Monday, April 17, 2017

Call for Judgment: PEDs were never free

Failed due to Quorum of against votes—arthexis

Adminned at 18 Apr 2017 22:06:15 UTC

Matt has added PEDs without paying for it, and created a Proposal indicating his belief that payment is currently not mandated by the ruleset.

It is my opinion that this is a wrong interpretation of the rules, and that the ruleset is actually clear that Cash must be spent in order to buy PEDs, as per the common english understanding of what “pay"means and the “Numbers and Variables” section.

If this CFJ is Enacted, set Matt’s PEDs to zero and fail Proposal “Non-free PEDs” if Pending.

posted by arthexis at 17 Apr 2017 14:12:00 UTC Comments (9)

Comments

Madrid:

17-04-2017 15:45:18 UTC

Jesus PEDs causing controversy just like IRL lol

Anywhoo, the relevant rule is:

“A Manager can buy any number of PEDs out of the Back Alley once a day for $X per PED”

“buying” something “for $X” implies spending that amount. So I agree with point. Although buying PEDs unfortunately is a grind mechanic and I feel like he shouldn’t lose days of being able to buy PEDs just because of this.

So, I agree entirely with the issue brought up. But not the proposed method of solving it: against

Matt:

17-04-2017 16:44:27 UTC

I intentionally bought a single PED to exemplify this potential exploit, not abuse it.

Per Cuddlebeam’s comment:
“buying” something “for $X” implies spending that amount

...which amount? Cash? Start? Previous dynasties have been explicit in that buying something deducts a value from another field.

against

derrick: he/him

17-04-2017 17:29:14 UTC

for

This is very small change, and it makes one of the two correct changes. I would vote for something that made him pay and negated this, but this isn’t a legit scam, and it should either cost or not happen.

PED’s are so cheap right now anyways.

Oracular rufio:

17-04-2017 18:38:01 UTC

for

Maldor: he/him

17-04-2017 21:46:54 UTC

Per Cuddlebeam’s comment
it is inferred that the payment is coming from the cash variable in the GNDT. But matt is making sure that their is no ambiguity revolving around this.
against

pokes:

18-04-2017 00:32:09 UTC

against I also agree this is an incorrect interpretation but don’t want to undo it. If the rectification were deducting $800 I’d vote for it but that seems like too much hassle for $800.

Publius Scribonius Scholasticus: he/they

18-04-2017 10:49:45 UTC

against Per pokes, cuddlebeam, and Derrick

Also, I don’t see the need to fail the proposal in the process.

card:

18-04-2017 15:36:56 UTC

against

arthexis: he/him

18-04-2017 22:05:38 UTC

against CoV to get it to failing quorum