This contradicts the prioritization rule on the matter of what can override it, and the prioritization rule takes precedence.

Feel like “even in the appendix” should be enough to clear that up.

We might need to either shift the order prioritization is applied, or maybe split the appendix up.

There is a lot of stuff (like gamestate tracking) that goes into the appendix primarily because we don’t want to clutter the core rules.

I think for stuff like keywords, giving it top prioritization billing is probably okay. But seems like we shouldn’t prioratize the stuff that is essentially supplemental core rules tracked at the bottom of the ruleset for better document flow over the core rules that are important enough that we want them at the top.

“the CFJ includes an implicit grant of permission to still perform such an action”

So? The admin doesn’t need permission from the CfJ, it needs permission from the ruleset.

I’m fine with a clause that enforces that it’s always possible for CfJs to cause changes to the ruleset, but this wording is too far for me. For the recent example of placing the game into Interregnum, that’s not possible because the rules define “being in Interregnum” as continuous evaluated, not as a value that can be flipped. That’s not a limitation of CfJs, that’s a quirk of the ruleset, and the ruleset would need to be changed to allow CfJs to do it.

Obviously cfjs can’t make people perform stuff that is impossible to perform.

Right, and in my understanding, that’s the status quo.

Err, it’s the status quo that the only things that CfJs can’t compel people to do are things that are impossible.

Expect we have a person trying to pass a rule that places further limitations on what CFJs can do, saying they can’t do stuff that game wise is possible but illegal. Hence my feeling that we need to clarify that’s you shouldn’t be able to restrict what CFJs can do

How does https://blognomic.com/archive/appendix_by_any_means restrict what CfJs can do? It expands the power of CfJs. If you’re talking about illegal CfJs, those already can’t do anything, and the proposal just makes that explicit.

Stating “you can do this by CfJ” in some circumstances implies in other situations that say you can’t do something can’t be done by CfJ

I disagree, and I don’t think the text supports that.

So why the need to clarify it? The flavor text of the CfJ is explicitly trying to argue that you cannot currently retroactively make illegal posts legal

Sure, and I agree that currently CfJs can’t make illegal posts legal, and I support changing that. The clarifying clause makes sense because people, including you, have argued that an illegally-enacted CfJ can allow itself to have been legally enacted. Allowing (legal) CfJs to make posts legal, but explicitly saying “no, you can’t have a self-upholding CfJ” makes sense to me.

A self-upholding CfJ would still quite possibly be illegal. would depend on how the players felt and wanted to vote. after all, illegal actions are still illegal. so at best, its simply a redundant phrase that says an already illegal thing might somehow be more illegal.

at worst, it could make the game even harder to get out of a locked state. so what’s the point of it?

> so at best, its simply a redundant phrase that says an already illegal thing might somehow be more illegal.

There’s nothing wrong with being explicit when something might be unclear.

> at worst, it could make the game even harder to get out of a locked state. so what’s the point of it?

A game locked to the point where CfJs cannot be enacted cannot be unlocked by CfJ, so the clause never makes it harder to unlock a game in that state.

i mean it can. you just unlock. And then you go “everyone cool with what we just did even though it wasn’t technically legal yes?” and if people are cool with it cool your game is unlocked. If they aren’t, the game is still locked. Either way, its ultimately one things of prioritizing following what your players want over strict adherence to the rules. After all, if following the rules so closely means you can’t even play the game… what is the point????

If you’re at the point where you’re ignoring rules, you can just ignore the newly added clause as well.

> After all, if following the rules so closely means you can’t even play the game… what is the point????

You’re agreeing to play a different game. There’s nothing wrong with that, but it’s different than unlocking the game using fully legal mechanisms.

so if either way, the clause doesn’t do anything so what is the point in adding it?

if the game is locked up so no one can do anything, you’re not really playing a game any more.

So I’d personally make sure we have ways to keep playing a game. Because playing games is fun. Whereas not being able to play a game because no one can do anything is not fun.

anyways, because that bit is redundant I allowed the “An illegal CFJ cannot cause itself to become legal.” bit to stay

I agree with the critiques that this doesn’t have the impact it should have.

Would make far more sense to amend Prioritisation to have the first line be “An enacted votable matter has priority over any ruleset clause” or something similar.

Per Josh, no reason for this to create a different and idiosyncratic system of prioritisation.

“Other rules may not place limits what a Call for Judgement may accomplish.” might also be too strong - if I propose a rule of “votable matters cannot contain limericks”, does its enactment fail because it would be placing a limit on CfJs?

I do agree that we could do with a “placing limits on what CFJs can do doesn’t work”; but I agree with Josh and Kevan that this isn’t the best way to do it.

We would need some care to avoid a paradox: “you can’t create rules that limit what legally enacted CFJs do” is self-contradictory, because it makes it unclear whether a CFJ could create a rule that limits what CFJs do.

Note that in practice, most of the CFJ-related bugs we’ve seen made it illegal to submit CFJs, rather than causing them to not work when enacted, so that might be a more important side of things to fix.

for the reasons above

if you need metagame-y agreements like this then just use metagame agreements

if you need metagame-y agreements like this then just use metagame agreements

if you need metagame-y agreements like this then just use metagame agreements

agh, triplepost

u’ve also already voted against on this before, jumble :u

@“Other rules may not place limits what a Call for Judgement may accomplish.” might also be too strong - if I propose a rule of “votable matters cannot contain limericks”, does its enactment fail because it would be placing a limit on CfJs?

I’d say yes? But that is okay?

I think “every proposal must contain a limerick” would be fine, but “every votable matter must contain a limerick” would be bad for the game because there could be disputes over what counts as a limerick and you’d want to use a CfJ to challenge those disputes without it running into the disputes itself.