Tuesday, February 21, 2006

Call for Judgment: Lice

Passed 11-2. Reached Quorum. The statement ‘Lice may not be acquired by Swashbucklers in any manner except purchasing them at port for 8 dubloons a piece, as per 2.11’ is in force, even if not in the ruleset. Any swashbuckler may attempt to correct the sequence of events based on this. I’m not going to try to do it. Enacted by smith.

Adminned at 22 Feb 2006 10:02:02 UTC

Okay, it looks like there is indeed an argument (or so i interpret your semicryptic statement, Bucky - I didn’t actually know what you were going to say, but you seemed to expect a CFJ, so here ya go), so I Call for Judgment on the following statement:

Lice may not be acquired by Swashbucklers in any manner except purchasing them at port for 8 dubloons a piece, as per 2.11. Rule 2.8.1 states

lice can be found lurking on islands and in the holds of ships

but makes no provision for their acquisition. There are currently no rules defining the verb ‘find’ or the adjective ‘lurking’ in terms of Motley, so this text would appear to have no real effect on the gamestate (and thus arguable should be italicized.) However, under a very strict interpretation of the rules, it is also possible that this text makes legal a post saying “I find lice lurking in the hold of the Inquisitor” and other such true but otherwise pointless statements.

posted by Personman at 21 Feb 2006 05:12:02 UTC Comments (21)

Comments

Elias IX:

21-02-2006 01:24:32 UTC

for

I guess that it says that lice can be found lurking, but nowhere does it mention that a Swashbuckler can actually obtain lice.

Personman:

21-02-2006 01:28:26 UTC

for

Shadowclaw:

21-02-2006 01:28:59 UTC

for

Looks like this needs changing.

Angry Grasshopper:

21-02-2006 01:31:20 UTC

What does this Call for Judgment do, exactly? I can’t seem to find specific changes anywhere.

I understand the issue—a certain creative reading of some clauses, but I don’t see what the proposed resolution should be. If we enact this, what changes?

Personman:

21-02-2006 01:40:03 UTC

What changes is that my statement is recognized as true, which means a bunch of Bucky’s and other people’s actions become invalid. Some GPS’s get changed back to how they were, mostly.

Elias IX:

21-02-2006 01:40:07 UTC

I’m understanding that the first sentence, i.e.

Lice may not be acquired by Swashbucklers in any manner except purchasing them at port for 8 dubloons a piece, as per 2.11.

would take effect.

The Lone Amigo:

21-02-2006 02:07:47 UTC

for

Bucky:

21-02-2006 02:24:53 UTC

Okay, I’ve recorded the stats of the players whom I gave lice in another comment.  The result of this CfJ would seem to be to stop other players from obtaining lice at the holds.

I’ll post another CfJ to undo the tampering.

for

90000:

21-02-2006 02:30:58 UTC

for

Hopefully this will put an end to that confusion.

JelloGoesWiggle:

21-02-2006 02:48:37 UTC

for
theres no relation to ‘finding’ and aquiring as motley.

smith:

21-02-2006 04:40:02 UTC

for

Hix:

21-02-2006 04:48:18 UTC

for

predisastered:

21-02-2006 08:16:39 UTC

for

Banja:

21-02-2006 08:58:57 UTC

for

Igthorn:

21-02-2006 12:24:40 UTC

for

Bucky:

21-02-2006 15:19:35 UTC

Actually, “Succeed in obtaining” is part of the dictionary definition of find.  Lurking could be interpreted to apply only to lice on islands.  Since there is no formal precidence heirarchy, the later and more specific sentence might take precidence over the earlier, less specific one.

My vote of for stands in order to avoid the chaos of an all-out lice war.

Purplebeard:

21-02-2006 19:05:11 UTC

for

predisastered:

21-02-2006 22:13:47 UTC

against After thinking about this for a bit (that’ll teach me to vote at 1 am), I’m going to have to change my vote on this. Rule 2.8 says that “Motley can be purchased at Port, or acquired as a result of Injury,” not that motley may (or shall) only be purchased at port…. To me, this leaves open the possibility that certain motlies may specify their own method of acqusition. Other motlies have analogously modifed their own acquisition rules like bar being worth 12 doubloons and the inability to buy and sell zombie. Also, I read the sentence in question as “lice can be found ... in the holds of ships.” Judging by the very nature of lice, if a shashbucker were to find a louse, e would most certainly soon acquire said louse. It’s a creative reading of the rules, but I think Bucky has found a legitimate course of action.

Elias IX:

22-02-2006 00:36:35 UTC

If that were true though, one could do almost anything under the argument “Nothing in the Ruleset says that it’s not allowed.”

Bucky:

22-02-2006 02:21:26 UTC

No, it does say that Swashbucklers can only change the gamestate as permitted by rules.

CoV,  against

Personman:

22-02-2006 16:18:23 UTC

Even with the two reversals we are well over quorum. From the CfJ rule:

CfJs continue until they reach a quorum of FOR votes.

So there should be no further chance for people to change their votes. The CfJ has passed, and if an admin could process the post to reflect that fact, that would be great…