Monday, April 18, 2011

Call for Judgment: Duty fulfillment issue

Timed out (after 48 hours due to haitus) and failed, 3-8-1. Josh

Adminned at 21 Apr 2011 02:29:43 UTC

It appears that me and travis have different views on what fulfiling the duty requirements of a position are. He became the White sheep leader and used the power, all fair about that. However, I remove him from the position for not fulfilling the duty of being a white sheep. He says that it was fulfilled once he used the power under the clause that as long as another sheep, not him, is white, thus allowing him to keep the role. To be honest, that clause makes no sense for the two leader roles.

If this passes, make the following changes:

Rewrite the subrules known as “White Sheep Leader” in the rules “Officials to:

Duties: The sheep holding this position Must be White.
Powers: As a weekly action, the White Team Leader may turn the color of another Sheep with Undetermined color to White

Rewrite the subrules known as “Black Sheep Leader” in the rules “Officials to:

Duties: The sheep holding this position Must be Black.
Powers: As a weekly action, the White Team Leader may turn the color of another Sheep with Undetermined color to White

If over half of the vote also say “let him stay” and its currently vacant, assign Travis the position “White Sheep Leader”

I don’t normally do CfJ, but the interp me and Travis have kinda irked me, though I don’t blame him at all.

Comments

Darknight:

04-18-2011 00:51:55 UTC

for let him stay

Darknight:

04-18-2011 00:53:23 UTC

Btw, the let him stay clause is because during our reverts he became a white sheep so I’m fine with allowing him to hold the position again. I don’t want to seem like a jerk at all.

Travis:

04-18-2011 00:56:47 UTC

against Oops, it looks like I confused you with Florw in one of my GNDT comments. Regardless, I maintain that according to the current ruleset my duty was fulfilled.

Travis:

04-18-2011 00:58:43 UTC

against  Oh, and “Let him stay”

Darknight:

04-18-2011 01:00:04 UTC

Lol all good. Thats what CfJ’s are for after all. No harm done with me making this though i hope.

Travis:

04-18-2011 01:09:55 UTC

No harm at all. I hinted at the loophole during Winner’s failed proposal, and nobody tried it. I’m rather new, but it seems to me that working in loopholes and then squeezing through them is half the fun.

Bucky:

04-18-2011 01:56:15 UTC

for  let him stay

Kevan:

04-18-2011 05:14:25 UTC

against Seems like a fair enough loophole to me. It’s buried in GNDT comments, but the argument is that a Sheep only fails in their Duty if “an Official Position’s Duties are not fulfilled (either by the appropriate Officer, or by anyone else)”, and the Duties were being fulfilled by someone else.

Given that I don’t know what I’m voting on with the “more than half” clause, because I can’t see more than half of the votes yet, I can only vote against for now.

Josh:

04-18-2011 07:53:15 UTC

against Let him stay.

I wonder if someone can clear something up for me, though. During last night’s activity, the Fraud Ewenit received a bribe to look the other way (See Travis 17/04 23:10). The problem is that the Ewenit can’t work out what it’s supposed to be ignoring, making the bribe slightly redundant. It’s probably something to do with the interactions between Travis and Florw but I can’t get much further along the path than that. If anyone DOES spot something that the Ewenit should be investigating, would they let me know so I can bust some perps? In the meanwhile, I think I’ll confiscate this Baabuck and blow it on some daisy heads.

Winner:

04-18-2011 11:05:06 UTC

against Let him stay

Purplebeard:

04-18-2011 11:49:13 UTC

against

Ely:

04-18-2011 15:56:50 UTC

against Let him stay

Roujo:

04-18-2011 16:53:44 UTC

against Let him stay.

Subrincinator:

04-18-2011 18:47:26 UTC

imperial Let him stay.

lilomar:

04-19-2011 02:41:11 UTC

for Let him stay.

Chivalrybean:

04-19-2011 05:46:02 UTC

against Baa.