Call for Judgment: Predynastication
Tims out 6-2 and is enacted, but with no effect (other than to confirm that no meta was started)h. -scshunt
Adminned at 17 Jun 2012 12:44:22 UTC
Clucky and Darknight recently argued that a metadynasty was triggered by persuading a third player to travel to Dynasty 1 and use a rule there to reset Moonroof’s third GNDT column, before having Darknight (as Time Buddha) trigger an effect in Dynasty 60 whereby if all third columns are zero, a metadynasty begins.
Today, OMD travelled to Dynasty 3 and called a Revolution under one of its rules, later repealing Dynasty 100’s dynastic rules under another Dynasty 3 rule.
Both sets of actions assume that sections of the rulesets of Dynasties 1 and 3 apply to any visiting Time Monk. Yet “a Time Monk is subject to the Dynastic Rules of the final ruleset of the Dynasty that they occupy” - not Core Rules, not Secret Rules, and not (as is the case for Dynasties that predate the Core/Dynastic distinction) Rules which are neither Core nor Dynastic. Although we have a (possibly ineffectual) rule giving the Buddha a way of “detailing which rules in that Dynasty’s are considered Dynastic and while rules are considered Core”), this has never been invoked for Dynasty 1 or Dynasty 3, meaning that neither dynasty has any Dynastic Rules.
As such, both sets of actions were illegal. If this CfJ is enacted, then the change to Moonroof’s third GNDT column, Clucky’s recent starting of a Metadynasty, OMD’s calling of a Revolution and OMD’s subsequent repeal of rules shall all be regarded as illegal, and the ruleset and GNDT repaired to reflect this.
OMD ended the metadynasty, deleted the rules and went to bed saying he’d raise a CfJ about it in the morning. Since Clucky and Darknight’s metadynasty was apparently declared under the same basis (that the rules in early Dynasties are all Dynastic Rules even if the Buddha hasn’t yet confirmed them as such), we may as well deal with them both.
I like the concept of a plane in a plate.
Kevan: he/him
Since OMD is still asleep, I’ll repeat his reasoning that “I think it’s reasonably likely that all the rules from old dynasties should be considered Dynastic, as despite their being “unmappedâ€, the concept of a single set of mutable rules is closer to Dynastic Rules than Core Rules.”
Which I disagree with - it seems entirely legal for a rule to be neither Dynastic nor Core, and that’s what the Ruleset 1 and 3 rules are. If an Item can be Edible, Inedible or Undefined, and no rule allows these states to be changed, we don’t announce that an Undefined Cessna is actually Inedible now simply because this would be “reasonably likely”.