Thursday, July 13, 2017

Magic Backlash: Form and Function

Timed out 5 votes to 0, enacted by Kevan. Cuddlebeam begins Extreme Seizures.

Adminned at 16 Jul 2017 08:32:31 UTC

Cuddlebeam made a pact of “I promise to not make any comments on Proposals about their potential formal functionality, unless its in private to such a proposal’s poster or I deem the situation to be of extreme urgency.” at 9:53pm yesterday.

At 10:40pm yesterday, Cuddlebeam commented on a proposal that “Something like this was needed imo.”

Stating that some aspect of a particular proposal is necessary for future gameplay is a comment on its potential function. The issue of how to number squares on a grid does not seem to be a matter of “extreme urgency”, as the map has no other function yet. By making such a comment, I believe that Cuddlebeam has broken their Promise, and the rules compel me to flag this.

posted by Kevan at 13 Jul 2017 12:23:00 UTC Comments (11)

Comments

Madrid:

13-07-2017 12:34:14 UTC

*Gasp* - such insolence! Challenging me, mortal?

I’ll let you know that I had deemed such a situation to have been of extreme urgency.

...Yes. That. Extreme urgency.

Seraphims are the paragon of morality, filthy Pactmaker! My actions are absolute!

Kevan: he/him

13-07-2017 12:40:54 UTC

If a Pactmaker “feels that an aspect of the game needs urgent attention” (let alone extreme urgency), they are encouraged to raise a Call for Judgement. But you did not do this.

pokes:

13-07-2017 13:49:01 UTC

Heh, well played. for

pokes:

13-07-2017 13:51:56 UTC

I’m for a proposal preventing scorning already-broken promises, otherwise the scorning isn’t a bet. Not easy to implement though, I imagine

Kevan: he/him

13-07-2017 13:59:30 UTC

Seems okay to just allow it, given that there’s no reward for raising a Backlash otherwise.

(And it’s still a bet in cases which aren’t 100% clear-cut - the player is wagering that their interpretation is correct.)

card:

13-07-2017 15:35:45 UTC

for So in most cases where there is extreme urgency, Cuddlebeam probably could’ve raised a CfJ instead?

pokes:

13-07-2017 16:36:36 UTC

Seems pretty clear there was no urgency.

@card, your scorning of this promise is illegal, since there’s now this Backlash on it.

Kevan: he/him

13-07-2017 16:45:38 UTC

Also, what was the “should’ve been at 2 before” GNDT edit about, from Card? Card set Cuddlebeam’s Mana to 4, but the Seraph was only the target of three Scorns at the time.

card:

13-07-2017 16:55:27 UTC

[pokes] I usually skip over parenthesis during initial readings, since they are usually used for extraneous information. My mistake.

[Kevan] Ah, I thought that Cuddlebeam was scorned by someone else at the time but misread it.

Dewaldo:

14-07-2017 00:30:56 UTC

for  Seems pretty clear cut

Cpt_Koen:

14-07-2017 12:52:20 UTC

for It was altruistic of the Seraphim to demonstrate how to break Promises.