Wednesday, October 19, 2011

Call for Judgment: Manual Ratification

failed by CfJ “http://blognomic.com/archive/compromise_mark_4_again” -Bucky
unfailed by coppro - the enactment was illegal
Times out and refails, 1-16.—Brendan

Adminned at 21 Oct 2011 12:20:23 UTC

It occurs to me that we still might have controversy regarding the state of the game even after several possibly-necessary attempts to make the various viewpoints converge on the legality of making CfJs.  I therefore suggest we directly set the gamestate by CfJ to remove any trace of ambiguity.

Change the Ruleset, with the exception of the rule named “Gamestate Tracking”, to match what the Ruleset wiki page contained at revision 14227 (http://blognomic.com/wiki/index.php?title=Ruleset&oldid=14227).  Change the Zeitgeist, Fauz Pas, and Syles to match what their corresponding wiki pages contained at the time this CfJ was created.

If the CfJ “Drawing the Line Somewhere” passed, replace “Whenever an Artist posts an entry, that entry is considered a Work of Art.” in rule 2.1 with:

Whenever an Artist posts a blog entry which is not a Proposal, Call for Judgment, Declaration of Victory or Ascension Address, that entry is considered a Work of Art.

Set the GNDT’s columns as follows:
Bucky has 2 acclaim, comex and Kevan have 1 acclaim, everyone else has 0 acclaim.  Set everyone’s Movement to whatever its current value is according to the GNDT as long as such a value is legal according to the rule “Movements”, or to no movement otherwise.  The Founder of each Movement mentioned in the GNDT log before this CfJ passes is considered to be the first Artist to have had that Movement in their Movement field according to the GNDT log.

Comments

Kevan: he/him

19-10-2011 21:51:40 UTC

Not entirely convinced that we should worry this much about “true” gamestate; for any CfJ that passes or fails, there can be some players who consider the voted interpretation “controversial”, and maybe they were objectively in the right, but we shouldn’t cater to cleaning up a rejected gamestate. Or if we should, it should be something that the ruleset does automatically whenever a CfJ passes.

ais523:

19-10-2011 22:38:59 UTC

I think we probably should be aiming for a known gamestate. (Likely, though, I wouldn’t have added a Faux Pas with no effect at all under a ruleset where proposals/CFJs/DOVs weren’t works of art, so should really have 3 Acclaim not 0.)

omd:

19-10-2011 23:57:32 UTC

against iirc Kevan should have 0 Acclaim, because he gained Acclaim by exhibiting a proposal.

scshunt:

20-10-2011 01:19:40 UTC

against

Darknight: he/him

20-10-2011 04:24:30 UTC

against

Kevan: he/him

20-10-2011 07:12:26 UTC

against Because this is obviously ignoring all CfJs made after it, and they could enact in any order.

Prince Anduril:

20-10-2011 12:52:56 UTC

against

redtara: they/them

20-10-2011 23:55:46 UTC

against

Shadowclaw:

21-10-2011 00:02:03 UTC

against

Ornithopter:

21-10-2011 00:45:28 UTC

against

Brendan: he/him

21-10-2011 03:10:30 UTC

against

Roujo: he/him

21-10-2011 04:49:08 UTC

against

Qwazukee:

21-10-2011 09:33:52 UTC

against

Wooble:

21-10-2011 11:18:45 UTC

against

Rodney:

21-10-2011 13:36:00 UTC

against

ChronosPhaenon:

21-10-2011 14:34:16 UTC

against

Pavitra:

21-10-2011 16:16:12 UTC

against

ais523:

21-10-2011 16:40:19 UTC

against