-2011 00:25:02 UTC

This is a replacement for my earlier CfJ, which contained a few small errors. Bear with me as I try not to be an idiot.

Ienpw III:

10-20-2011 02:14:04 UTC

It should be “call for judgement”, not “call for justice”.

southpointingchariot:

10-20-2011 02:29:45 UTC

Goddamnit

Ienpw III:

10-20-2011 02:53:26 UTC

:c

southpointingchariot:

10-20-2011 03:18:09 UTC

I’m not used to not being able to edit for typos - I tend to write proposals a little bit at a time over a day. I need to actually sit down and edit… What?! Work!?

bateleur:

10-20-2011 06:24:13 UTC

for (Assuming that it’s OK to call Critique a ‘category’ - I don’t know if ExpressionEngine would need tweaking to support this or if just writing ‘Critique:’ would be enough.)

Kevan:

10-20-2011 07:15:44 UTC

I’m not sure that “If the CfJ “Manual Ratification” passes after this” makes any sense as a clause. This CfJ doesn’t know what’s going to happen after it - the only way to create a lingering “if X happens at a later date” clause is to create a rule.

Kevan:

10-20-2011 08:47:10 UTC

[bateleur] The rest of the ruleset uses “category” to mean “category in ExpressionEngine”, although this is just normal English usage rather than a defined keyword. But it should really go in the glossary.

I think it’s easy enough to add a new category to the engine, I don’t know if we should make a habit of it or not. It might actually be an easy solution to the official post problem.

bateleur:

10-20-2011 09:07:46 UTC

[Kevan] “If the CfJ “Manual Ratification” passes after this” is unambiguous English, so for it to not make sense as a clause there must be some rule that states delayed triggered abilities (so to speak) aren’t OK. Is there?

(Of course, we might want to vote such things down on principle, but that’s not quite the same thing.)

Kevan:

10-20-2011 09:25:25 UTC

[bateleur] A CfJ is enacted by “updating or correcting the Gamestate and Ruleset as specified”, so I don’t see that there’s any room for delayed effects. We could have a delayed effect of “next Monday, do X” and the CfJ would just take a very long time to enact (if we didn’t vote it down on principle), but “after this CfJ has finished enacting, enact it some more” makes no sense.

bateleur:

10-20-2011 09:32:10 UTC

So delayed triggers wouldn’t be considered to be gamestate?

Kevan:

10-20-2011 09:34:10 UTC

Not in any useful way, because “The Ruleset and Gamestate can only be altered in manners specified by the Ruleset”, so you can’t have a piece of gamestate that can - by its own power alone - modify the Ruleset.

bateleur:

10-20-2011 09:53:45 UTC

Hmm… that’s a bit circular (in that we’re sort of debating whether the ruleset permits this), but I see what you’re getting at.

Kevan:

10-20-2011 09:56:34 UTC

Well, the ruleset explicitly lets you “update or correct the Gamestate and Ruleset as specified” when a CfJ (which is a lump of gamestate) passes, but it doesn’t let you update it when a different lump of gamestate (which isn’t a CfJ, it’s just a floating proclamation) says that it’s time to update the ruleset again.

bateleur:

10-20-2011 10:35:53 UTC

Yeah, I think I am mostly coming round to your point of view here. The slightly fuzzy area is that you seem to want to talk about gamestate as being only objects. If the delayed trigger gamestate is an object with some associated text it therefore isn’t a CfJ and so what you say applies. But it’s not necessarily the case that it is an object in that way - I was originally perceiving it as part of the resolution of the CfJ.

Prince Anduril:

10-20-2011 13:01:22 UTC

Not sure about the whole retroactive resolution thing. Surely only players can change the gamestate. You can have If-Then clauses of course, but having a conditional bit of gamestate that then *creates* new gamestate seems a bit strange to me.

Ienpw III:

10-20-2011 23:59:15 UTC

against per “Call for Justice”

Ornithopter:

10-21-2011 00:49:55 UTC

against as Ienpw

Kevan:

10-21-2011 01:14:55 UTC

against Per “after this CfJ has finished enacting, enact it some more”.

Brendan:

10-21-2011 03:12:45 UTC

against

Amnistar:

10-21-2011 04:01:01 UTC

against

Roujo:

10-21-2011 04:47:34 UTC

against

Qwazukee:

10-21-2011 09:33:00 UTC

against

Rodney:

10-21-2011 13:40:18 UTC

against

ChronosPhaenon:

10-21-2011 14:39:49 UTC

against

Pavitra:

10-21-2011 16:37:03 UTC

against

ais523:

10-21-2011 16:39:36 UTC

against

Amnistar:

10-21-2011 20:59:58 UTC

11 Against votes at this time.

southpointingchariot:

10-21-2011 21:42:09 UTC

Oh so if I self kill it stops clogging the queue? Good to know. against