Call for Judgment: Poll: Was arthexis’ DoV Illegal?
Fails 1-9. - Qwazukee
Adminned at 24 Aug 2009 18:23:00 UTC
Unadmin the DoV, “I haven’t won but still” and consider it to have been created 6 hours before this CfJ passed.
I think it was illegal, but we should give it due process because arth thinks it was legal.
Here are the 2 rules in question:
From Rule 1.9: “If a Bill Murray (other than the Phil) believes that he has achieved victory in the current Dynasty, he may make a post to the Blognomic weblog in the Declaration of Victory category, detailing this.”
The argument is that arthexis didn’t actually believe he had achieved victory, so he had no legal grounds to post a DoV. It’s a bit dangerous to determine people’s beliefs, though, so this may not be entirely damning.
From Rule 1.10: “A Bill Murray should not make a DoV primarily to delay the game by putting it into Hiatus.” If it is determined that arthexis did this, the DoV is still legal, but arthexis would be under threat of banishment from the sentence in Rule 1.10 that says “If any of the rules are found to have been broken, a proposal or CfJ may be made to remove the perpetrator from the game, and bar them from rejoining.”
Please say which, if either of these Rules, you think was broken.
, for what it’s worth. Assumptions of good faith must be made whenever possible.
Qwazukee:
Interestingly, that strategy seems pretty weak, especially for a long-time Blognomicer like arthexis, because there was no way the DoV would still be active long enough to suit arthexis’ purposes. So maybe there’s some deeper thing going on that arthexis hasn’t revealed.