Thursday, October 24, 2019

Call for Judgment: Finity

Fewer than a quorum not voting against. Failed 0-5 by Kevan.

Adminned at 26 Oct 2019 22:09:33 UTC

In “Years”, change “An EM may take an Annual Action if they have not taken any Annual Actions or Leap Actions since the Year was most recently Advanced. An EM may take a Leap Action if they have not taken any Annual Actions or Leap Actions since the Year was most recently Advanced, if the Year is divisible by 4.”

An Annual Action is an action that may be taken by an EM if, and only if, they have taken no other Annual Actions since an EM Advanced the Year. A Leap Action is an Annual Action that may only be taken while the Year is divisible by 4.

Added “if and only if” logic for non-infinite Yearly Actions. Also thought a little rewording was good so people know that they can’t use their Leap Actions during any year.



25-10-2019 05:11:19 UTC

Its not clear to me how it can be interpreted to be infinite but ok for


25-10-2019 06:02:45 UTC

Thanks for the vote! Essentially, if “Power and Assets” is saying you can Propaganda, then “Years” needs to restrict the number of times or it goes infinite.

Here “Years” is given an unambiguously restrictive (vs. solely permissive, if taken that way,) form of speech.

Kevan: he/him

25-10-2019 08:17:09 UTC

against The introduction of the ambiguous word “other” creates a loophole where it can be argued that a single Annual Action can be taken indefinitely, if you interpret “Action” to mean “an item from the list of actions” rather than “an instance of an action that has been taken”. (If I take an Attacking action, then I can argue that I haven’t taken any of the “other” actions - Propaganda, Drilling, Money Gain, Money Change - and can take the Attacking action again, repeatedly.)


25-10-2019 22:28:20 UTC



26-10-2019 05:05:43 UTC

Lol. Ok ok, I guess we’re even on grammatical mishaps.

Kevan: he/him

26-10-2019 11:26:50 UTC



26-10-2019 11:32:19 UTC



26-10-2019 20:49:22 UTC

You’re all making me work hard given that I only have a phone for the next few hours but:

against ‘If’ vs. ‘if and only if’ in the ruleset has come up before and I always come down on the side of ‘only if’ being not necessary because (a) actions are not allowed by default in the ruleset (b) any “you may X if Y” statement would be meaningless in Y otherwise (c) I don’t want to encourage having to always write “if and only if” for this kind of thing.

Maybe this isn’t what this whole thing is, in which case I can give it all a closer reading in a few hours.

Kevan: he/him

26-10-2019 20:58:55 UTC

against CoV again.


26-10-2019 21:33:23 UTC

Well, we haven’t had a CfJ yet that disputed Kevan’s use of the “if” bug. Let pokes write one, whenever he’s ready. This fix for that was tardy, so s/k: against