Saturday, December 20, 2014

Call for Judgment: Everything is a Substance!

Times out 2 votes to 2. Failed by Kevan.

Adminned at 22 Dec 2014 09:20:36 UTC

Any term not defined (either explicitly or implicitly) by the ruleset may be used to identify a Substance with no Market Value on any Moon and a Minimum Value and Maximum Value unknown to any Shuttle.

There is a container with storage “2 Unidentified Material” in Orbit E8.

This make sure that the proposal Meteor Shower works as intended. Since there is no text in the ruleset that says “Ice, Iron, and Sulfur are Substances” it makes sense to me that we would be able to use things as Substances even if there is no text explicitly mentioning that they are Substances.

Comments

ayesdeeef:

12-20-2014 03:48:28 UTC

for

Bucky:

12-20-2014 05:19:28 UTC

against

Kevan:

12-20-2014 10:25:24 UTC

against This does need fixing, but it needs an actual change to the ruleset to fix it, not an unwritten agreement of “Ice and Iron maybe aren’t really defined as Substances so let’s not bother defining Unidentified Material either”.

Sylphrena:

12-20-2014 13:47:14 UTC

I would argue that this is an accurate interpretation of the current ruleset, not an unwritten agreement. I also would argue that this doesn’t need fixing (beyond possibly putting the first paragraph of this CfJ into the ruleset, possibly, but I don’t know that even that is necessary.)

Since Substances are never enumerated, if a term isn’t used already in the game, it is perfectly valid to say “This was a Substance all along and we didn’t use it yet.” Perhaps this isn’t something that we want in our rules (I personally think that the ability to make Substances on the fly is a good thing) but as the rules stand, the very existence of a Container of “Unidentified Material” is enough to make Unidentified Material a Substance.

In the end, if you want this concept fixed, by all means propose something new, but the current ruleset allows Meteor Shower to work as expected. This isn’t an unwritten agreement—this is, as far as I can see, the only way of justifying our current Substances’ existence without changing the ruleset.

Kevan:

12-20-2014 19:43:57 UTC

We fire up a CfJ when “two or more Shuttles actively disagree as to the interpretation of the Ruleset”. Such a problem can be resolved informally if a persuasive discussion reaches an agreement, without having to change anything; it can also be resolved by changing an ambiguous clause in the ruleset so that only one interpretation can now be reached.

If you’re intending this as a straw poll for whether people think the current ruleset implies that saying “look, a Container containing Unidentified Material” makes U.M. into a Substance, it looks as if I (and maybe Bucky) don’t agree with that reading. So this will need an actual fix. I’ll put a proposal up.

Sylphrena:

12-21-2014 21:05:45 UTC

Ok, thanks for clearing up when a CfJ should be used. Thank you for handling this situation the way I should have. :)