Saturday, March 10, 2018

Call for Judgment: Fix, Take 2

Times out, 2-4. Failed by pokes.

Adminned at 12 Mar 2018 21:02:01 UTC

This proposal: https://blognomic.com/archive/stalemate_escape hasn’t gotten a tally of Votes, screwing the proposal queue. Thereby:

- Set a “A Better Stalemate Escape” to have failed with a tally of votes of 1-3 at 6 Mar 2018 23:17:11 UTC, and retroactively consider it as being such.
- Consider all play and play-attempts until now to have been performed with consideration of the retroactive purview above (eg, the technically-not-proposals & adminnings some of us have made, are now legit proposals and adminnings).
- Amend “Whenever an Admin resolves a Votable Matter, they must also mark their name, and report the final tally of Votes (or the fact that it was self-killed or vetoed).” to:

Whenever an Admin resolves a Votable Matter, they are implored to also mark their name, and report the final tally of Votes (or the fact that it was self-killed or vetoed).

Same CFJ as before with feedback included now. “Must” into “Implored to” so that its no longer a strict requirement but something you really really really should do, but doesn’t screw stuff anymore if you miss it.

Comments

card:

03-10-2018 18:42:22 UTC

for wouldn’t “should” be more appropriate over “implored”, which is a synonym for begging?

Cuddlebeam:

03-10-2018 18:44:34 UTC

My intent was like a super-should but oh well, “should” works too.

ElMarko:

03-10-2018 19:16:03 UTC

for

Diabecko:

03-10-2018 20:10:36 UTC

for

Kevan:

03-10-2018 20:11:21 UTC

against Sorry, but this still seems unnecessarily vague in what it does and doesn’t cover, to me.

What are “plays” and “play-attempts”? “Plays” isn’t defined by the ruleset, and it’s a word that Cuddlebeam uses to talk about tricks and lies and tactics.

If we assume that “plays” are just game actions, does that mean “play-attempts” are attempts to take game actions which failed - so “illegal actions”? Reading that clause as “consider all [legal and illegal actions] until now to have been performed with consideration of the retroactive purview above” sounds like it’s making illegal actions retroactively valid, so long as they don’t specifically contradict the “retroactive purview” of one proposal being failed instead of pending. Which isn’t good.

I get the gist here, but if we’re retroactively declaring a chunk of the game differently legal (including an Ascension!), we shouldn’t wave something vague through.

Kevan:

03-10-2018 20:14:20 UTC

Key thing is that this is (as I read it) saying that attempts to take actions which were actually illegal are now “considered to have been performed under the new rule” rather than “considered to have been attempted under the new rule”.

Cuddlebeam:

03-10-2018 20:17:26 UTC

Play as in a general activity not an individual move, was my intent

Cuddlebeam:

03-10-2018 20:24:41 UTC

Speak like Yoda there, I did apparently.

Anyways I could give it a shot later on (or if someone else would like to, all theirs). I think I can just encapsulate all of this into a single thing for when the next dynasty comes around (“If this player hasn’t achieved victory, make them achieve victory”, for example).

Kevan:

03-10-2018 20:26:00 UTC

So what’s a “play-attempt”? If I post and illegally enact a DoV while this CfJ is pending, is that enactment a play-attempt?

If it is, what happens when we “consider [it] to have been performed with consideration of the retroactive purview above”? I think a CfJ saying that we should consider that my DoV enactment “has been performed” (with due consideration to the irrelevant fact that an old proposal actually failed rather than still being pending) would be endorsing it as a legally-taken game action.

Diabecko:

03-10-2018 20:35:01 UTC

against

Diabecko:

03-10-2018 20:43:44 UTC

(I presume no-one would validate a CfJ saying we should revert the game back to a proposal from a previous dynasty on the grounds of a very minor admin error, so maybe we could just ignore that error ?

Cuddlebeam:

03-10-2018 21:10:23 UTC

Maybe CFJ in something like “Ignore that error for the purpose of the game”? Could be more elegant than my attempts lol.

nqeron:

03-11-2018 00:47:28 UTC

against

card:

03-11-2018 06:29:30 UTC

against

pokes:

03-12-2018 01:14:54 UTC

against