Saturday, February 04, 2023

Call for Judgment: Covering our Bases

Passes 4-1 with no effect due to dynasty change. — Quirck

Adminned at 08 Feb 2023 19:39:03 UTC

In the rule “Buildings”, change the effect of the Library Building to read:

As a Harvest Bonus, the owner of this building may apply the Harvest Bonuses of any two other buildings in your Settlement once. This does not count towards any limits on Harvest Bonuses you can take, and may be done in addition to the one time you would normally be able to activate the Harvest Bonuses of a building you control.

If any Settlers triggered the Effect of the Library in such a way that it would be illegal under this revised wording, revert the effects that resulted from those Settlers triggering it.

Just in case…


Chiiika: she/her

04-02-2023 18:19:52 UTC


Josh: he/they

04-02-2023 18:28:02 UTC

Why is this a CfJ?


04-02-2023 18:31:20 UTC

I was under the impression that any relatively urgent scam fixes should be CfJs, but I’ve never actually posted a CfJ before so I’m not quite fully aware of the conventions surrounding when a CfJ should be posted. If you think it ought to be a Proposal you’re probably right!

Josh: he/they

04-02-2023 18:46:31 UTC

Ah, probably not; at least twice, recently I’ve been dinged on CfJs - Kevan in particular is good at obfuscating what a CfJ “should” be for based on the needs of the moment in a way that leaves the water a bit muddied.

My inclination is to go against, on the grounds that it’s an attempt to sidestep the limitations of the proposal queue format for strictly factional gain - this is an attempt to pull up the drawbridge rather than make the playing-field level - but I don’t really care as this isn’t an issue that’s on my radar. So probably no vote from me.

Kevan: he/him

04-02-2023 19:24:25 UTC

I don’t much appreciate the characterisation there.

“two or more Explorers actively disagree as to the interpretation of the Ruleset” is a clear enough bedrock, but maybe we could find a more useful way to phrase “if an Explorer feels that an aspect of the game needs urgent attention” - players feel senses of urgency all the time, without making CfJs.

I’m not sure of the nuances of this one. As an idle player, I can’t tell if it’s closing a scam that someone’s about to pull, or clearing the air so that people will know what actions they can take this turn without worrying about a slower “retroactively undo Libraries” proposal hanging over their head, which may or may not enact before turn end.

Josh: he/they

04-02-2023 19:39:13 UTC

@Kevan - I apologise, and mean no offence - but the observation that we have radical different views on the appropriacy of the tactical use of CfJs has, at this stage, a rich predecent history of its own.


04-02-2023 21:31:24 UTC


JonathanDark: Gridmaster he/him

05-02-2023 21:02:58 UTC


Brendan: he/him

08-02-2023 18:28:03 UTC

against I unidle, and quorum is unchanged.