Why is this a CfJ?

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!

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.

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.

@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.

I unidle, and quorum is unchanged.