Monday, May 18, 2009

Call for Judgment: Not precisely what I had meant

Reached quorum. -SingularByte

Adminned at 19 May 2009 04:44:26 UTC

When I proposed “Dear Diary” I thought that, if the proposal “The Fame Game” passed, the text about broadcasting footage from the diary room should be added to “that rule,” the text added by “The Fame Game” proposal to the rule “The Bunker.”  When Dear Diary was adminned, the text got added to the Dear Diary rule instead.  Unfortunately, I don’t think it makes any sense in its current location.  Now that the wording of “The Fame Game” amendment has been clarified by “Secure Beneath the Watchful Eyes” I think the last two sentences of Dear Diary should find their way home as well.

If this CfJ passes, move the text:

If, however, the host broadcasts footage from the diary room he shall not increase the Fame of the Contestant in that room, if any. Instead he shall increase the Fame of each Contestant who had made a diary entry in the preceding week by 1.

from the rule “Dear Diary” to the rule “The Bunker” immediately after the passage that reads

As a daily action, the Host may broadcast footage from the Reality TV Bunker. He does this by rolling DICEX in the GNDT, where X is the number of Rooms that exist - the Room whose position in the list matches the rolled result is filmed. The Host then increases the Fame of each Contestant in the filmed Room by 1.



05-18-2009 04:37:59 UTC



05-18-2009 04:42:27 UTC



05-18-2009 04:47:47 UTC



05-18-2009 05:21:44 UTC

for  for


05-18-2009 09:01:30 UTC



05-18-2009 09:51:25 UTC



05-18-2009 10:28:00 UTC

for And I assume this is tacit acceptance of it being okay for Wakukee to have added the “He does this by rolling DICEX in the GNDT” stuff in the first place, when the Your New Home proposal erroneously said only to add the following “sentence”.


05-18-2009 11:49:16 UTC

for (as I read the rules, unlike with a proposal, I am not presumed to have voted in favor of this merely by remaining silent).  @Kevan: I figured that I didn’t need to take a position on that; either Wakukee was correct in adminning the original proposal or “Secure Beneath the Watchful Eyes” fixed the problem.  The ruleset looks the same now regardless.


05-18-2009 12:20:58 UTC

Actually, Wakukee took a fair but different interpretation of “previous rule” (it was meant as “the rule created previously by this proposal”, but he took it as “the rule previous in the ruleset to the one created by this proposal), so Secure Beneath wouldn’t have fixed the problem, as it was expecting to find the sentence in a different rule.


05-18-2009 12:29:47 UTC



05-18-2009 13:34:32 UTC

Kevan: I see what you mean - the issue is not whether the text is in the ruleset but whether it is part of the Fame rule or the Bunker rule.  Oddly, I think it makes as much sense in its current location as it would in its intended location.  While I would not normally want to encourage creative adminning of rules, I think here it is OK because we do know what was intended and, if nothing else, the passage of Secure Beneath stands for the proposition that there is a quorum in favor of the entire text of The Fame Game being in the ruleset somewhere.


05-18-2009 15:32:52 UTC



05-18-2009 15:48:47 UTC


Ienpw III:

05-18-2009 16:21:20 UTC



05-18-2009 18:38:57 UTC



05-18-2009 20:08:06 UTC