Saturday, April 01, 2006

Call for Judgment: In the name of the game!

Passes 7-1, reaches Quorum. We agree that general causality applies to the game unless otherwise specified. Bucky and Lars Atomica will make some attempt to play nicely and try to keep the level of general headaches to a minimum.—Angry Grasshopper

Adminned at 02 Apr 2006 11:10:39 UTC

If this passes, the following agreements shall be made: (these will not be saved in the ruleset or anywhere else but this CfJ since these should all be taken for granted)

Time-travel is impossible unless otherwise specified in the ruleset. No more proposals or CfJ’s that apply retroactively. The ruleset may not specifically forbid this, but most of it wouldn’t make any sense if it’d be allowed.
Bucky shall no longer threaten anyone with the usage of any ‘loopholes’ to destroy the ruleset, gain supernatural powers or retroactively win all previous and future dynasties. If you see a loophole, either fix it immediately or try to win with it and then fix it.
Lars and Bucky will both calm down. Your goal here is not to win, beat others at anything or reign supreme, it is to have FUN.
Most importantly, this is a GAME. It shall be treated as such.

(end of agreements)

Now, fail all proposals and CfJ’s that apply retroactively and undo any effects they might have had.

posted by Purplebeard at 01 Apr 2006 07:07:40 UTC Comments (14)

Comments

Rodney:

01-04-2006 13:10:48 UTC

for

Bucky:

01-04-2006 13:16:18 UTC

“Bucky shall no longer threaten anyone with the usage of any ‘loopholes’ to destroy the ruleset, gain supernatural powers or retroactively win all previous and future dynasties.”?  Only if nobody else does.

Bucky:

01-04-2006 13:59:55 UTC

“Now, fail all proposals and CfJ’s that apply retroactively and undo any effects they might have had.”  Doesn’t this CfJ apply retroactively, then?  If so does it undo itsself?

Purplebeard:

01-04-2006 14:38:30 UTC

The ruleset says CfJ’s amend the gamestate and ruleset when they pass. Therefore, this one can’t apply retroactively; it’ll only change the present state to make the ‘records’ say the proposals and CfJ’s didn’t have any effect, even if they did.
I venture that ‘retroactively’ can truely only mean ‘applied prior to enactment’ in Blognomic.

Angry Grasshopper:

01-04-2006 16:08:41 UTC

I like the sentiment, but isn’t the premise on somewhat shaky ground? Personal disputes between players should be resolved in the appropriate forum, not by our mechanism to correct contested errors in gameplay, don’t you think?

As far as retroactive play, I thought we had it bad enough with the sematic arguments that seem to fly around here. Are we going to argue about causality, too?

Purplebeard:

01-04-2006 16:22:32 UTC

I agree that such disputes should really be resolved otherwise, but I thought it was time for our own ‘ultimatum’.
Already the current events are keeping people away from this game. If the situation would escalate further, we could find ourselves forced to give one or two Gostaks a more serious ‘incentive’ to play the game as it was meant to be played. I’m just trying to get people to resolve their matters before that happens.

90000:

01-04-2006 16:24:21 UTC

for

ChronosPhaenon:

01-04-2006 17:15:11 UTC

for

Angry Grasshopper:

02-04-2006 03:19:15 UTC

for

Queue-speeding. Lars and Bucky will (hopefully) play nice, even though I don’t think we can constrain their game play by a Call for Judgment.

Purplebeard:

02-04-2006 14:01:58 UTC

for

Elias IX:

02-04-2006 14:04:00 UTC

for

Angry Grasshopper:

02-04-2006 17:28:13 UTC

One more FOR vote to pass.

smith:

02-04-2006 17:54:07 UTC

for Those last two points aren’t enforcable - how can we tell players what their goals will be? - but I appreciate the spirit of this CfJ and I’ll sign it.

Hix:

02-04-2006 17:58:16 UTC

against Sorry, not from me.  Anyway, if you don’t want any more proposals that apply retroactively, then don’t vote for them.