Tuesday, February 05, 2013

Call for Judgment: Gutter journalism harms us all

Timed out and passed, 4-3. Josh

Adminned at 07 Feb 2013 02:00:13 UTC

In this tabloid headline, which I understand to be leaked from a Special Advisor in Purplebeard’s office, I am made the target of mockery for two statements which purport to contradict one another. However, they do not - they simply have contextual meanings that are both true in their own situations. “Contradiction” requires there to be a logical incomparability between the two statements, but the ruleset allows that credibility can go up as well as down.

The passage of this CfJ will cause Josh’s Credibility to be restored to its value before Purplebeard’s false allegation, and Purplebeard’s credibility to be reduced by 2 as his dirty tricks are exposed. Additionally, the following line is added to the end of tthe rule entitled Commitments:

If the effects of a specific Tabloid Headlined are overturned by a later proposal or CfJ, the author of the Tabloid Headline loses 2 Credibility.

Comments

Purplebeard:

02-05-2013 10:57:43 UTC

against I feel that is my right, nay, my duty, as a Member of Parliament to take any statements made by my political opponents out of context whenever it suits my purposes.

The statements themselves are in direct opposition, even though their contextual meanings and in-game interpretations are perfectly compatible.

Josh: HE/HIM

02-05-2013 11:33:13 UTC

“In opposition” is not the same as “contradictory”, Mr Purplebeard!

RaichuKFM:

02-05-2013 11:43:37 UTC

for With Josh on this. By this logic you could go far as to say “RaichuKFM said “yes” but then on the NEXT proposal he said “no”!” or something similarly stupid. I commend the originality of the attempt however.

Purplebeard:

02-05-2013 18:04:33 UTC

Apropos of nothing, I think the first part of this CfJ should’ve been made a Point of Order, and the second a separate proposal.

Larrytheturtle:

02-05-2013 20:44:48 UTC

for  by purple beards logic you could get someone by simply proving they voted for on one proposal then against on the next

Klisz:

02-06-2013 06:39:13 UTC

for

Skju:

02-06-2013 13:53:05 UTC

for

scshunt:

02-06-2013 14:05:25 UTC

against because a Point of Order has not been sought, because this gives Josh carte blanche to abuse his own credibility before restoring it with the CFJ’s enactment, because it retroactively punishes Purplebeard’s actions, because it attempts to make a material but not urgent rule change via CFJ, and because the rule change doesn’t work as intended anyway.

RaichuKFM:

02-06-2013 17:32:58 UTC

against Josh has 50 again, and I don’t care for the rest of it, so change of vote.

scshunt:

02-06-2013 17:56:29 UTC

(the reason it doesn’t work is because an illegal Tabloid Headline has no effect, so it isn’t “reversed”, it is “declared never to have worked in the first place”)

Josh: HE/HIM

02-06-2013 19:09:56 UTC

That works as a meaning of “overturned”, scshunt.

scshunt:

02-07-2013 00:23:17 UTC

No, since then it has no effects to overturn.

Josh: HE/HIM

02-07-2013 08:52:57 UTC

I think that’s a very fine linguistic argument and I’m not convinced that it would stand up if tested, but who knows?