Monday, February 25, 2013

Declaration of Victory: Raichuvolution

Passes 9-1 with the Speaker’s blessing. Congratulations to RaichuKFM! -scshunt

Adminned at 26 Feb 2013 05:50:03 UTC

My Coup had more Supports than Oppositions when it was resolved. As such, I have achieved victory.

My Coup has succeeded. To my supporters, rejoice. To my opposition, do not despair; A madman does not stand before you. I will reinstate a Democracy, but we must have some restructuring first. I would like to thank our Speaker and you all. If you have any complaints or disputes, speak them here. A new dawn is upon us.

Comments

RaichuKFM:

02-25-2013 17:32:30 UTC

Oh, for reference, per Rule 2.15, “La Revolucion”:

A Coup may be resolved once by any Honourable Member other than the Speaker if 48 hours have passed since it was posted and at least 6 hours have passed since it was last Supported or Opposed. If, at that time, the Coup was Supported more times than it was Opposed, it succeeds and the Usurper has achieved victory.

Josh: HE/HIM

02-25-2013 18:19:11 UTC

against “the Speaker’s rulings shall be used in interpreting the rules” and “a Point of Order may not cause any change to the game state” - I don’t think the Point of Order can undo the failure of the Coup, and the Coup doesn’t render the failure retroactively illegal, it just provides an interpretation guide for future proposals / CfJs. You have to go through the CfJ process as well - which you should easily clear, given the guidance laid down by the Point of Order, but I don’t think we should be bypassing process.

scshunt:

02-25-2013 18:36:30 UTC

I’m interested by your comments there. Why do you think that I’ve indicated any changes to the game state? My ruling was that as a result of you resolving the Coup, Raichu won, whether or not anyone realized that at the time. It was not the ruling that gave Raichu victory, but recognized that he had already achieved it.

Josh: HE/HIM

02-25-2013 18:48:32 UTC

Hmm, reading it back, I can see it both ways.

There’s some tension in the rule - La Revolución does say that the Coup has to be resolved. If a Coup is not a votable matter (which it can’t be, thanks to your ruling) then “resolved” takes the standard English usage, which in this context means to convert or transform by any process, but can also mean to come to a definite or earnest decision about, or determine.

In the former case, the act of resolution just marks the Coup as finished and the effect takes place platonicly; in the latter case, the act of resolving decides that outcome, and that would need to be reverted.

Josh: HE/HIM

02-25-2013 18:51:28 UTC

No, actually, I think I may be wrong on this.

for because voting against is illegal.

Klisz:

02-25-2013 18:57:52 UTC

for

Purplebeard:

02-25-2013 19:07:24 UTC

for

scshunt:

02-25-2013 19:08:15 UTC

oh dear, what have i done

omd:

02-25-2013 20:03:28 UTC

against I don’t think that voting against is illegal, so have a bit of contrarianism.

Josh: HE/HIM

02-25-2013 20:07:18 UTC

Why don’t you think it’s illegal?

Larrytheturtle:

02-25-2013 20:07:57 UTC

for

omd:

02-25-2013 20:16:00 UTC

“shall be used in interpreting the rules” (2.10) need not mean “shall be used in the personal thought processes of all players at all times” - such a rule would be blatantly unenforceable and almost impossible to follow if one started out with a disagreement with the ruling.  It would be more reasonable to interpret it as ‘shall be used in interpreting the rules for official gamestate tracking’, which need not apply to personal “agreement or disagreement” (1.7).

Josh: HE/HIM

02-25-2013 20:26:58 UTC

Nobody’s arguing for “shall be used in the personal thought processes of all players at all times”. The actions that arise from that are a different matter. We shouldn’t really have passed a rule that said that in the first place, but it’s no use saying that it would be more reasonable to interpret the rule a different way - it doesn’t say anything about official gamestate tracking so we can’t really interpret it that way.

Although I suppose it could be argued that scshunt permitted it by means of his “the spirit not the letter” ruling.

omd:

02-25-2013 20:33:09 UTC

In general, I don’t see how it would be illegal to express an opinion even if, for example, that opinion can be objectively proven wrong, as long as one is truly convinced of it.  The only way this case would be different is if it is illegal to have that opinion in the first place.

The issue is, of course, fairly moot, since the DoV is unlikely to fail.

Larrytheturtle:

02-25-2013 20:33:55 UTC

“the spirit not the letter” was a matter of 2 ways of taking a statement. This would be completely deleting a statement he made not deciding which way to take something.

Josh: HE/HIM

02-25-2013 20:37:24 UTC

Omd - the difference would be between, say, racism and hate speech. (I’m not saying that in an internet way, it’s genuinely the distinction that pops into my head - the difference being between the thought and the application of the thought, its expression into real life. One is legal and indeed protected under freedom of expression, the other is rightly criminalised, at least here in the UK.)

nqeron:

02-25-2013 21:17:42 UTC

for

Skju:

02-26-2013 00:11:34 UTC

for

MurphEngineer:

02-26-2013 02:39:57 UTC

for

scshunt:

02-26-2013 13:49:34 UTC

and here’s the hammer for