Tuesday, October 18, 2011

Call for Judgment: I Just Need A Fix, Man

Passed with quorum FOR (currently 9-0) -Bucky

Adminned at 18 Oct 2011 20:03:27 UTC

The issue: this CfJ is also a Work of Art. Therefore, it appears to violate rule 3.2 (under an interpretation of the rules that admittedly isn’t shared by all Artists). The same holds for all proposals and CfJs (and one DoV) since the first proposal of the dynasty passed.

Why this aspect of the game needs urgent attention: I imagine that most Artists are getting bored not being able to make proposals or CfJs.

Why this isn’t a copy of ais523’s Call for Judgment: I’ve got 3 main problems with the CfJ and the suggestion to post a copy of it:

1) We’re still not agreed that his CfJ is legal (since it’s a Work of Art), so if I post a copy and both ‘pass’ we’re still not agreed on a single gamestate.
2) There’s no real reason that ais523 should be the one to formulate the fix. Even though I don’t really get a ‘my way or the highway’ vibe from his post, that is essentially what is happening (again, even if that wasn’t necessarily the intention). This single CfJ should be enough to resolve the issue; it is only illegal if (a) Works of Art aren’t a type of Official post (since otherwise rule 2.8 doesn’t exist), (b) the Faux Pas wiki page has the power to specify types of Official Posts and (c) the specification it provides somehow also applies to posts that aren’t Works of Art. I strongly dispute the second and third claims, and am still not sure about the first.
3) I dislike EVC clauses in general and adding a victory clause to a critical rule fix is particularly irksome.

Therefore, I feel most comfortable providing a simple, temporary fix that allows you all to post CfJs that fix the rules and sort out the gamestate (and hand ais523 the victory if you’re so inclined) and decide between them.

The measures that shall be taken to resolve the issue:

If this call for judgment legally passed, revert its effects so that we agree on a single gamestate (as far as the core rules are concerned, anyway). If it has not been resolved yet, fail it.

In “Gamestate Tracking” in the Appendix, change

A proposal, call for judgment, or declaration of victory cannot simultaneously be any other type of official post unless otherwise specified by dynastic rules.

to

A proposal or declaration of victory cannot simultaneously be any other type of official post unless otherwise specified by dynastic rules.

I was not an Artist when I posted this. Therefore, this is not a Work of Art.

I was considering also allowing proposals at any time but hey, you guys can add that per CfJ if you so choose.

Comments

Kevan: HE/HIM

10-18-2011 10:29:15 UTC

for  Good work.

bateleur:

10-18-2011 11:14:38 UTC

for

Purplebeard enters.
Purplebeard saves the day.
Thorin sits down and starts singing about gold.

Prince Anduril:

10-18-2011 13:29:39 UTC

Nice. I hadn’t realised that the Faux Pas restriction probably doesn’t stand because of the Work of Art rule. So I’m happy with the legality of this proposal. I don’t see the need to make proposals always possible. It seems that we want to keep such situations to CfJs as in those situations, the game certainly needs “urgent attention”.

for

Prince Anduril:

10-18-2011 13:31:29 UTC

Of course, the problem with not allowing proposals is that we’re going to need some heavy duty CfJs to fix the Work of Art rules, so at least we’re all agreed on the situation. I’m still undecided on this, but part of me feels that it would be a shame to sacrifice the dynastic ruleset on the problems with Works of Art.

Kevan: HE/HIM

10-18-2011 13:40:57 UTC

[Anduril] Not very heavy duty; all we need to do is fix the “cannot simultaneously be any other type of official post” problem in the appendix, and say that the gamestate shall be changed to the state it would have been in had this fix been in place since the start of the dynasty.

bateleur:

10-18-2011 13:41:47 UTC

It’s easy to rescue the Dynastic Rules if we choose to. Just have a CfJ after this one passes which says (in effect) “That stuff that we weren’t sure if it was OK? It was OK. Change wording of blah blah blah to clarify this.”

bateleur:

10-18-2011 13:42:26 UTC

[Kevan] Heh - you’re too quick for me! :-)

ais523:

10-18-2011 16:32:10 UTC

@Prince Anduril: I did point it out myself several times…

for (and we’ll need a third CFJ to unify the gamestate afterwards if both pass; I was just trying to save time).

scshunt:

10-18-2011 17:47:55 UTC

for

Bucky:

10-18-2011 18:19:39 UTC

for

Klisz:

10-18-2011 20:52:38 UTC

for

omd:

10-19-2011 00:26:09 UTC

for

Darknight: HE/HIM

10-19-2011 01:23:42 UTC

for