Tuesday, August 10, 2010

Call for Judgment: ProDemotion ISIDTID

Fails with a quorum of AGAINST votes at 2-10. -Purplebeard

Adminned at 12 Aug 2010 09:05:48 UTC

Revert any effects that may have occured of all attempts that were made to promote or demote a rule or citizen per the rule “ProDemote” since it was enacted.

ProDemote requires the Citizen doing so to make a Story Post. However, in order to be a Story Post, the post must follow a format defined by the rules.

Arguably, the ProDemotion rule doesn’t specify a format at all, and thus can’t create Story Posts at all. The only bit that even resembles a format is this: “In order to Promote or Demote, a Citizen must make a Story Post describing the Promotion or Demotion.”. Looking through past attempted ProDemotions: Bucky’s “I demote flurie to BLUE clearance if I can legally do so.”, and lilomar’s “Promoting Travel Permits to ORANGE clearance.”, none of them have been following this format, assuming it exists. There are two possibilities: a) the description is not a format that must be followed, in which case the posts are not Story Posts because of that; or b) the description is a format that must be followed, in which case the post hasn’t been following it. “I do X” is not a description of what’s happening, but rather an action; and merely stating that you perform an action that you can perform doesn’t actually cause it to happen, you need to actually perform the action. (For instance, if I make a post “I submit a proposal saying ‘...’” in a non-Proposal category, it clearly isn’t a Proposal; I’m stating that I perform an action, rather than, you know, actually performing it.) In Agora, this is known as the “I Say I Do, Therefore I Do” fallacy (or ISIDTID); in BlogNomic, the same truism applies: you can’t perform an action without actually performing it.

As a result, since none of those actions actually occured, their apparent effects need to be reverted.

Comments

scshunt:

10-08-2010 20:15:31 UTC

against

While I favor this in principle, a lot of actions were dependent on other actions made by this rule. For instance, my ascension to ULTRAVIOLET won’t have worked if I was RED at the time (I was promoted to ORANGE by that rule), for no reason other than I didn’t know my clearance. This CfJ should specify more exact consequences, or else a significant amount of gamestate recalculation is necessary.

ais523:

10-08-2010 20:27:07 UTC

But it didn’t work anyway. All that’s happening is that our gamestate - according to the ruleset and GNDT at the moment - is wrong. Recalculating now is better than having to recalculate down the line.

flurie:

10-08-2010 21:33:37 UTC

for

Klisz:

10-08-2010 21:35:32 UTC

for

redtara: they/them

11-08-2010 01:03:14 UTC

against per coppro

Keba:

11-08-2010 01:20:54 UTC

against because it should be the work of the CfJ author _what_ to revert and not the work of the enacting admin.

Darknight: he/him

11-08-2010 01:41:34 UTC

against

lilomar:

11-08-2010 04:28:01 UTC

against per Keba, and because changing the gamestate to match the way we thought it was is better than trying to recalculate.

I’m not sure that I buy the argument that the pro/demotion posts weren’t Story Posts either. Both of the examples cited seem to describe the promotion or demotion to me, which means that they were following the format, and were, therefor, Story Posts, and legal.

scshunt:

11-08-2010 04:48:36 UTC

Also, now that I read the arguments again, I would argue that BlogNomic does, more or less, have an ISIDTID policy. Take my recent to-ultraviolet scam - I accomplished my actions (in particular, awarding myself 9000 PP and triggering NEGATV) merely by saying I did them, rather than by actually going to the GNDT and doing them.

Bucky:

11-08-2010 05:02:30 UTC

against

ais523:

11-08-2010 11:04:44 UTC

@coppro: There’s a rule that you can combine multiple GNDT updates into one. That’s not really the same as ISIDTID.

Otherwise, I could just post a story post saying “I win” and win.

Kevan: he/him

11-08-2010 11:32:49 UTC

for Although yes, poor form not to phrase this as “set gamestate to XYZ to fix past actions; undo any actions made since this post”.

flurie:

11-08-2010 12:41:31 UTC

I agree with Kevan. I think there might be some more favorable votes if you were more particular about the changes.

ais523:

11-08-2010 13:39:11 UTC

As far as I can tell, the following corrections would take place:
- flurie’s clearance is probably different (the exact value depends on the legality of various actions that flurie made over the last few days, which is still disputed). Note that he was on RED clearance before the scams started.
- jmrdex is INFRARED clearance
- coppro is VIOLET clearance (due to his scam working, but starting from a different starting point)
- Bucky is RED clearance
- Darth Cliche is RED clearance
- Anonyman is INFRARED clearance
- Princerepulsive is INFRARED clerance
- Wakukee is INFRARED clearance
- ais523 is RED clearance, and has enough treason to be terminated immediately (my scam failed because I wasn’t in any societies after all)
- Darknight has 4 more TP
- Kyre will have 3 more TP, if he ever unidles
- Proposal Perversity is RED clearance
- Travel Permits is INFRARED clearance
- We Are Not Alone is INFRARED clerance
- The Locked Room is RED clearance

I think that’s it; anyone else want to check this list for mistakes?

ais523:

11-08-2010 14:05:27 UTC

Hmm, the above list may be wrong, I think I went too far back in time. BlogNomic’s so hard to track, what with the time proposals are enacted having little in common with the time they’re proposed, and only the second being shown in-order in the blog.

flurie:

11-08-2010 14:42:57 UTC

I would like to point out that I made it to BLUE clearance without the use of ProDemotion. I don’t think anyone else was not promoted at some point.

flurie:

11-08-2010 14:43:33 UTC

And in fact, if my CoC scam was legal, I made it to ULTRAVIOLET legally as well.

scshunt:

11-08-2010 17:17:32 UTC

I would still be RED; my scam won’t have worked at all because every promotion I attempted was impossible (starting from trying to promote myself to YELLOW)

Bucky:

11-08-2010 20:00:56 UTC

Coppro would still be RED but with enough PP to promote himself back to UV.

scshunt:

11-08-2010 23:45:03 UTC

against  against  against since this has now been fixed

Kevan: he/him

12-08-2010 09:06:13 UTC

against

ais523:

12-08-2010 12:36:29 UTC

CoV against as this is now irrelevant. (Can it be auto-failed, due to making no changes? Anything it would revert has already been reverted.)

Rodney:

12-08-2010 15:40:05 UTC

against

Purplebeard:

12-08-2010 16:04:47 UTC

against