Tuesday, June 23, 2009

Declaration of Victory: Declaration of Victory

Fails 3-5. We’re out of Hiatus, folks. - Qwazukee

Adminned at 24 Jun 2009 01:04:42 UTC

I Declare Victory, as all Insiders, other than myself, Support me.

Comments

Qwazukee:

06-23-2009 03:54:00 UTC

for

Wakukee:

06-23-2009 03:59:02 UTC

for Well played… Truly an agora-style victory.

Qwazukee:

06-23-2009 04:03:05 UTC

This is the important Rule I’m interpreting: “(Outsiders have their Location value set to ‘Outside’, and are not considered to be in any room.)”

That’s the only way specified by the Ruleset for someone to be Outside. Thus, anyone Outside must be an Outsider (which is intuitive).

Qwazukee:

06-23-2009 04:07:50 UTC

yuri has now reverted everything, so it will be harder to see that I indeed had all Insiders Supporting me. I consider his reversions to be illegal. It all boils down to that one Rule interpretation.

Ienpw III:

06-23-2009 04:18:13 UTC

against I agree with wak. Well played, but I feel it is illegal.

Ienpw III:

06-23-2009 04:21:43 UTC

There is no rule which states that Insiders cannot be Outside. There is no rule that states that when a contestant becomes Outside, they become Out.

Clucky:

06-23-2009 04:22:37 UTC

against  outside is not a legal location for insiders. Someone fix this. I’m going to bed.

Qwazukee:

06-23-2009 04:24:16 UTC

There is no way, in Rule terms, for someone to be Outside without being an Outsider.

Qwazukee:

06-23-2009 04:25:12 UTC

Clucky, “As a daily action, a Contestant (known as the Caller) may spend 1 point of Looks to change the Location of any Contestant to the Caller’s Location.”

There is no disputing that I was Outside.

Ienpw III:

06-23-2009 04:26:24 UTC

From the other post:

Qwazukee:
06-23-2009 04:06:24 UTC

This is the important Rule I’m interpreting: “(Outsiders have their Location value set to ‘Outside’, and are not considered to be in any room.)”

That’s the only way specified by the Ruleset for someone to be Outside. Thus, anyone Outside must be an Outsider (which is intuitive).


yuri_dragon_17:
06-23-2009 04:14:18 UTC

There is nothing stating that Insiders cannot be Outside. Insiders cannot choose to move outside, but outsiders can call insiders outside.

Additionally, no rule states that outside contestants may be inside.


Qwazukee:
06-23-2009 04:17:20 UTC

I’m sort of taking the opposite side of how my only other DoV failed. The second applicable Rule is “The Ruleset and Gamestate can only be altered in manners specified by the Ruleset.”

No Rule states that Insiders may be Outside. There is a Rule that says Outsiders may be Outside. Since these people were Outside, I logically conclude that they must be Outsiders.


yuri_dragon_17:
06-23-2009 04:24:41 UTC

No rule states that Outside players must be Outsiders. Since these people did not become Out in accordance with the rules, I logically conclude that they must be Insiders.

Ienpw III:

06-23-2009 04:29:08 UTC

Clucky: Outside is a legal location for insiders. It is, however, illegal for an insider to voluntarily become out, as THEY cannot change their location to anywhere except a room.

However there is no rule disallowing Outsiders from calling Insiders Outside. That is legal. There is no rule, though, forcing all players Outside to be Outsiders.

Ienpw III:

06-23-2009 04:30:36 UTC

I too, am going to bed, and I will continue this discussion later this morning (as it is 1:30 here. far too late).

Qwazukee:

06-23-2009 04:37:28 UTC

This is a Rule in the Ruleset: “Each Insider occupies a single room.”

The people who are “Outside” do not occupy any room. Perhaps they are not Outsiders, but they are not Insiders either, by that definition.

I was supported by 2/3 Insiders, bringing me back in. Then I was Supported by a Quorum of Insiders, as is the condition for Victory under “winning by consensus.” This is a new interpretation of a way for me to win; please consider it separately.

Clucky:

06-23-2009 04:37:49 UTC

Ok, fine. I haven’t accutally read the rules on the issue closely, but I do agree that unless it says “if you are moved outside you are an outsider” the qwaz’s attempt fails =)

Clucky:

06-23-2009 04:41:57 UTC

How can we consider it separetly if it only happened after an illegal action? If insiders cannot be outside you cannot move the outside just like you cannot move outsiders inside. I’ll reread the rules and explicitlly point this out in the morning, but for now realize you’ll go a lot farther to earning some respect around here if you stop stretching the ruleset till you create a ‘hole’ and trying to climb through it.

Qwazukee:

06-23-2009 04:43:55 UTC

Ok, it doesn’t say that. But what it does say is that in order to be an Insider you have to be in a room. So those people who are Outside aren’t Insiders. And thus I win anyway.

Wakukee:

06-23-2009 04:45:29 UTC

Personally, I say that ais is the one to determine if going outside means that you are an outsider… personally, I think that it does.

Wakukee:

06-23-2009 04:46:16 UTC

Hey, thats right… they may not be outsiders, but they are also not insiders… good catch.

Ienpw III:

06-23-2009 04:52:32 UTC

Ok, here’s the thing.
“Every Contestant except the Host is either In (default) or Out; this is tracked in the GNDT under the column ‘Status’.”
If a Contestant is not In, and the Contestant is not Out, and the Contestant is not the Host, then that Contestant has an illegal status.
You yourself told me that if something illegal happens and no one corrects it, we just pretend it never happened. By pretending it never happened, we must come to the conclusion that you were never supported by 2/3 of Insiders, and you cannot have come in. Furthermore, had you come back in due to the Buying my Way Back In rule, you still would not have enough insiders supporting you to win.
To reiterate: this is an illegal DoV.  against

Ienpw III:

06-23-2009 04:53:49 UTC

Just to make this clear:
If a Contestant is not In, and the Contestant is not Out, and the Contestant is not the Host, then that Contestant has an illegal status.

Qwazukee:

06-23-2009 04:56:42 UTC

Clucky, I don’t think I’m going to have your respect unless i suddenly become Bucky.

Here are some Rules that back up wmy DoV; you can interpret them as you will.

“As a daily action, a Contestant (known as the Caller) may spend 1 point of Looks to change the Location of any Contestant to the Caller’s Location. “

“Each Insider occupies a single room.”

There is clearly a discrepancy in the rules here. One one account, the Contestants that were called Outside cannot be Out because nothing in the rules allowed them to become Out. On the other hand, the Outside Contestants cannot be Insiders because they do not occupy a single room.

I am posting this DoV based on the fact that they cannot be Insiders. Since all Insiders besides myself were Supporting me, I achieved Victory.

If you cannot be convinced by these Rules, I don’t really think there are more Rules that can help my position. It would thus be fruitless to argue if you see my point and still disagree. But I hope you can see where I’m coming from and understand how, if nothing else, the Ruleset is broken here.

Ienpw III:

06-23-2009 05:00:56 UTC

BTW, if you are indeed going to support me should this fail, you should CoV before the DoV ends. If your DoV passes, “yuri’s proposal” fails, so you have nothing to lose there, but if your DoV fails, then almost 48 hrs will have elapsed since the proposal was proposed. So you have nothing to lose by voting FOR “yuri’s proposal”, and you stand to gain me winning the Dynasty, which you have professed to be your second-favourite outcome.

Ienpw III:

06-23-2009 05:03:35 UTC

Again, Qwaz. I see your position and disagree with it. I also understand that the ruleset is broken. I continue to argue my case to try to persuade others to my side. This, I believe, is more the objective of nomic than winning.

Qwazukee:

06-23-2009 05:04:46 UTC

I can’t CoV while we’re in Hiatus, or else I would. However, so long as nobody admins the Proposal at the first possible moment, I will be able to CoV before it fails, and I will attempt to do that; unless someone else can see my side of this DoV, that is.

Qwazukee:

06-23-2009 05:06:33 UTC

I’m not sure what you’re trying to say about the purpose of nomics, but I rest my case.

Rodlen:

06-23-2009 05:20:57 UTC

against

Darknight:

06-23-2009 06:42:20 UTC

against

Psychotipath:

06-23-2009 07:17:10 UTC

against This seems to be the prevailing vote. Sorry Qwaz

Qwazukee:

06-23-2009 07:27:08 UTC

This should blow over soon, but remember that until then, most normal game actions cannot take place. No Pumping, Barricading, Voting on Proposals, or creating/enacting Proposals until this is resolved.

Your welcome, guys.  : p

Klisz:

06-23-2009 12:49:58 UTC

for  For Dimensional Stability!

Clucky:

06-23-2009 12:58:22 UTC

Um last I checked voting wad an allowed action on proposals. I’ll double check though. Seems silly that it is not (though new proposals should be stopped)

Clucky:

06-23-2009 13:33:10 UTC

Oh wait, yeah, sometimes voting has effects on gamestate, so I can see why its not. Still feels kinda odd though.

Clucky:

06-23-2009 13:47:58 UTC

Now that I’ve read over the rules, while this case is not covered, we have precedent on the general rule “If an action would cause a game-state value to be illegal, it cannot be taken”

Quoting from the glossary

“Unless otherwise specified: When “X” is a number, to spend X of a numeric value “V” means to subtract X from V (i.e. replace V with V-X); no action may be taken which requires spending X of a numeric value when the subtraction would result in a number which is illegal as a replacement for that value (e.g. if the value represents a variable which is restricted to non-negative integers, but the subtraction comes up negative).”

Thus my personal feeling is that we should follow precedent, and thus Qwaz couldn’t move people outside in the first place.

Bucky:

06-23-2009 17:21:39 UTC

You don’t automatically become an Insider if enough Insiders support you; an Insider needs to welcome you back as per Rule 2.1.1

Since this didn’t happen, and the victory clause specifies ‘Insider’, you didn’t win regardless of the outcome of the current argument.

I recommend that everyone vote AGAINST this DoV.

Ienpw III:

06-23-2009 17:25:23 UTC

Bucky is of course, correct. An insider must be the one to bring you back in. You, Qwazukee were not an insider and therefore cannot bring yourself back.

No matter any differences of other interpretations, this is an illegal DoV.

Clucky:

06-23-2009 17:29:12 UTC

So if its invalid regardless of interpretation, can we get ais to vote against this now s.t. we can pass the Yuri wins proposal?

Ienpw III:

06-23-2009 17:42:05 UTC

Yup. =D

Qwazukee:

06-23-2009 22:20:54 UTC

*shrug* I could’ve become an Insider by spending 5 Fame; if that’s the only reason it’s an issue, I can do that right after this DoV ends.

While I see this purpose of what Clucky said, we aren’t dealing with that case, exactly, although there are similarities. I can see why someone would Vote against.

Darknight:

06-23-2009 22:25:10 UTC

remember ya’ll have to wait 5 days till u can DoV again.

Clucky:

06-23-2009 23:37:50 UTC

Only if it fails by a quorum of against votes.

Also no one is voting you down because of Bucky’s reasons, we all think your “if you are outside you are an outsider” reasoning is total BS. So another attempt in the same manner wouldn’t work.

Qwazukee:

06-23-2009 23:57:16 UTC

I would be appreciative if you would read my posts, Clucky. I am not arguing that you are an Outsider if you are Outside, although I find it interesting that you would consider such a thing to be “BS.” It is unusual if nothing else. I am suggesting that those who are Outside cannot be Insiders, which is another thing entirely.

Perhaps you could tone down your rhetoric a bit and concentrate on reading what is said. I would be more accepting of your counter-argument if seemed to be more interested in the point than in bashing me.

Ienpw III:

06-24-2009 00:16:39 UTC

Clucky, Qwaz, there is no point arguing over this anymore.
Either way, this DoV is illegal. Stop wasting my bandwith lol

Qwazukee:

06-24-2009 00:26:37 UTC

The DoV isn’t illegal; you’ll have to ask comex on that one.  : p It may not be justified, however.

Darknight:

06-24-2009 00:47:25 UTC

Not illegal, just flawed in the logic lol.

Ienpw III:

06-24-2009 00:48:57 UTC

Illegal per Bucky’s reasoning.

Clucky:

06-24-2009 01:07:07 UTC

DoV’s are never illegal outside of that lame 5 day rule you guys added.

However, Qwaz sounds like he is going legally buy his way back in rather than through the support method and then declare victory again. I’m just hoping like Yuri said, he doesn’t waste my bandwith by expressing that Bucky’s point isn’t the only problem with his victory.

Qwazukee:

06-24-2009 01:07:39 UTC

It’s not illegal, so long as I thought I had won. It’s just unlikely to pass, as Darknight points out.

I understand that this is failing for reasons other than Bucky’s, so I’m not going to buy my way in and then repeat; I think that would be annoying rather than helpful.

Qwazukee:

06-24-2009 01:09:13 UTC

Lol, nice timing with that post, Clucky.

Didn’t catch the rhetoric bit, though, it would appear.

Ienpw III:

06-24-2009 02:01:26 UTC

Oh yeah. You guys know what I mean, though. (Need to reword it, maybe)