Tuesday, August 02, 2016

Call for Judgment: Do ties count?

After 48 hours, fails 2-4. Resolved by Brendan.

Adminned at 04 Aug 2016 21:45:42 UTC

The most recent weekly report contained this statement: “RaichuKFM and Bucky are tied for highest Looks.”

RaichuKFM bragged that such a statement allowed him to score under this rule: “When the Editor makes a weekly report, they must declare which Scribe has the highest Looks, or that there is a tie for highest Looks. If the same Scribe is named this way in 2 consecutive weekly reports, that Scribe Scores. “

However, the rule does not say the weekly report needs to declare which Scribes are tied; as such, the Editor’s inclusion of that information was not part of the required declaration any more than “RaichuKFM has the highest Looks and Clucky has less looks than them.” would allow Clucky to score.

Therefore, RaichuKFM has not Scored under rule 2.8 and should not have the [VAN] project.

Comments

RaichuKFM:

08-02-2016 17:40:40 UTC

against

I was named “this way” in two consecutive weekly reports, and so I scored. That is simply a fact. Do you actually dispute it?

Whether Brendan had to name me in the Ties clause or not, he did, as part of the declaration that there was a tie, and so it counts.

If that means Clucky could Score just by being name-dropped randomly both times, then it needs a fix, but it doesn’t mean that mine shouldn’t count, as it is now.

RaichuKFM:

08-02-2016 17:45:38 UTC

(Note, I don’t actually think that the Clucky thing would necessarily work, but I don’t care to argue it; getting bogged down in how the rule should work, and a thing that hasn’t happened that we all agree shouldn’t, would distract from how the rule does work; and I think we would all agree that whether I Scored or not should depend on the rules as written, as its not some crazy thing that should be undone in the name of fairness even if we decide was legal, or something.)

Clucky:

08-02-2016 18:41:05 UTC

for

“When the Editor makes a weekly report, they must declare which Scribe has the highest Looks, or that there is a tie for highest Looks”

I’m with Bucky here. The fact that the editor mentioned your name as being one of the tied ones does not count as being “named this way”, because “this way” does not specify a way for you to be named in the case of a tie.

Larrytheturtle:

08-03-2016 00:45:26 UTC

The way I’m reading it “named this way” refers to:

A.  they must declare which Scribe has the highest Looks

as well as to:

B.that there is a tie for highest Looks

Obviously it is B in this case. In my opinion, it allows Brendan to make the statement that there is a tie and neither allows nor disallows him to name who was in the tie. I think that he fulfilled the common English usage of “named” for both Raichu and Bucky while fulfilling B without breaking any rules. Therefore against

Bucky:

08-03-2016 02:44:49 UTC

The legality of Brendan’s statement isn’t in question.  The relevance of the names is.  Per your logic, if he’d said “RaichuKFM and Bucky, but not Clucky, are tied for highest Looks.” then Clucky would have been named as well.

GenericPerson:

08-03-2016 13:07:15 UTC

imperial

Larrytheturtle:

08-03-2016 14:05:06 UTC

@gp you can’t defer on a CFJ. Well you can but it doesn’t do anything.

GenericPerson:

08-03-2016 14:34:33 UTC

Oh right. Well, against

If the names are the only requirement then everyone that submitted a proposal two weeks in a row may have scored under this rule.

GenericPerson:

08-03-2016 14:35:13 UTC

Oh I think I meant for

RaichuKFM:

08-03-2016 16:42:02 UTC

Whether the logic leads to an unsavory conclusion should not be the point of contention, again. The point of contention should be if the logic is correct, or incorrect.

It’s a Nomic. If a rule is written poorly and exploitable and someone does something that it allows that isn’t really exploitation, but would allow for exploitation in a similar manner, then that thing they did was legal, and we should just patch the rule before it’s exploited; whether Clucky being named the way Bucky mentions should count or not, is not the way you should vote on this; it’s if this would count.

It’s a Call For Judgement on what the gamestate is, not an intent to fix a hole in the rule by altering it.

@GP: We can definitely rule that out, as they were named in a manner that is explicitly separate.

The point of contention is simple:

Was saying “RaichuKFM and Bucky are tied for the highest Looks” naming the two of us in the way defined by “declar[ing] which Scribe has the highest Looks, or that there is a tie for highest Looks.” or not?

I think it fairly obviously was.

GenericPerson:

08-03-2016 16:44:47 UTC

against

qwertyu63:

08-03-2016 17:01:43 UTC

against

Clucky:

08-03-2016 19:10:17 UTC

But brendan had no authority to name you. We’ve been over this before. Powers are given by the ruleset. If the rules doesn’t give those powers you don’t have them

RaichuKFM:

08-03-2016 19:27:16 UTC

I love how this dynasty has had eleven Calls for Judgement and repeated debates and yet we all keep agreeing that we’ve been over these things. (I’m equally guilty, of course.)

I’ve already made my point, I’m sick of running in circles, but have something to chew on:

If Brendan naming me in the post was illegal, is putting anything in an official post other than the strictly allowed text and flavor text illegal?

Does that mean Election posts shouldn’t have any text in the body?

I still think this is simple: He was allowed, mandated, to declare a tie, and he declared a tie. In the declaration of the tie, I was named, just as I was named in this CfJ.

“If two or more Scribes actively disagree as to the interpretation of the Ruleset, or if a Scribe feels that an aspect of the game needs urgent attention, then any Scribe may raise a Call for Judgement (abbreviated CfJ) by posting an entry in the “Call for Judgement” category.” doesn’t allow, explicitly, for a Scribe to be named in a CfJ.

Actually, it doesn’t allow for anything to be put in the CfJ post, just for one to be made; if allowing a blog post isn’t enough to allow a blog post with text of the author’s choosing then should we go back and mark all eleven Calls for Judgement this Dynasty as illegal, and undo the effects of the ones that enacted?

RaichuKFM:

08-03-2016 19:50:55 UTC

Oh, I should probably note,

I’m convinced that making a post allows one to put whatever text in said post one chooses, barring what’s forbidden or otherwise specified; not just voting against because the alternative is very silly. (I am, after all, the one saying we should vote based on how the rules are, not how they should be, on a matter that doesn’t actually change said rules.)

But if you are unconvinced, then by all means, continue voting for; but I’m pretty sure it will also mean we have to fix how posts work, if this passes by that logic?

We could put it all right by Proposal, or by posting an empty Call for Judgement that is then immediately edited to have content in the body of the post, so it wouldn’t be the end of the world. Probably.

I’m just trying to point out inconsistencies so that the whole of ones stances can be reassessed. But I don’t want to come off as a hypocrite, so I felt like stressing this, before I accidentally caused the sort of argument derail that I headed off earlier, by way of unfortunate implication.

Bucky:

08-03-2016 20:39:21 UTC

This CfJ is actually the opposite interpretation.

I’m arguing that
(A) Brendan can include whatever extra information he wants in his Weekly Report, and
(B) Only the information explicitly required to be present matters.

Clucky:

08-03-2016 20:52:37 UTC

[VAN] Vanity clearly states “If the same Scribe is named this way” not “If the same Scribe is named in the weekly report”

Brendan does not have the power to name other scribes, as it relates to the rule Vanity. So while he can certainly mention your name in his weekly report, you cannot be “named this way” because “this way” has no rules by which you can legally be named.

RaichuKFM:

08-03-2016 21:08:45 UTC

Ah.

I stand by what I said, really, (Though I’m glad I misinterpreted Clucky’s point, it would be awkward to argue that).

I don’t really have a closing statement; I think we’ve got the arguments out, already.

Clucky:

08-04-2016 01:06:30 UTC

no! we must keep saying the same thing over and over again for eternity!