Monday, December 04, 2023

Call for Judgment: Point of Order

Timed out 5-4. Enacted by JonathanDark.

Adminned at 06 Dec 2023 16:18:14 UTC

Treat Vovix’s comment on as if it had been posted before midnight Saturday December 2 2023.

There was some misunderstanding by Vovix that they had to make the comment before midnight on Saturday in order to meet the requirements of the rules on Tyngwall. Given that Vovix is the Old King, is not an adversarial Emperor, and had no ulterior motive for this, there’s no reason to hold up the Tyngwall for a simple misunderstanding.


Josh: Observer he/they

04-12-2023 16:12:43 UTC



04-12-2023 16:20:10 UTC


Kevan: he/him

04-12-2023 16:38:53 UTC

As a straight gameplay vote on whether I think the Prestigious Estate Claim (which I don’t hold) should be put up for a 50/50 chance of getting +7 Strength, and Positive Reputation (held by everyone) for +4, I’d say against

lendunistus: he/him

04-12-2023 16:53:53 UTC

for for the reasons opposite to kevan


04-12-2023 17:02:28 UTC

CoV against for the same reason as Kevan


04-12-2023 17:11:11 UTC

against for the same reason as Kevan

Clucky: he/him

04-12-2023 17:38:51 UTC

This doesn’t do anything, right?

“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.”

But even if Vovix has posted everything on time,
“Two pieces of New Business that those non-Heir Parliamentarians will propose.” is just mentioning two pieces of new business that will be proposed at some point. None of them every makes them proposed. So I don’t think Vovix getting the comment in on time has any effect on the gamestate

Clucky: he/him

04-12-2023 17:39:40 UTC


JonathanDark: he/him

04-12-2023 18:22:08 UTC

@Clucky: are you saying that the Tyngwall rules are fundamentally flawed in this respect and are functionally ineffective? I’m just asking because then we ought to decide to either fix it or throw it out if people don’t actually like it.

Clucky: he/him

04-12-2023 18:23:52 UTC

not all of them, just the ones around non heirs proposing new business

Zack: he/him

04-12-2023 21:09:43 UTC

This CfJ cannot be enacted because “it specifies neither changes to the Gamestate or Ruleset nor corrections to any gamestate-tracking entities.”

Zack: he/him

04-12-2023 21:10:36 UTC

Actually it technically can be enacted if it is popular but it shouldn’t be because it doesn’t do anything.

Vovix: he/him

05-12-2023 05:45:54 UTC


Kevan: he/him

05-12-2023 09:12:28 UTC

[Zack] “The historical fact of the occurrence of a defined game action is itself considered to be gamestate”

Josh: Observer he/they

05-12-2023 11:38:28 UTC

Huh! So that line about CfJs that do nothing shouold be removed then?

I think it was a relic of the days when CfJs arrested DoV progress anyway.

Kevan: he/him

05-12-2023 12:15:02 UTC

Relicwise, I assumed it was to shortcut the occasional CfJs we’d see of “I think this player has broken a rule” where there was no clear resolution for players to vote on, or where we’d agree how to interpret a genuinely ambiguous rule but would leave the ruletext unchanged.

But checking the archive it was actually from the weird era when anonymous CfJs were a thing, and people were posting a lot of nonsense ones.

Zack: he/him

05-12-2023 19:07:39 UTC

Alright Kevan, you’ve convinced me. for