Tuesday, March 14, 2017

Call for Judgment: Common Typo fix (Mico=/=Micro)

Times out 1 vote to 4. Failed by Kevan.

Adminned at 16 Mar 2017 23:19:39 UTC

So the Beak rules say “[...]an Organ belonging to that Creature that is in the Beak state may consume one Micronium to add 3 Nonium and 3 Blonium to the Statolith’s nutrients[...]”, and the current Ruleset says (erroneously) that “These nutrients are Blonium, Gonium, Nonium and Micronium.”

My original proposal said “These nutrients are Blonium, Gonium, Nonium and Miconium.”

Micro = / = Mico

It’s all a bit of a mess. There are likely more and it would be a pain in the ass to dredge though everything. So, with this proposal:

Retroactively, all instances of “Micronium” are synonymous to “Miconium”, and all instances of the term “Micronium” in the ruleset will be replaced to “Miconium”.

posted by Madrid at 14 Mar 2017 23:02:00 UTC Comments (16)

Comments

card:

14-03-2017 23:16:50 UTC

Organs may correct obvious spelling and typographical mistakes in the Ruleset and their own Pending Proposals at any time, including replacing Spivak and gender-specific pronouns with the singular “they”.

Madrid:

14-03-2017 23:18:00 UTC

It could’ve been intentional, in which case it wasn’t a typo (“an error (as of spelling) in typed or typeset material” https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/typo).

Madrid:

14-03-2017 23:20:04 UTC

nvm the typo definition, for some reason I thought the word was there

Madrid:

14-03-2017 23:22:19 UTC

But yeah, if it was intentional, it wasn’t a mistake. Since it could’ve been intentional, it’s not obvious (to me at least, so I can’t do it), that it was a “typographical mistake”

So regardless of if it was intentional or not or stuff, this just flushes it all out.

Oracular rufio:

14-03-2017 23:39:17 UTC

against

typo

Madrid:

14-03-2017 23:47:18 UTC

How do you know?

Nothing stops people from using misleading names.

pokes:

15-03-2017 00:28:22 UTC

At one point I had “corrected” the single instance of “Miconium” in the ruleset to “Micronium”, which had two instances in the Ruleset.

Oracular rufio:

15-03-2017 00:30:03 UTC

against  against  against You said the word “typo” in the title of this CFJ, did you forget already?

Oracular rufio:

15-03-2017 00:34:14 UTC

Like if you want to get really technical here, CFJs are for when two or more people disagree about an interpretation of the rules, and a) this isn’t about an interpretation of the rules and b) no one has so much as discussed this, let alone had a disagreement about it.  If you wanted it to be “Miconium”, change the ruleset because it was a typo and then make a post saying that that’s what you meant so that it doesn’t get changed back and people know the correct spelling.  That’s it.

Madrid:

15-03-2017 00:40:51 UTC

Sure, we can go technical, but you’re wrong with your reasoning there.

The exact rule you’re referring to is this one: “If two or more Organs actively disagree as to the interpretation of the Ruleset, or if an Organ feels that an aspect of the game needs urgent attention, then any Organ may raise a Call for Judgement (abbreviated CfJ) by posting an entry in the “Call for Judgement” category.”

The bold part is the important part. I feel like this merits urgent attention.

pokes:

15-03-2017 00:44:12 UTC

against due to preferring “Micronium”. Miconium is baby poop.

Madrid:

15-03-2017 00:47:22 UTC

lol alright. CfJs are free so I’ll just make another one.

Madrid:

15-03-2017 00:53:45 UTC

I messed up the coding as I made the duplicate, sorry. It’s up and all good now.

Oracular rufio:

15-03-2017 01:36:42 UTC

There is a way to address this far more urgently than a CFJ can.  Just edit the ruleset because it was a typo.

card:

15-03-2017 01:45:13 UTC

against

Kevan: he/him

15-03-2017 10:54:45 UTC

against In favour of the other CfJ.