Friday, December 19, 2008

It’s not funny anymore.

I have used my power as admin, with Darknight’s help, to prune the CfJ’s.  We have simply deleted the CfJ’s that we felt were spam and cluttering up the game.  We deleted CfJ’s that had no effect on the gamestate.



19-12-2008 05:08:41 UTC

“If two or more Characters actively disagree as to the interpretation of the Ruleset, or if a Character feels that an aspect of the game needs urgent attention, then any Character may raise a Call for Judgment (abbreviated CfJ) by posting an entry in the “Call for Judgment” category. If the Character wishes, he may post anonymously by choosing “Call for Judgment” from the Author drop-down menu on the OPTIONS tab. The post shall go on to describe the issue, and measures that shall be taken to resolve it.”

cfj != proposal.

there are strict circumstances in which cfjs are allowed.  i think declaring many of the ones posted today illegal is totally cool.

Amnistar: he/him

19-12-2008 05:09:47 UTC

Yea, I don’t think I’ve done anything wrong, but I wanted to let people know WHO was doing it, so there was accountability if they wanted it.


19-12-2008 05:10:12 UTC

Aspect of the game needs urgent attention.

Source of most of the CfJs.


19-12-2008 05:10:54 UTC

I disagree.  I would CfJ this except that (a) it won’t have any long-term effects on the gamestate anyway since they’re about to be killed by earlier CfJs and (b) my legitimate CfJ disputing the legality of your actions would be thrown out with all the dead ones.

I feel this sets a bad precident.

Darknight: he/him

19-12-2008 05:16:00 UTC

The only ones we tossed were any that didn’t make sense at all like the i win one and there was a viagra themed one. If need be take my admin powers. Only did what I thought was for the good of the nomic.


19-12-2008 05:17:44 UTC

Good god.

Amnistar: he/him

19-12-2008 05:18:38 UTC

Same.  If you think we’ve overstepped our bounds by deleting what is obviously spam, then I can accept that.


19-12-2008 05:19:30 UTC


“The post shall go on to describe the issue”

aka “the post is required to go on to describe the issue”

i don’t think “i win” (as the entirety of a post), for example, counts as describing an issue the poster felt needed urgently to be addressed


19-12-2008 05:20:47 UTC

though i’d watch out for that amistar guy. (whoever he is)

i hear he sux.

Darknight: he/him

19-12-2008 05:21:50 UTC

We made sure to leave to CfJ that truely needed to get votes. Most of the spam ones were gonna die anyway


19-12-2008 05:22:23 UTC

I like this; I endorse it.

Amnistar: he/him

19-12-2008 05:23:17 UTC

I hear he does, indeed, sux.


19-12-2008 05:30:53 UTC



19-12-2008 05:40:05 UTC


Amnistar: he/him

19-12-2008 05:48:34 UTC

In retrospect I should have done what I did with these ones, marked them as illegal and closed them.