Friday, October 21, 2011

Call for Judgment: FOR THE LOVE OF SUBER

CfJ is illegal because it does not “describe the issue” per Rule 1.7. -Ornithopter

Adminned at 22 Oct 2011 14:23:44 UTC

Cause Bucky’s second enactment of the CfJ “Compromise mark 4: Again.” to retroactively have been valid.

OH COME ON

Comments

Ienpw III:

10-21-2011 05:32:58 UTC

for  for

Bucky:

10-21-2011 05:33:28 UTC

against  Either bad or not needed

Klisz:

10-21-2011 05:35:04 UTC

How so, Bucky?

omd:

10-21-2011 05:35:28 UTC

against

Bucky:

10-21-2011 05:37:53 UTC

Actually, CoV for , just because I don’t want to deal with this any longer.

zuff:

10-21-2011 05:38:01 UTC

against Ridiculous. This is the most immature nomic-playing I’ve ever seen.

scshunt:

10-21-2011 05:38:25 UTC

against what zuff said

Klisz:

10-21-2011 05:39:16 UTC

Well then, zuff, coppro, you’re welcome to leave; this is rather typical of BlogNomic’s culture.

Sgeo:

10-21-2011 05:39:42 UTC

against

Darknight:

10-21-2011 05:39:47 UTC

for

scshunt:

10-21-2011 05:41:15 UTC

Rule 1.1 says

“This is the Ruleset for BlogNomic; all Artists shall obey it.”

pikhq:

10-21-2011 05:41:40 UTC

against if this remains BlogNomic,  for if this changes names to BlogCalvinball before this passes.

zuff:

10-21-2011 05:42:32 UTC

Darth: ah, the classic “if you don’t like it you can leave; ergo anything I say is true”.

Still, if you really want to use an overnight cabal of a few to force your proven-incorrect view of the game on everyone else, as I’ve said elsewhere you are completely within your rights to do so.

But you should probably ask everyone else first. I know your view is not universally shared even among those who have been active even days in the past who have not yet spoken up.

scshunt:

10-21-2011 05:43:01 UTC

Oh, and you just invoked Suber to argue /for/ ignoring the rules. This is the man who specifically designed the game WITHOUT meta-rules because he wanted every aspect of the game to be goverened by its rules.

southpointingchariot:

10-21-2011 05:43:22 UTC

for

Klisz:

10-21-2011 05:44:02 UTC

I’m not saying this is true.

I’m merely saying it would be far less obnoxious if it was true, so we might as well work within what little actual legal power we have to make it so.

Roujo:

10-21-2011 05:50:35 UTC

As I have said on IRC, this would still technically be using the rules to change the game. It’s not like it’s going out of the game to fix things. It’s using a legitimate mechanism that’s already into place (CfJs) to change things into what Darth_Cliche thinks is a more suitable gamestate. That’s not Calvinball, IMO, that’s Nomic.

Ornithopter:

10-21-2011 05:51:37 UTC

against
This is a really ugly fix.

@pikhq You’re actually voting for it right now, per BlogNomic voting rules.

Ornithopter:

10-21-2011 05:53:35 UTC

Eh,  for. It’s possible to handle this better, but this accomplishes the same thing. No point in reproposing.

pikhq:

10-21-2011 05:56:31 UTC

As I was told after the fact. Let’s hit against, and note that it’s really silly to have such naive rules. (not that much can be done about it as yet)

Ornithopter:

10-21-2011 06:06:30 UTC

Yes, yes. Our rules are quaint and charming. Now maybe you should actually read them instead of assuming that we’ve seen the great and glorious light that is Agora’s ruleset and imitated it exactly.

monqy:

10-21-2011 06:07:52 UTC

against

Murphy:

10-21-2011 06:11:19 UTC

against

but I agree that, while “let’s treat X as valid because we feel like it” is Calvinball, “let’s carry out a rule-governed process that retroactively validates X” is Nomic (and with very, very old precedent, going back to at least Agora’s Rule 300-something).

pikhq:

10-21-2011 06:13:00 UTC

My statement was based off of people actually saying “let’s treat X as valid because we feel like it”. This particular CfJ is, of course, about as valid as you can get.

omd:

10-21-2011 06:17:27 UTC

This is indeed not Calvinball.  However, there is a difference between an interesting counter-scam and “let’s make a proposal that counters the other proposal in case it gets a slightly different vote count that pushes it over the edge”.

against

ais523:

10-21-2011 09:23:56 UTC

against

Qwazukee:

10-21-2011 09:36:38 UTC

against

Wooble:

10-21-2011 11:15:25 UTC

against

Kevan:

10-21-2011 11:21:23 UTC

[comex] It doesn’t seem unreasonable to gamble on some of the casually invading players burning out and not staying active to vote on a second CfJ.

for

CWW:

10-21-2011 11:38:05 UTC

against

omd:

10-21-2011 11:39:19 UTC

Nomic players are certainly not the first people to learn you can’t easily conduct an occupation against a resisting populace.  The question is, I suppose, whether they must resist at *all* costs.

Prince Anduril:

10-21-2011 12:37:58 UTC

Haven’t read the discussion. But just No. On principle.

against

Prince Anduril:

10-21-2011 12:51:12 UTC

Now read the discussion - got distracted from work. But still no. As I said in another CfJ, this is an ugly way to fix an interesting problem. Interesting problems should have interesting solutions.

ChronosPhaenon:

10-21-2011 13:29:38 UTC

against

Rodney:

10-21-2011 14:02:32 UTC

against I wouldn’t might reenacting the old CfJ itself, but I don’t think retroactive legality is the way to go.

Rodney:

10-21-2011 14:13:27 UTC

On further thought, we’ve done retroactive legality in the past, when otherwise it would be a headache. For pragmatic reasons, though, I’m not changing my vote so the failing CfJs can die.

Roujo:

10-21-2011 15:04:47 UTC

against

Pavitra:

10-21-2011 15:15:20 UTC

against

ChronosPhaenon:

10-21-2011 15:15:44 UTC

for cov

Brendan:

10-21-2011 16:40:22 UTC

for

Brendan:

10-21-2011 16:40:55 UTC

But I’m not adminning the consequences.

Josh:

10-22-2011 10:34:27 UTC

against

Kevan:

10-22-2011 12:46:00 UTC

against CoV now that this is redundant.

Ornithopter:

10-22-2011 19:38:24 UTC

against CoV