Wednesday, December 06, 2023

Call for Judgment: Nothing Actually Proposed

Timed out, 4-1. Enacted by JonathanDark.

Adminned at 08 Dec 2023 04:30:39 UTC

Remove the following pieces of existing business from https://blognomic.com/archive/tyngwall_december_10_2023

Baron Gregory proposes Endorsing the Prestigious Estate Claim by 7.
Baron Proudfoot proposes Endorsing the Positive Reputation Claim by 4.

When https://blognomic.com/archive/point_of_order2 was resolved, it merely stipulated Vovix’s comment was posted before midnight Saturday December 2 2023.

However, at the point in time Vovix’s comment was made, the rules still said “Two pieces of New Business that those non-Heir Parliamentarians will propose.”. This indicates that these were two pieces of new business that Gregory and Proudfoot will propose… at some point. But makes no indication that either of them actually proposed either piece of New Business.

As “The Existing Business of each Meeting of the Tyngwall is each item of New Business that was proposed to the previous meeting of the Tyngwall.”, and neither of those were actually proposed to the previous meeting of the Tyngwall but merely were suggested to be proposed, they should not be part of the new meeting’s list of existing business.

Comments

JonathanDark: he/him

06-12-2023 01:10:13 UTC

Oh, I thought the CfJ retroactively turned the “will propose” into “proposed” for the existing Tyngwall agenda. I guess I misunderstood that.

Come to think of it, how can you tell, really? There’s no gamestate to suggest that the sentence “Baron Gregory proposes Endorsing the Prestigious Estate Claim by 7.” is “will propose” rather than “proposed”.

I’m not convinced that there’s an issue here.

JonathanDark: he/him

06-12-2023 01:12:01 UTC

Also, Point of Order hasn’t actually been resolved yet. It’s sitting at 5-4 and has not yet timed out.

Clucky: he/him

06-12-2023 01:17:40 UTC

It was a proposal that cleaned things up not a CfJ, but that can’t really change past actions. If the rules simply inferred things from the state of Vovix’s post maybe, but the rules don’t state that Vovix’s post contains the gamestate information for the “Two proposals for pieces of New Business, each proposed by a different non-Heir Parliamentarians.”, just that Vovix should post them.

Vovix: he/him

06-12-2023 03:17:26 UTC

I would argue the rules currently leave a lot unsaid about the actions of NPC Parliamentarians in general. Such as whether the randomly generated “support” and “oppose” counts actually need to be internally consistent, or whether any generated actions actually take place.

Josh: Observer he/they

06-12-2023 08:49:24 UTC

for Per Kevan’s vote on the other CfJ.

Josh: Observer he/they

06-12-2023 08:49:51 UTC

Sorry, that should be against . Not awake yet.

Kevan: he/him

06-12-2023 09:42:55 UTC

Preferred outcomes aside, the fact that Jonathan posted a Meeting of the Tyngwall before the Point of Order to validate Vovix’s comment could enact does mean that that Meeting post has no legal Business in it.

for

JonathanDark: he/him

06-12-2023 13:46:22 UTC

for per Kevan (and an oopsie on my part)

SingularByte: he/him

07-12-2023 08:37:24 UTC

for

Vovix: he/him

07-12-2023 22:43:30 UTC

against