Thursday, February 05, 2009

Call for Judgment: Meals On Wheels Issue

Quorum of FOR votes (10-0)
Gamestate and Ruleset shall be amended as was specified
—Hix

Adminned at 06 Feb 2009 12:02:19 UTC

Yes I realize this is late, I wasn’t paying attention but:

The meals on wheels proposal stated to add under Vehicles a specified section.  When Darth admined it he added it to the Vehicles page, because it did not clearly state that it was part of the ruleset.  While it is true, that doesn’t mean that it wouldn’t also be added to the Vehicles section of the ruleset as well.  After all that is Vehicles, and it should be added as a section under it.

If this CJF passes add a new subrule under the rule Vehicles “Meals on Wheels” with the text:

A Member’s Table is considered to be attached to his Vehicle, if he has one. Members with no Vehicle may not post a Declaration of Victory. The Member’s Vehicle and attached Table are considered to be at the same Station as the Member.

posted by Amnistar at 05 Feb 2009 22:46:00 UTC Comments (15)

Comments

Amnistar: he/him

05-02-2009 22:49:31 UTC

for explicit author for.

Sparrow:

05-02-2009 22:51:45 UTC

for

Wooden Squid:

05-02-2009 23:02:26 UTC

imperial

Klisz:

05-02-2009 23:04:51 UTC

for  My bad.

PS: Squid, it’s a CfJ. You can’t vote def.

Wakukee:

05-02-2009 23:05:21 UTC

You missed what I was saying, Amni. You cannot win if you are on the station. Since you cannot win by driving, the station in the theme must be on the Solar Map. Am I right arth?

Kevan: he/him

05-02-2009 23:10:49 UTC

for

Rodlen:

05-02-2009 23:42:06 UTC

for

Kevan: he/him

05-02-2009 23:48:19 UTC

For what it’s worth, a Nomic I used to play in had an “if nobody noticed a mistake for X days, it can’t be challenged” rule, to stop elaborate situations where we had to revert days’ worth of actions (and take into account any decisions made on the basis of those actions). I don’t know if we’d want that here.

Amnistar: he/him

05-02-2009 23:52:10 UTC

doesn’t really seem like it’d be neccessary.  I’d rather not have an overarching ruling that would encourage ‘scams’ with the hope that no one notices them for a period of time.

arthexis: he/him

06-02-2009 02:53:34 UTC

for

Darknight: he/him

06-02-2009 03:19:43 UTC

for

Qwazukee:

06-02-2009 05:33:05 UTC

for

Amnistar: he/him

06-02-2009 17:31:50 UTC

8-0 needs 2 more votes to get passed

Igthorn:

06-02-2009 17:46:28 UTC

for

Well, here’s one of them.

Hix:

06-02-2009 19:59:37 UTC

for