Wednesday, May 30, 2012

Declaration of Victory: Declaration of Victory

Failed by Kevan after 48 hours with 2 votes FOR and 7 AGAINST - “has been open for voting for at least 48 hours and cannot be Enacted”.

Adminned at 01 Jun 2012 02:52:43 UTC

I achieved victory in Dynasty 58 by winning the Succession Challenge.  The dynastic history clearly records the relevant facts.

(Yeah, I didn’t win it during this dynasty, but that’s irrelevant with the way the rule is worded.)

Comments

Bucky:

05-30-2012 03:25:40 UTC

for

Clucky:

05-30-2012 03:26:44 UTC

against

Ruleset 58 doesn’t apply to you, so its impossible for you to have achieved victory in it.

southpointingchariot:

05-30-2012 03:30:41 UTC

imperial This will happen a lot.

Josh:

05-30-2012 05:48:24 UTC

against Per Clucky.

Kevan:

05-30-2012 07:11:43 UTC

against at least until Bucky can be bothered to explain the reasoning behind his victory. He doesn’t occupy Ruleset 58 and “For the avoidance of doubt, victory in Dynasty 100 may not be achieved by means of any provision of any rule in the ruleset of any other Dynasty.”

[south] Voting DEF on a DoV is an abstention.

quirck:

05-30-2012 08:43:09 UTC

against One has to occupy a Dynasty to win in it

Purplebeard:

05-30-2012 09:07:37 UTC

It is historical fact that Bucky “has achieved victory in a past dynasty dynasty”, even though they are not currently subject to its dynastic rules. I’d be tempted to vote FOR this.

However, against scam alert! “The Hard Rules” was improperly adminned; the rules it introduces were therefore not in effect at the time of this DoV’s posting and, as far as the rules are concerned, this is treated as a ‘regular’ DoV.

Purplebeard:

05-30-2012 09:10:37 UTC

Also, I guess we are now in hiatus.

Kevan:

05-30-2012 09:22:11 UTC

Oh, wait, this isn’t a Dynasty 100 DoV, it’s a Dynasty 58 DoV (which “does not cause a hiatus to begin and does not imply or confer a state of victory in Dynasty 100”)? This is going to get confusing.

[Purplebeard] I think the adminning is legal - it just means that we’ve paused in the gap between the ruleset being updated and the proposal being set to “enacted”. We can’t go ahead and process the next-oldest proposal until Bucky (or any admin?) flags the proposal, but the ruleset update is legal.

Kevan:

05-30-2012 11:45:20 UTC

Incidentally, I don’t think I can see anything that stops “When a DoV is enacted, all other active DoVs are failed, and a new Dynasty begins with the Time Monk who made the DoV as its Time Buddha.” from triggering. We have that “A Declaration of Victory made on this basis does not cause a hiatus to begin and does not imply or confer a state of victory in Dynasty 100.”, but “state of victory” is vague enough that I don’t think it’d prevent a new Dynasty from beginning.

Josh:

05-30-2012 11:47:49 UTC

But we also have “For the avoidance of doubt, victory in Dynasty 100 may not be achieved by means of any provision of any rule in the ruleset of any other Dynasty.” “Victory may not be achieved” doesn’t seem unambiguous.

Kevan:

05-30-2012 11:55:05 UTC

Rule 1.7 would just register that a DoV had been enacted (without caring whether it was a Dynasty 100 DoV, or a Dynasty 58 one), and start a new dynasty. Bucky wouldn’t have achieved victory in Dynasty 100, but he wouldn’t have had to.

Bucky:

05-30-2012 13:56:03 UTC

Clarification: this is intended to be a Dynasty 58 DoV.  I was subject to the Dynasty 58 rules when I achieved victory.

Kevan:

05-30-2012 14:11:36 UTC

[Bucky] Actually, good point - we have, I think, no way of knowing whether a DoV is for a particular dynasty, or for Dynasty 100, other than the declaring player’s (non-binding) word.

Purplebeard:

05-30-2012 14:25:38 UTC

I don’t accept that the adminning was legal, because a game action (making this DoV) was performed by Bucky, the enacting admin, before the enactment was completed.

If we have a rule that says I can spend X gold to buy X cows, would you allow me to spend my gold, perform a multitude of other actions, some of which may depend on my gold/cows statistics, and THEN collect my cows and drink their delicious milk (or even wait several weeks before claiming my bovine beauties at an opportune moment)? No, you’d have me complete my action before doing anything else.

Allowing actions such like this one would open us up to all kinds of legal issues. In this case, the enactment of a proposal is illegal during hiatus, so do we place the ‘time of enactment’ before the posting of this DoV (in which case the enactment was legal) or after it (in which case it wasn’t)?

Clucky:

05-30-2012 15:22:52 UTC

Given Bucky has tried the whole “Guess what? That CfJ I posted was actually a DoV! Lolol I win” thing before, he is probably going to argue that this lets him win if this thing passes.

omd:

05-30-2012 16:19:05 UTC

for

Kevan:

05-30-2012 16:28:47 UTC

[Purplebeard] I wouldn’t let you take other actions halfway through “spend X gold to buy X cows”, but I might let you on “spend X gold then gain X cows”.

Darknight:

05-30-2012 17:05:14 UTC

against

Klisz:

05-30-2012 17:14:32 UTC

against

Perhaps past DoVs should be required to begin with “[XX] “, where XX is the dynasty number? In the Fourth Metadynasty (or, as I still prefer to call it, the First Metadynasty of Rodlen), when the game was split in three, official posts in each faction were marked like this.

Bucky:

05-30-2012 22:53:03 UTC

I suggest that everyone refrain from further voting on this until http://blognomic.com/archive/ambiguous_dov/ has been resolved.

Purplebeard:

05-31-2012 07:49:19 UTC

Kevan: good point on the wording, of course. Still, I’ve always operated under the assumption that all game actions should be treated as instantaneous actions unless expressly specified otherwise, but I realise that this is not the only possible interpretation.