Wednesday, November 24, 2021

Call for Judgment: Putsy Backsies

Not Popular, 1 vote to 8. Josh

Adminned at 26 Nov 2021 09:02:23 UTC

Uphold the Fighting actions attempted by the Realtor called Josh on 23/11/2021 as having been legally completed, then reduce that Realtor’s Contribution by 4.

A version of No Backsies that removes the points Josh gained, to keep the game moving and legal. Josh is free to ask for points on whatever terms, at proposal speed (I’d be open to him simulating an informal reroll and then enacting its outcome).


Josh: he/him

24-11-2021 14:43:01 UTC

Another classic Kevan punishment.

against as other votable matters this dynasty have established a degree of sporting flexibility for simple mistakes, and it feels unreasonable to single me out without any interest in a compromise.


24-11-2021 14:51:17 UTC


Kevan: he/him

24-11-2021 14:53:14 UTC

The intention here is just to baseline legalise the gamestate, since your atomic action being incomplete has knock-on effects. Like I say, a compromise refund can be made at proposal speed - we shouldn’t hold up the stability of the game while discussing that.

Josh: he/him

24-11-2021 14:54:57 UTC

lol if you think that my “give josh 2 contribution back” proposal is going to pass

I have zero faith that it would receive a single vote from Team Brendan and, frankly, I don’t believe you do either.

Josh: he/him

24-11-2021 14:58:23 UTC

The explicit purpose of this CfJ is in fact to separate those two issues, so you can maximise the punishment while minimising the risk; thanks but I’ll keep my leverage, actually

Kevan: he/him

24-11-2021 15:09:24 UTC

What leverage? The dynasty can work around you refusing to redo an atomic action that you know to be invalid: you time out and someone else gets a go.

Like I say in the proposal, I’d be open to you simulating a reroll to complete the action.

Josh: he/him

24-11-2021 15:20:07 UTC

“You’d be open” sounds great until another member of Team Heel decides to CfJ that, too, or you just do it yourself. Again, if you’re suggesting that it go up in a proposal: I have zero faith in anybody from your side voting for that, when you have already demonstrated fundamentally partisan intent. If you’d actually been open to it then it would be in this CfJ rather than something you were expecting me to put up to a separate vote.

This is just a bare-faced way of stripping out some marginal gain at the end of the dynasty, and I don’t know why you’d expect it to get rubber-stamped.

Kevan: he/him

24-11-2021 18:36:06 UTC

This was a neutral action-was-legal-to-no-effect to keep the game moving: bolting on an “I think Josh should reroll” or “I think Josh should get 3 but not 4 Contribution” risks giving a reason for people to vote against it, if they don’t like the exact payout. It’s not intended to close the book.

I think you’re being pessimistic about Team Brendan voting bloc: Brendan has voted for your CfJ to gain 3 Contribution, Lemon wants a “better CfJ”, and I’d be happy with a reroll. If Team TyGuy will support you unanimously whatever you ask for, then you’ve already got your quorum for a follow-up proposal.

redtara: they/them

24-11-2021 18:52:35 UTC

against seems overly harsh.

TyGuy6: Face

24-11-2021 19:03:11 UTC


Kevan: he/him

24-11-2021 19:40:45 UTC

[redtara] Again, not intending this to close the book, just to keep the game moving.

I appreciate that Josh prefers the “leverage” of framing this as a situation where we have to agree the payout and fix the jammed gamestate at the same time (meaning that we could only unjam the gamestate when Josh was happy with the payout, and could not if he was not), but we really don’t.


24-11-2021 19:46:26 UTC


Raven1207: he/him

25-11-2021 01:55:42 UTC


lemon: she/her

25-11-2021 09:13:38 UTC


Brendan: Heel he/him

26-11-2021 01:49:23 UTC