Friday, May 13, 2011

Call for Judgment: Let’s take a vote

Timed out (due to hiatus) 3-9.—Yoda

Adminned at 16 May 2011 13:58:59 UTC

Revert all changes to the BN Index and GNDT-tracked variables made after 13 MAY 2011 13:58:00 UTC.

There seems to be a disagreement, so let’s take a vote.  Were ais’s actions legal or illegal?

Comments

Josh:

05-14-2011 09:34:30 UTC

against It was certainly legal for ais to create and take control of the corp. Reverting those against his will seems needless. Reverting the hybrid shareholder meeting / proposal would be wise, though, as well as closing the sort-of loophole that allowed it.

Yoda:

05-14-2011 12:18:41 UTC

Ais could always start another Corp via another startup post.  It could even be with the same name.  But putting the reset this far back has the added benefit of refunding Rouju as well.

Roujo:

05-14-2011 14:08:08 UTC

There’s that…

ais523:

05-14-2011 15:28:35 UTC

against I’m pretty sure the scam works (even if there’s currently a proposal in the pipeline to stop it).

Josh:

05-14-2011 15:48:54 UTC

Actually ais couldn’t create a new startup until next week, as this reverts his action rather causing it to have never been done…

Crumb:

05-14-2011 15:49:02 UTC

against I can’t find any rule that was violated.

Josh:

05-14-2011 15:50:27 UTC

As for Ruojo, I guess he’s paying the penalty for being the patsy in a failed victory scam… That’s the kind of disincentive that I’m not sure should be undercut :)

Yoda:

05-14-2011 16:15:54 UTC

To quote PB, “the effects of a proposal are only carried out if it passes. The approval of a shareholder meeting is a seperate process, and has the limitation that it can only carry out the events specified in one of the subrules.”

This tells me that even though the post was both a shareholder meeting and a proposal, the effect still came from the shareholder meeting part of it and therefore the scam was not legal.

for explicit author FOR

Yoda:

05-14-2011 16:46:33 UTC

Also, the week ends tomorrow, so ais would only have to wait a day to make another startup.  This may not even pass until then anyways.

ais523:

05-14-2011 16:58:12 UTC

@Yoda: but it is a proposal! The rule didn’t say “by the enactment of a proposal”; if it had, there wouldn’t be a scam.

Roujo:

05-14-2011 17:11:01 UTC

against

Bucky:

05-14-2011 20:22:07 UTC

for

Yoda:

05-16-2011 02:43:06 UTC

against COV

Purplebeard:

05-16-2011 07:11:25 UTC

against

Ienpw III:

05-16-2011 10:56:02 UTC

against

Ely:

05-16-2011 14:51:42 UTC

against

spikebrennan:

05-16-2011 15:35:37 UTC

against
to try to help clear the queue

Bucky:

05-16-2011 15:36:47 UTC

I encourage everyone to vote for this, given my arguments on the DoV.  My basic argument is that “any means other than by Proposal” does not mean “any means other than by a Proposal.”

ais523:

05-16-2011 15:38:50 UTC

@Bucky: Nor does it mean “any means other than by the enactment of a Proposal”.

Bucky:

05-16-2011 15:44:50 UTC

Rule 1.2 uses the same wording.  That doesn’t mean that if you make a proposal to remove me from my Admin post, it would work without being enacted.

Roujo:

05-16-2011 16:13:37 UTC

True. By that interpretation, that would be for. (CoV)

ais523:

05-16-2011 16:16:30 UTC

@Bucky: That’s because nothing causes random posts to apply their effects to the gamestate. (Becoming a player doesn’t require a proposal, and doesn’t have any matching wording; but if I made a proposal to make Hilary Clinton a player, it wouldn’t work without being enacted either, just because there’s no rule that lets non-enacted proposals change the gamestate.) So that’s a red herring. The Business Plan change happened because there was a rule that allowed posts to make it happen, and happened immediately because the post that made it happen was a proposal.

Roujo:

05-16-2011 16:19:48 UTC

@ais523: After reviewing the play… I think I side with Bucky. Something that can only happen “by Proposal” is something that can only happen /because/ of a Proposal, and Proposal can only cause stuff to happen by enactment. Saying that a Proposal can change Gamestate without passing would be a dangerous precedent, IMO.

ais523:

05-16-2011 16:33:05 UTC

@Roujo: that’s not what I said at all. A proposal can change gamestate without passing, if it could do so without being a proposal, because another rule allows it to do so. Imagine the following hypothetical rule: “If a woman posts a sentence with 6 words in as a blog post, Bucky gains 10 points.” Suppose a woman (who is not currently a player) posts “I want to become a player”, then request to become a player would make her a player (when an admin got around to it), and also award Bucky 10 points. This doesn’t mean that requests to become a player can, in general, give people points, any more than it means that proposals can, in general, cause stuff to happen without being enacted. It’s only the existence of a separate rule that allows such things to happen.

Roujo:

05-16-2011 16:43:23 UTC

@ais523: Rule 2.2.1 states: “If a Business Plan would be changed by any means other than by Proposal”. I don’t believe something happening by something else while also being a Proposal is something happening “by Proposal”.

Bucky:

05-16-2011 16:49:28 UTC

Rule 2.2.1 is very specific on the subject; “by Proposal” refers to the means, not the instrument.

Yoda:

05-16-2011 16:55:00 UTC

Basically, the argument here comes down to the definition of “by Proposal”.  Proponents of the scam claim it means “an effect that came from the proposal’s post” whereas the opponents claim it means “an effect generated by the enactment of a proposal”.  It’s a subtly difference but one that determines whether all of the actions leading up to my DoV were legal or illegal.

Klisz:

05-16-2011 17:05:34 UTC

against

Galtori:

05-16-2011 17:10:37 UTC

against

Ely:

05-16-2011 17:11:14 UTC

for CoV per bucky