Monday, January 19, 2009

Call for Judgment: Brothers? Yeah, right…

Failed at quorum, by Kevan - 2 votes in favour, 11 against.

(Amnistar’s CoV to “DEFERENTIAL” is ignored, as CfJs only count “votes of agreement or disagreement”, in Rule 1.6.)

Adminned at 20 Jan 2009 07:55:55 UTC

Wakukee has used his glitch admin powers to try to make Qwazukee achieve victory. This shows that they are sockpuppets.

Ban Wakukee and Qwazukee from BlogNomic.

Comments

Klisz:

01-19-2009 22:41:58 UTC

for

Wakukee:

01-19-2009 22:44:43 UTC

Qwaz wanted me to help him achive victory because he did not have admin powers to do it with. He agreed to make a co-dynasty, and we were not sure that this would work. We needed to work together for several of our other scam ideas to work.  against .

Klisz:

01-19-2009 22:47:52 UTC

Why didn’t you scam to make yourself win instead?

Wakukee:

01-19-2009 22:49:24 UTC

Because there is no way that it would pass. This way, people might just think it was a good scam. Also, we needed 2 people for some of our scam ideas.

Qwazukee:

01-19-2009 22:50:09 UTC

against Don’t hate, DC. It’s pretty obvious Wak is not the same person as me. But I thought we had a shot at this scam if we worked together, so I recruited his aid.

Klisz:

01-19-2009 22:50:28 UTC

You didn’t need 2 people for this idea.

And what made you think people would think it was a good scam? It would actually be a better scam if you made yourself win.

Klisz:

01-19-2009 22:50:52 UTC

Posted at the same time as Qwaz.

Klisz:

01-19-2009 22:51:17 UTC

Alright, fine.  against

Wakukee:

01-19-2009 22:51:33 UTC

Also, there have been times that we have posted in response to each other from different IP’s. One was at school while one was at home.

Qwazukee:

01-19-2009 22:52:27 UTC

DC, I came up with the idea for this scam. I didn’t have the knowledge to enact things, so I needed Wak’s help.

Gnauga:

01-19-2009 22:59:28 UTC

Regardless, we now have a pair of conmen in our midst. I warn you: nobody likes conmen unless their scams are funny or brain-splatteringly smart.

SingularByte:

01-19-2009 23:03:44 UTC

against It is much easier for brothers to work together on plans than two random people who don’t know each other so I believe they’re brothers without a doubt. This doesn’t mean I agree with trying to win like that though.

Gnauga:

01-19-2009 23:05:13 UTC

against

Yoda:

01-19-2009 23:16:47 UTC

against

Qwazukee:

01-19-2009 23:17:03 UTC

Alright, I won’t run any more scams until I feel that they’re warranted (per the secret ruleset). I hope you’re reading this, Wakukee.

Klisz:

01-19-2009 23:22:36 UTC

There is no secret ruleset.

Amnistar:

01-19-2009 23:23:08 UTC

against

Qwazukee:

01-19-2009 23:29:04 UTC

Klisz:

01-19-2009 23:34:32 UTC

Oh yeah. I forgot the name of that essay.

Darknight:

01-19-2009 23:35:49 UTC

Theres no secret rule set you two. I’m tempted to vote FOR

Wakukee:

01-19-2009 23:35:53 UTC

Quote:
2 Philosophical Essays
[edit]2.1 The Secret Ruleset
By Bucky

In addition to the publicly available main Ruleset, there are some Rules which aren’t official but are nonetheless enforced. This alternate ruleset exists because us players don’t usually play by the Ruleset as written, but instead play by our interpretation of the Ruleset. Also, the Blognomic community has its own standards for conduct. New players, however, often miss some important unspoken rules.

The important unspoken rules which I know of are as follows:

1) If an unwritten rule conflicts with the Ruleset, the Ruleset takes precidence.

2) An action is illegal if a CfJ challenging it would pass, or if most players beleive it to be illegal.

3) Actions based on an interpretation of the Ruleset not obvious from a casual reading may be illegal even if strictly permitted by the Ruleset.

4) Large-scale spamming is prohibited. About the most you could get away with is the posting and Self-Killing of 3 proposal blanks. However, the exact limit depends on how good a reason you have for spamming.

5)Illegal actions may be reverted immediately even if the reversion would also be technically illegal.

6) Scams based on the properties of EE are strictly forbidden.

7) Scams based on the core ruleset are strongly discouraged except in cases of emergency.

8) A player may combine several actions into a GNDT entry if they could legally have been performed separately.

Of these rules, 2 probably has the greatest implications. For example, whether an action is legal or not often depends on who performs it, the results, who writes the CfJ if it gets CfJed, and perhaps how soon the player who performed the original action responds to the CfJ.

[edit]3 Political Essays
Retrieved from “http://blognomic.com/wiki/index.php?title=Essays”

Amnistar:

01-19-2009 23:58:29 UTC

imperial

I am voting Imp on this because while the proposal itself is based on a faulty presumption, I am leaning, very slightly, towards agreement with the actions of the duo.

What is holding me back is the fact that you are both new users, which is great, new players are always welcome here, and I’m hoping you’ll take the following advice to heart:

If the ‘scam’ you are attempting to pull is one which you would feel cheated you out of your own dynasty, think twice before you do it.

Darknight:

01-19-2009 23:59:05 UTC

That ruleset is an idea, not a real ruleset

Klisz:

01-20-2009 00:26:22 UTC

...Amni, this is a CfJ. You can’t vote def.

Qwazukee:

01-20-2009 00:31:46 UTC

Sorry, Amnistar, we didn’t know. I’ll listen to your advice.

Darknight:

01-20-2009 00:39:23 UTC

It happens you two. I think we just got abit overly mad about it

Rodlen:

01-20-2009 01:03:32 UTC

against

Darknight:

01-20-2009 01:04:18 UTC

against

Kevan:

01-20-2009 01:25:14 UTC

against

arthexis:

01-20-2009 01:57:54 UTC

vetofor Just because.

Wakukee:

01-20-2009 01:58:45 UTC

hey!

Qwazukee:

01-20-2009 02:02:03 UTC

Not earning an friends, arthexis.

Qwazukee:

01-20-2009 02:02:23 UTC

Not earning any friends, arthexis.

Klisz:

01-20-2009 02:04:21 UTC

Arth, please CoV.

Clucky:

01-20-2009 02:53:23 UTC

for Who cares if they aren’t brothers? They knowingly abused EE and the core rules. Blognomic life (no, not conways game of life though that might make a cool theme) was better before they were around.

Clucky:

01-20-2009 02:54:00 UTC

er I mean “are brothers”. But my point remains. Why should we keep scammers on board? So they can scam again?

Qwazukee:

01-20-2009 02:57:14 UTC

Now look here, Clucky. This was one (1) scam, which at the time I thought was perfectly legal within the rules and, from what I’d heard about great scams of the past, within the spirit of the game. It has been hammered home repeatedly that I was incorrect in this belief. Do not punish me for ignorance.

Rodlen:

01-20-2009 02:58:57 UTC

EE abuse: not good.

Core rule abuse: fine if done well.

Wakukee:

01-20-2009 02:59:08 UTC

Actually, it is okay to punish him. Just don’t punish me.

Rodlen:

01-20-2009 02:59:56 UTC

Scamming based on EE: not good.

Scamming based on core rules: good if it works.

Clucky:

01-20-2009 03:02:27 UTC

I disagree Rodlen. The core rules are designed such that we have a fun game. Covering every loophole in them is unfeasible. Don’t abuse the core rules.

And Qwazukee—if there was any chance of this actually passing, I would’ve probably voted against. But as there are already plenty of against votes and I’m sick and tired of all the ruleset abuse going on the last few dynasty, I didn’t want to just be like “ok lol we’ll just give everyone who tries to scam us a warning and have a big laugh afterwards”

Qwazukee:

01-20-2009 03:02:45 UTC

Way to throw me under the bus, Wak.

Was the scam even based on EE? I think the entire thing was done using Core Rules . . . although it didn’t work, which is a problem . . . and the secret ruleset frowns upon using scams based on core rules anyway.

Darknight:

01-20-2009 03:02:50 UTC

Why not both of ya Waku? you were in on it.  for COV. Reason is I noticed that the time stamp on the proposal that made this mess kept changing. It went from like 12 hrs to 48 to 70 back to 46. I have a feeling you two tried to slip this in as the oldest proposal so you could sneak pass it. And after gettin your pm asking if people would get mad if ya scammed with a semi hidden proposal I belive you two are planning more.

Darknight:

01-20-2009 03:04:42 UTC

And for the last time that secret rule set is nothing more then an idea. it has no power over the game so stop basing stuff off of it

Wakukee:

01-20-2009 03:05:01 UTC

No. You are wrong. And I was jokin about the “Just don’t punish me.”

Klisz:

01-20-2009 03:05:46 UTC

Nooo! Please stop CoVing!

Klisz:

01-20-2009 03:06:12 UTC

Posted at the same time as DK and Wak.

Qwazukee:

01-20-2009 03:08:23 UTC

NO. I don’t know how to change the time on stuff, and have repeatedly told Wak it’s illegal. The scam didn’t need it to be the last in the line anyway, think about it. I have been telling Wak not to run that other scam ever since people got mad at this one, see my comment explicitly telling him that earlier in the post.

Please. I said I’m sorry, I won’t do it again. What else do you want from me, a Blood Oath of Vengeance? I’m sorry.

Wakukee:

01-20-2009 03:09:52 UTC

I already decided to stop all scam plans and the time change was from before I realized everyone hated the idea of scams. I don’t intend on making any more.

Darknight:

01-20-2009 03:10:12 UTC

against COV again. But as a warning, you two are on thin ice right now ok? Play fair or don’t play at all.

Qwazukee:

01-20-2009 03:12:54 UTC

I didn’t know about Wak changing the time, honest.

Agreed, Darknight.

Darknight:

01-20-2009 03:16:42 UTC

Ok then. But you guys will be watched alot closer. If not by me then by the other admins. *offers hand in good faith*

Qwazukee:

01-20-2009 03:17:45 UTC

*shakes*

Wakukee:

01-20-2009 03:18:10 UTC

‘checks hand for knife’
‘no knife visible’
*Takes hand*

Wooden Squid:

01-20-2009 03:19:28 UTC

against

Rodlen:

01-20-2009 03:20:11 UTC

Abuse of the core rules is, in certain cases, okay, such as with the start of my first dynasty (ascension address with DoV still pending led to DoV with no hiatus).  However, in this case, it was rather…stupid.

Darknight:

01-20-2009 03:21:45 UTC

Agreed Rod and I think everyone else does. I’m ready to move on now

Wakukee:

01-20-2009 03:25:55 UTC

This is 11 against if the DEF of Amni’s still counts as an x.

Klisz:

01-20-2009 04:50:53 UTC

It doesn’t count at all. This is a CfJ.

Qwazukee:

01-20-2009 04:54:15 UTC

Correct. So, since his CoV to DEF doesn’t count as anything, his previous vote of against counts, correct?

Qwazukee:

01-20-2009 15:40:33 UTC

There were actually no votes in favor of my DoV, Kevan.

Kevan:

01-20-2009 15:50:22 UTC

Sorry, didn’t catch your CoV. Fixed.

Kevan:

01-20-2009 15:54:26 UTC

And yes; “All Members of the Staff may add votes of agreement or disagreement in comments to this entry, using appropriate voting icons (a Member of the Staff’s later votes overriding their earlier ones)” - Amnistar’s last “vote of agreement or disagreement” was AGAINST. I’ll close this now.