In context, during clearly equals duration to me. That said, there appear to be honest mistakes, so the compromise is not untenable.

This came up before (http://blognomic.com/archive/cycle_8_resolution/), as I said then I read the rules as follows:

Due to the influencing of the Reactor, the Watchtower is disconnected during cycle 9. That is, IF (it is cycle 9) THEN (the Watchtower is Disconnected).

When a new cycle begins, IF (an institution is Disconnected) THEN (that institution becomes Unpowered).

The whole issue hinges on whether the initialization takes place at the beginning of Cycle 13 or the end of Cycle 12. Since the initialization is an event *triggered* by another event (the beginning of a cycle), I hold that is must take place after the event which triggers it, and thus an institution is disconnected for the same cycle it is Unpowered.

Sorry, replace “Cycle 9” with “Cycle 13” in the above post. I forgot which cycle we were talking about momentarily.

And again, I misread the proposal.  to the rule clarification.

without endorsement

Why are you powering the Watchtower here? If this CfJ takes a while to be processed, you’re stopping anyone from using the Reactor to shut it down next Cycle.

, anyway, because of the EVC clause, you shouldn’t get victory points for interpreting a rule against consensus, and you didn’t lose any credits by getting it wrong.

Based on my interpretation of the rules, the Watchtower is still unpowered. It got set to disconnected and was never undisconnected.

Also I *clearly* wasn’t the only one who interpreted the rule wrong. Everyone else sent a credit as well and SPC didn’t star institution so he also interpreted the rule the same way.

Only four other players sent a credit. And those were presumably grindy “...and 1 to everything else” non-bids.

You say “four players” I say “everyone who sent credits most places but Yonah”. Point remains that it was incorrectly labeled as active, which defeat the whole purpose of staring them.

Well, your bid on it was invalidated and you had enough money that you weren’t misled into cutting corners elsewhere. You didn’t lose anything.

The Disconnected clarification is fine, the Repowering probably isn’t going to be a problem in practice, but I’m against letting you draw victory points from an Institution that had been deliberately Disconnected. (I appreciate it’s an EVC clause, but you are asking me to vote on “should Clucky be rewarded if two people agree with him?”.)

For the record, the EVC rider alienates me too. I’m sticking with FOR on the basis that it’s unlikely to pass, but if anybody looked like voting for the EVC I would probably switch.

For the clarification, against your interpretation. I think Yonah’s explained it well enough.
(And against the 2 Power thing, because I have no idea why that would be fair.)

I’m not sure what the problem with the EVC rider is - if there is enough votes for the rider to get through, there is enough votes for the CfJ to pass regardless of how you vote. (unless someone votes against but for the rider which seems unlikely)

How is it at all fair to say an institution which everyone thought was powered (even Kevan sent a credit) and which the ruleset *said* was powered was actually not powered?

Really? It’s the age-old EVC problem. Saying “if half the people who voted on this also said X, then make change Y” means that change Y can be enacted with only a quarter (or fewer) of players being in favour of it. As I say, you are asking me to vote on “should Clucky get compensatory victory points if he can find 2 people to agree with him?”, to which I say “no, he should find a quorum of people to agree with him”.

(I didn’t actually send anything to the Watchtower, my instruction to the Net was just to send “1 to every other Powered Institution” to get the grindy double-your-money bonus. You haven’t lost any Credits here and there was no opportunity cost to you in making the bid - it seems entirely fair to just move on.)

That doesn’t matter because you don’t need quorum to pass the proposal in the first place.

As long as we assume “no one will both vote against and vote for the rider text” then if there are a majority of voters in favor of both the CfJ and the rider text both will pass. If finding two people who agreed with me was enough, that would imply only five votes are cast. The two people who agree with me would be enough to pass the CfJ and the rider text.

Also didn’t you make my point for me if you said “1 to every other powered institution” and the net sent 1 to the Watchtower? Even The Net thought the Watchtower was powered.

Fair point that it doesn’t matter in timeouts, but it does matter if we hit quorum. The thing about a quorum of FOR votes is that once we reach it, we know that the other players’ votes can’t make a difference (even if they were all AGAINST) and we can move on without them. EVC riders break that - if this CfJ were to enact with a unanimous 6 FOR and 4 EVC riders, we’re ignoring only 4 potential AGAINST votes, but we’re also ignoring 6 potential EVC objections.

And no, I was rebutting your point that “even Kevan sent a credit” by explaining that I actually didn’t send any credits. I appreciate that the Net was mistaken here.

Or rather: we’re facing a potential 6 EVC objections, to only 4 in favour, by recognising 2 of them and ignoring 4.

okay, fair enough. hadn’t thought about that…