Either bad or not needed

How so, Bucky?

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

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

what zuff said

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

Rule 1.1 says

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

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

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.

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.

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.

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.

This is a really ugly fix.

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

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

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

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.

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).

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.

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”.

[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.

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.

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

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.

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

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.

cov

But I’m not adminning the consequences.

CoV now that this is redundant.

CoV