Sunday, October 30, 2011

Proposal: CfJs should be able to correct things

S-Ked. Dead Body Collection Service ON BEHALF OF comex. ~~Chronos Phaenon

Adminned at 30 Oct 2011 13:36:37 UTC


Amend rule 1.7 by replacing:

the CfJ may be enacted by any Admin by updating or correcting the Gamestate and Ruleset as specified.


the CfJ may be enacted by any Admin by updating the Gamestate and Ruleset, and correcting the GNDT and other gamestate tracking entities, as specified.

and by replacing:

Any CfJ that has no effect on the ruleset or gamestate may be automatically failed by any admin.


Any CfJ that specifies neither changes to the Gamestate or Ruleset nor corrections to any gamestate tracking entities may be failed by any Admin.


Many CfJs are essentially self-contradictory.  They set out some interpretation of the Ruleset, state that some action was taken illegally under that interpretation and that the GNDT or another document tracking the Gamestate is wrong, and propose to correct it to what the interpretation says the Gamestate should be—but if the interpretation is correct, the Gamestate is already what the CfJ says it is: it does not need to be changed, and in fact the CfJ could be failed by any Admin for having no effect.  The Ruleset actively encourages players to call such CfJs (saying that they should “raise a Call for Judgment” on a “disputed GNDT update”), but that doesn’t mean they’re not malformed; in practice, whether such CfJs are autofailed by Admins seems to be somewhat arbitrary.

This proposal would allow CfJs to do what people have been using them for all along and correct mistaken representations of the Gamestate (such as the GNDT), rather than being required to actually modify the Gamestate.

Note: Having the Ruleset rule on its own interpretation is also somewhat intrinsically paradoxical, and afaik many BlogNomic players do not like the idea of precedent, so this proposal does not attempt to make it do so: a Player who disagreed with the interpretation suggested by the CfJ would still theoretically be entitled to “undo the effects” of the enacting Admin’s corrections (it’s left to the metagame to say he shouldn’t), and there is no mechanism to allow a Player to CfJ on the validity of a hypothetical interpretation unless he thinks that the GNDT is actually, currently wrong.  It does come out simpler that way.

To provide a little evidence, I’ve gone backwards through the CfJs from September to July and marked those that I think do not propose any actual gamestate changes, along with whether or not they were autofailed.  “Partial” means that the CfJ included both ruleset changes for clarification and no-op gamestate corrections.

Red Herring (autofailed)
Zombies (autofailed)
If you’re in the water, hang onto your items (not autofailed)
Spring-Heeled Jack (partial)
Who is anybody? (partial)
Slip and Slide Suicide (not autofailed)
Fweep, Interrupted (not autofailed)
Action Dispute (not autofailed)
To describe or not to describe (partial)
Doctor’s foul (autofailed)

(Actually, there were very few that *didn’t* fall into this category!)


Prince Anduril:

10-30-2011 12:41:19 UTC

Yep - Good point.  for


10-30-2011 12:46:18 UTC



10-30-2011 13:49:27 UTC

for I think it doesn’t hurt to spell this out, it makes the purpose of CfJs clearer and doesn’t add too much extra text to do it.


10-30-2011 13:53:23 UTC



10-30-2011 13:55:59 UTC

I’m not certain this is neccessary.

The GDNT reflects the gamestate, any corrections made to the GDNT are to either correct the gamestate, or clarify the gamestate at which point the ?GDNT is updated.


10-30-2011 14:47:52 UTC

for I’ve been upset about this for a while. Sure, it’s legal to correct the GNDT to match the gamestate at any time; but there’s no current mechanic to make it possible to vote on that, and this would add one.


10-30-2011 14:48:31 UTC

for per arthexis.


10-30-2011 15:06:31 UTC



10-30-2011 15:19:10 UTC



10-30-2011 15:22:47 UTC



10-30-2011 16:55:52 UTC

against CoV. It will do nothing, since rule “Calls for Judgment” will no more be numbered 1.7 when this proposal is processed.


10-30-2011 16:59:53 UTC



10-30-2011 18:36:29 UTC

against per Chronos. Never refer to rules by number.


10-30-2011 18:41:39 UTC

against would be for.


10-30-2011 19:19:34 UTC



10-30-2011 20:29:45 UTC

against s/k, oops