Monday, July 11, 2011

Call for Judgment: Monday is a good day for a CfJ.

Failed with 10 votes AGAINST, and 0 FOR. Failed by Kevan.

Adminned at 11 Jul 2011 09:32:09 UTC

Rule “Turn-based Actions” says:

If no Cost is specified, an action’s cost is 1 AP.

And we have no definition of what an action is. In normal English usage (as per some rule in the Appendix), an action is:

the process of doing something, especially when dealing with a problem or difficulty

(from the Cambridge dictionary)

So, every “process of doing something” in BlogNomic costs 1 AP.
This makes a number of enacted and pending proposals and votes illegal.

This is my solution:

Every player that voted on this CfJ gains an AP. Its author gains an AP as well.
When this CfJ was posted, The Ruleset was exactly as shown in the Ruleset wiki page in that moment.
All the Proposals (and the votes casted on them) that have been processed or posted after that moment are legal if they do not break the Core Rules.

I hope this is right.

Comments

Kevan: HE/HIM

07-11-2011 10:43:20 UTC

To put the first sentence back in its brackets and into context:-

“In order to take an action defined as a Main Action, a Gladiator must spend its Cost in AP. (If no Cost is specified, an action’s cost is 1 AP.)”

There’s no requirement for Gladiators to spend the cost of a non-Main Action at the time of performing it - this rule just says that a cost exists, but doesn’t specify when it should be paid, or which pool of AP it would be paid from.

Ely:

07-11-2011 11:29:16 UTC

mmmmh. Probably you’re right. Sorry.
You could argue that a cost has obviously to be paid, and with your own “money”.

Josh: HE/HIM

07-11-2011 12:15:09 UTC

I think I disagree with Kevan. AP is a defined term and “cost” has a common-sense usage; if we accept his reading then Shoves become free, as that rule is worded in the same way. The lack of consistent distinction between “Main Action” (the keyword) and “action” (the nonkeyword) is also problematic.

This CfJ doesn’t seem to solve it though - it retcons the status quo but doesn’t stop all future actions (and the term “action” is used in the ruleset to describe a *lot* of things) costing AP. What is needed is for all Main Actions to be referred to only as Main Actions, which this sadly doesn’t do. Thus,  against

Kevan: HE/HIM

07-11-2011 12:35:23 UTC

But the fact that we’re defining “Cost” as a keyword “supersedes the normal English usage of the word”. Cost is an abstract numerical value, which when applied to a Main Action requires the player to spend that much AP, and when applied to a non-Main Action has no game effect.

against

Josh: HE/HIM

07-11-2011 12:43:40 UTC

But Cost is explicitly also applied to non-Main Actions, meaning that it has the same effect on both. Spend is not a keyword, though, and that has a common-sense meaning that also applies in both cases.

Kevan: HE/HIM

07-11-2011 12:48:05 UTC

It’s explicit that non-Main Actions have a variable attached to them which is called “Cost”, but the only rule that enforces AP expenditure is “In order to take an action defined as a Main Action, a Gladiator must spend its Cost in AP.”, which obviously doesn’t apply to non-Main Actions.

mideg:

07-11-2011 13:05:02 UTC

I follow Kevan’s line of thought here.  against

scshunt:

07-11-2011 13:06:02 UTC

against

There is some logic somewhere in my brain that leads me to conclude this is unnecessary. I’m too tired to find it though.

Yoda:

07-11-2011 14:18:39 UTC

against

Darknight: HE/HIM

07-11-2011 14:47:57 UTC

against

Prince Anduril:

07-11-2011 15:15:44 UTC

against Ditto mideg/Kevan

Ely:

07-11-2011 15:32:35 UTC

against per Proposal Keywords.

Bucky:

07-11-2011 15:45:09 UTC

against

SingularByte:

07-11-2011 16:29:30 UTC

against