Monday, February 27, 2006

Call for Judgment: CfJ Legality issues

Passed 4-1, enacted by Kevan.

Adminned at 01 Mar 2006 15:04:35 UTC

I beleive that the CfJs titled “The “The”” and “Final solution” were illegal.

In the former case, there was neither an active disagreement about an interpretation of the rules nor an urgent need for attention.  There had been some shouting over my ability to declare victory after three days, but because at the time the CfJ was filed, I had neither declared victory after 72 hours nor stated any intention to, there was no active disagreement at that time.

Furthermore, the requirements for a CfJ state that “The post shall go on to describe the issue, and measures that shall be taken to resolve it.”  Yet it makes no mention of an issue, only a list of actions.

As to the other CfJ, it neither mentions any disagreement nor describes any issue, either.

As a suggested action, create a new proposal entitled “The The” which contains the following:

Make the following changes to the Gamestate, in the order they are enumerated:

1) If anything in the Ruleset reads “If the Captain was not Captain at the time of the posting of the Adventure, e may not veto it.”, change it to “If the Captain was not the Captain at the time of the posting of the Adventure, e may not veto it.”

2) If anything in the Ruleset reads “If a Swashbuckler other than Elias IX has been Captain for 3 full days, then e may declare victory at any time.”, change it to “If a Swashbuckler other than Elias IX has been the Captain for 3 full days, then e may declare victory at any time.”

3) If anything in the Ruleset reads “If the Supporting side wins, the mutiny is carried out: the Swashbuckler who initiated the Mutiny becomes Captain and the previous Captain loses that position.”, change it to “If the Supporting side wins, the mutiny is carried out: the Swashbuckler who initiated the Mutiny becomes the Captain and the previous Captain loses that position.”

To adress timing concerns, Captain may not declare victory do to the sentence in the ruleset that reads, “If a Swashbuckler other than Elias IX has been Captain for 3 full days, then e may declare victory at any time,” until at least 84 hours after e changed eir name.

Finally, fail the CfJ “Final Solution” if it is still pending.

Comments

Bucky:

27-02-2006 02:38:10 UTC

for

smith:

27-02-2006 03:10:28 UTC

for But if we’re being strict, shouldn’t #3 say ‘the previous the Captain’?

Josh: Observer he/they

27-02-2006 10:00:14 UTC

for

Hix:

27-02-2006 16:25:50 UTC

smith: there’s no need to have the adjective “the” modify “captain” twice.

As for the legality of my CfJ:  Of course, I did believe that an aspect of the game needed urgent attention, or I wouldn’t have made a CfJ.  If its legality is challenged on the other point, I can only hope that other Swashbucklers disagree with the assertion that the CfJ contained no description of an issue.

smith:

27-02-2006 17:15:40 UTC

Hix: Can we split a defined keyword? ‘The’ is not actually an article in this case, but a part of the keyword, as I understand the argument.

Elias IX:

27-02-2006 22:21:19 UTC

I’m not sure that “the Captain” is a keyword in itself, as in previous dynasties, “the Ego”, “the Emperor”, “the GRAND POOBAH”, were not necessarily full titles, but simply an article preceding the actual title.

for

smith:

28-02-2006 03:04:47 UTC

against CoV After thinking about it. I don’t think the changes are necessary, and I don’t want to give the hypothetical DoV any more credence. The only thing I agree with is the failing of final solution.