Wednesday, December 02, 2009

Call for Judgment: Improper Enactment

Quorum of AGAINST votes, final vote 8-0 -Darth

Adminned at 03 Dec 2009 06:39:49 UTC

The section of Proposal: Doppleganger called “Part 1” has no game effect and should not have been enacted by Darth Cliche. Furthermore, Darth Cliche neglected to properly follow Rule 1.5 Enactment by failing to “mark his name, and report the final tally of votes”. Darth Cliche’s enactment of Part 1 should be removed from the Ruleset. Part 2 can stay, as it has a game effect, conceptually.


Basically, spikebrennan screwed up and didn’t follow Rule 1.1 Ruleset and Gamestate when he used the term “the list of spells in the Ruleset”. If you check the comments for the proposal, you can see many people agreeing that this is 100% true and not in dispute. Darth Cliche seems to be VERY interested in abiding by the rules strictly where *I* am concerned, but content to flagrantly violate them himself and ignore the violations of others when it suits his needs. This is, in a word, unacceptable. Either we sign on to have people follow the rules and we’re playing a game of Nomic, or we just ignore the rules when we want (or, at least the people who are in charge get to ignore them) and we’re playing some other game that Darth Cliche seems to have invented.

Part 2 would properly add text to the ruleset, even if that text, at present, doesn’t do much of anything.



12-02-2009 17:42:22 UTC

Even if this gets voted down, someone should fix the spelling of “Sequence”.


12-02-2009 17:54:05 UTC


The section of Proposal: Doppleganger called “Part 1” has no game effect and should not have been enacted by Darth Cliche.

I am against this per the comments on said proposal.

Furthermore, Darth Cliche neglected to properly follow Rule 1.5 Enactment by failing to “mark his name, and report the final tally of votes”.

A genuine mistake on my part, but easily remedied.


12-02-2009 17:56:34 UTC



12-02-2009 18:13:01 UTC

“Rules may be referred to by their type, entire number and name or type and name” is just an optional “may”, it’s not a “must”, and I’m not even sure why we’ve got it in the ruleset. The enactment of Doppelganger seems fine from here; “list of spells” is entirely unambiguous.

And yes, Darth was 100% wrong to assert that your earlier proposal “does nothing”. He might want to dial back that air of authority, now that he’s encouraged a new player to self-kill two proposals unnecessarily.


12-02-2009 18:18:23 UTC

Kevan has a point; however, previously I’ve seen proposals do nothing due to that sentence.


12-02-2009 18:56:50 UTC

against Because common-sense provisions are more fun than any drive for legal exactitude.


12-02-2009 19:21:11 UTC

against ; consider that “should” doesn’t actually do anything, so that if this passes, nothing changes.


12-02-2009 19:50:21 UTC

“Should” is defined in the glossary as “is required to”. Sharpen up before calling no effect, people.


12-02-2009 20:33:49 UTC

Ahem. “Should: ‘is recommended that’”. No actual game effect.


12-02-2009 21:40:35 UTC

Yeah Kevan. Didn’t you write this version of the Glossary?


12-02-2009 21:49:26 UTC

My mistake, I was reading the definition for “shall” above it.

But this is a CfJ - a player has raised a concern and is recommending a solution. If we vote in favour, then “the Gamestate and Ruleset shall be amended as was specified” - we’re voting on the removal of the rule, not the idle consideration of whether it should or shouldn’t be.

Why all the fiddly nitpicking, suddenly? It never used to be like this.


12-02-2009 22:42:04 UTC

I agree with that last paragraph entirely - it started being like this around arth’s dynasty.


12-02-2009 23:45:26 UTC


Kevan is right, that’s a “may”. That was a mistake on my part. What was NOT a mistake on my part was my opinion of Darth Cliche’s attitude. I’ll chalk this up to a learning experience and I think I know how to deal with Darth in the future. I’ve run into people like him before.


12-02-2009 23:51:05 UTC

As a general guideline though… for things that are neither explicitly allowed nor explicitly forbidden, are they implicitly forbidden or implicitly allowed?


12-03-2009 01:04:36 UTC

@NOI: My noting that your first proposal had no effect was, itself, a mistake on my part.

And a for things that are neither explicitly allowed nor explicitly forbidden, they are allowed if they do not directly affect gamestate, and forbidden if they do directly affect gamestate.


12-03-2009 01:13:10 UTC

@NOI: DC isn’t bad, he’s caught the nitpicking fever that all of us have. Now, if you want to see people who REALLY enjoy arguments, there are a few of those lurking around here too. :p

@DC: Yep, I sure learned the “Not expressly allowed” thing back in the 4th Meta….


12-03-2009 01:27:03 UTC

I suppose it’s theoretically possible that it’s coincidental that the entirety of my time here, DC has just APPEARED to be antagonistic to me and ACCIDENTALLY offered consistently poor information. I am, however, a skeptic by nature… Ockham’s Razor and all that. If I’m wrong, I have no doubt that a larger sample size of his behavior will be more illustrative.


12-03-2009 01:33:44 UTC

I suppose that’s a good attitude, I think.

Apathetic Lizardman:

12-03-2009 01:52:27 UTC

@NOI: That’s a bit harsh, don’t you think?


12-03-2009 02:08:42 UTC

My interactions with DC consist of him: telling me my proposal wouldn’t work because of a “technicality” (he was wrong)... which resulted in me using all three proposals for a day, and then he stole my proposal including a provision to autofail any more of mine. Next he responds to my first CfJ with an unhelpful remark (note that there wasn’t actually a problem with it). Then he miraculously likes my next two proposals and I think things are OK. Then he goes insane with the veto nonsense. Then he starts his own rogue Nomic game within this blog. Then he gives me “advice” on my double proposal causing me to end up with a dead proposal weighing me down for two days. Then he’s the only one who decides to vote against my Snack proposal because of the “technicality” about the placement of the DICEX text (which he relents on when Bucky supports it). Then he’s offensively condescending and suddenly doesn’t care about technicalities when I raise the issue of the wording of the Doppelganger proposal. Granted, that was an error on my part, but DC either didn’t realize that I was actually technically wrong (and was just being difficult) or knew it and didn’t point it out (more “helpfulness”).

If you don’t want to read the whole thing, that’s fine, but I don’t think I’m unreasonable in my initial impression of DC.


12-03-2009 02:14:56 UTC

Change the text reading: “DC either didn’t realize that I was actually technically wrong (and was just being difficult)”

to say: “DC either didn’t realize that I was actually technically wrong (and he was just being difficult)”


12-03-2009 02:17:44 UTC

The “technicality” was a mistake of mine; the “stealing” is common when new players have problems with proposals, most players find it helpful, and the autofailing was to make sure we didn’t end up with two or more spells with the same activation sequence; the “veto nonsense” is a reference to the First Dynasty of Devenger; Weblog Nomic can be blamed on Ienpw III for doing the exact same thing within Fresh Nomic; I don’t know what “advice” you’re talking about. The Snack and Doppelganger proposals I will admit were mean, though I’ve been depressed lately due to RL problems.


12-03-2009 02:21:14 UTC

The “advice” was to self-kill, rather than edit out the proposal category. If you’ve got RL problems, I’m sorry… my distaste for your behavior in this game doesn’t mean I wish you ill in reality. That said, I feel that my opinion about your game behavior thusfar is justified, but I’m not one to hold a grudge if you don’t plan on being “mean” long-term. Bygones?

Note that I didn’t use the letter “e” in my ECV for Bedtime Bedtime. ;)


12-03-2009 02:26:09 UTC


Also, the advice… well, it was legitimate. I had forgotten that it was even legal to edit out the proposal category.


12-03-2009 02:34:08 UTC


Ienpw III:

12-03-2009 02:59:01 UTC

Hey, now, don’t try to shift the blame onto me! You know perfectly well that just because an idea is tried in one nomic does not mean it has to be implemented here.


12-03-2009 03:33:06 UTC

against  I’m with NOI here, DC.  you’ve been being superior towards him.  If you’re going to act as if you know all the answers, you damn well better know all the answers.


12-03-2009 03:41:20 UTC

against , but you two short sort this out. Making proposals unfair to DC is NOT really the best way to mend rekations between you two.


12-03-2009 04:05:12 UTC

@Wak,Ex: We just did sort it out.


12-03-2009 04:56:19 UTC

Affirmative. It’s sorted. Also, note that the rider on my other proposal was a) not the effect I had in mind, and b) nothing I expected to actually be enacted anyway. :)