Monday, October 12, 2015

Call for Judgment: Envy

CfJ passes with a quorum of FOR votes (currently 6). Enacted by Elias IX

Adminned at 14 Oct 2015 02:30:51 UTC

I claim that ayesdeeef’s increase in Benefices via setting other Cardinals’ Vices to Superbia is illegal.

According to the Ruleset, we have the following:

If a Cardinal has no Vice, they may set their own Vice to one of the options listed below at any time; this is called choosing a Vice.

Superbia - A Cardinal may not choose Superbia as their Vice if they are a Papabile. Upon choosing Superbia, the Cardinal gains one Benefice.

Invidia - A Cardinal may not choose Invidia as their Vice if they have any Benefices. As a Daily Action, a Cardinal whose Vice is Invidia may target a Cardinal who does not currently have a Vice, and set that Cardinal’s Vice to any of the options in this list. They may not use this action to set a Vice that the targeted Cardinal would not normally be able to choose.

In the Ruleset, “choosing a Vice” is unambiguously defined as setting their own Vice to one of the listed options at any time, if they do not have a Vice.

Because the powers invoked by Invidia do not cause the target to set their own vice, that act cannot be called “choosing”, and thus no Benefice shall be granted to either party.

If this CfJ passes, then decrease ayesdeeef’s Benefices by the number of Cardinals whose Vice ayesdeeef has set to Superbia. If ayesdeeef at any time made game actions that depend on the successful granting of Benefices when he set other Cardinal’s vices to Superbia (e.g. decreasing another Cardinal’s influence because ayesdeeef had 4 or more Benefices, bequeathing Benefices to other Cardinals, etc.), revert all of those game actions.

If a quorum of EVC’s also include the string “Tabula rasa”, reset the Vice of all Cardinals whose Vice ayesdeeef has set to Superbia to the default value.



12-10-2015 04:02:05 UTC

“If a Cardinal has no Vice, they may set their own Vice to one of the options listed below at any time; this is called choosing a Vice.”

“As a Daily Action, a Cardinal whose Vice is Invidia may target a Cardinal who does not currently have a Vice, and set that Cardinal’s Vice to any of the options in this list.”

1) Sure, the Rule doesn’t cause the Target to set their own Vice per se, but I found a loophole that allows me to set the Target’s own vice. Per Blognomic precedent, literal interpretations of the Ruleset are always preferred.

2) The usage of the word “this” is ambiguous. For example, I am clearly not target whose Vice is being changed, yet I am allowed to set that target’s Vice as they would be allowed to do so their self. The main idea is the setting of the Vice, and that is what constitutes the act of choosing. Choose is defined as “pick out or select (someone or something) as being the best or most appropriate of two or more alternatives”.

3) The usage of the word “own” does not imply the self as an actor. Make Elias IX show that the word “own” puts a special burden on me to be the target of the action.

4) Own can be used in British English to signify emphasis “He broke me own leg with his bare hands!” Elias IX, being the accuser, has the positive burden of proof. Make him show that the wording of the Ruleset unambiguously delegitimizes my actions.

5) In setting the Target’s Vice, the Vice does indeed belong to the target and therefore is the target’s “own” Vice. Elias IX has not clarified why the fact that an outside entity is doing the choosing changes the fact that the target’s “own” Vice is in fact what is being changed. This is perhaps the most critical response on my side, so don’t let Elias skirt around it.

6) I had done this before and nobody challenged it, thus setting a precedent for a certain interpretation of the Ruleset. It seems abusive to allow Elias IX to CfJ on this matter only when it benefits him, and thereby indicates a special interest in the case of justice that I find dangerous.



12-10-2015 04:13:03 UTC

Also, I don’t quite understand exactly what you are trying to revert there, but that might just be me.

Elias IX:

12-10-2015 04:15:54 UTC

I mean, I’d be okay with if in either the Superbia or Invidia sub-rule, there were some explicit mention that this were okay, but there’s nothing like that in the Ruleset.

Ah, and sorry for not immediately CfJ-ing the first instance of this - I was a bit busy this weekend and these increases to Benefices happened rather quickly.

Brendan: he/him

12-10-2015 05:00:29 UTC


Kevan: he/him

12-10-2015 07:15:04 UTC

for Because “choosing a Vice” is explicitly defined as “set their own”.


12-10-2015 08:16:45 UTC



12-10-2015 13:03:00 UTC

The matter is quite clear to me. The bar I must pass, as Kevan has eloquently stated, is that I must “set their own” Vice, and I would argue that I have done that. After, this line does not explicitly state that the Vice I change be my own, but rather “their own”, and this distinction will prove a crucial difference. Allow some simple, direct analogies to further my point.

1) I change my baby’s diaper. Have I changed the baby’s own diaper? Clearly, the answer is yes.

2) I change the tires on my car. Have I changed the car’s own tires? Clearly, yes.

There is no room for argument. Further deliberation on the matter is clearly the other Players’ biases on the matter causing them to disregard my arguments. There is nothing more I can say or do.

Kevan: he/him

12-10-2015 13:42:35 UTC

The rule we have boils down to “Upon changing their own diaper, the Human gains one Benefice.”

A parent changes a baby’s diaper. Has the event “the baby’s own diaper was changed” happened? Yes. Has the event “the baby changed its own diaper” or “the parent changed its own diaper” happened? No.


12-10-2015 13:52:40 UTC

However, the parent has changed the baby’s own diaper. As the Ruleset says, “If a Cardinal has no Vice, they may set their own Vice to one of the options listed below at any time”, leaving the possibility that the word “their” refers to the Cardinal whose Vice is changed.

As such, both readings are reasonable and the Ruleset is ambiguous. What do we do in this case Kevan?

By the way, please forgive my earlier harsh words. I was merely attempting to force you to actually interact with my argument.

Kevan: he/him

12-10-2015 15:12:28 UTC

If the rules are ambiguous, a CfJ or proposal should adjust them to be entirely unambiguous. In fairness, Elias IX probably just thought you’d misread the rule here rather than interpreting it differently.

Kevan: he/him

12-10-2015 16:47:13 UTC

The GNDT is a flurry of “I would not be able to do this if the CfJ against me is correct” actions from Ayesdeeef now, but those actions also seem to include two daily actions of removing a Vice (which also can’t be performed if the Cardinal “set their Vice within the last 24 hours”), in the space of a few minutes?


12-10-2015 17:41:26 UTC

That makes sense Kevan. Thanks for taking the time to understand my point of view.

As for what you just said, that is my bad. Let me fix it.


12-10-2015 18:09:30 UTC

against Tabula Rasa.

Guys, can you all Tabula Rasa on this? It gives those people I changed to Superbia thinking that I would Benefice from it a chance to reset their Vice if they so wish.

In summary, I interpreted the Ruleset differently from Elias IX, and as this CfJ provides no solution for the ambiguity of the Ruleset, it must be voted against.

Brendan: he/him

12-10-2015 18:54:14 UTC

for Tabula rasa, but there’s no “must” about it. Settling the question with a majority interpretation as precedent is a perfectly valid way of resolving a so-called ambiguity in Blognomic.

Kevan: he/him

12-10-2015 19:06:02 UTC

[Ayesdeeef] This CfJ doesn’t resolve the ambiguity, but it does explicitly remove the Benefices that you have gained through interpreting the ruleset differently from (so far) every other player.


12-10-2015 21:05:37 UTC

for Ok, I am still learning the precedents in this game as you can see.


12-10-2015 21:05:53 UTC

for Tabula Rasa whoops


12-10-2015 21:09:19 UTC

Tabula rasa for