Monday, December 16, 2013

Call for Judgment: Reactioneering

Times out and fails 3-3. -RaichuKFM

Adminned at 18 Dec 2013 12:02:20 UTC

The issue brought up by this CfJ has still not been fully resolved. Several Oligarchs voted against based on the proposed rule change, rather than the interpretation of the existing rules. Therefore, I’d like to raise the issue again here.

The matter was described in the previous CfJ, but to sum up: during the last week, the rule “Drain” was changed from:

As a Weekly Communal Action, an Oligarch may reduce the power of the Despot by 50 (or to 0 if the Despot’s power is less than 50).

to:

As a Weekly Communal Action, an Oligarch may reduce the power of the Despot by 20 (or to 0 if the Despot’s power is less than 20).

I contend that these are two separate actions, and that therefore the second could be carried out after the rule change, even though the first had already been applied in the same week. Josh disagrees and reverted my use of the action.

If this Call for Judgement is enacted, the GNDT (and underlying gamestate) shall be amended to reflect the fact that the action in question was carried out legally, by reducing Josh’s Power by 20.

Comments

Kevan: HE/HIM

12-16-2013 18:22:50 UTC

for

turtlemoon:

12-16-2013 18:55:44 UTC

against

If a man is allowed by law to slap his wife twice a year, and he does so, and then the law is changed to allow only one slap a year, the intention of the change is to reduce the poor spouse’s abuse. It doesn’t make sense for the result to be three slaps that year.  The intent of the law - and the votes of the majority - are to reduce the number, not increase.

RaichuKFM:

12-16-2013 19:05:31 UTC

I am unsure. I’m leaning towards FOR, but not strongly enough to vote.

Josh: LOUIS XIV HE/HIM

12-16-2013 19:09:19 UTC

against I agree with Turtlemoon, but frankly, although the wording in the last CfJ may have been contentious, the lack of a clarifying statement in the ruleset makes any interpretation suspect. I’m not quite sure where the idea that CfJ’s can’t include ruleset changes came from but this is a prime example of why it’s not correct; either way this is an issue that should be clarified explicitly, rather than hoping that it will be a one-off issue.

RaichuKFM:

12-16-2013 19:13:48 UTC

I agree on clarifying the issue. Also, rereading the previous arguments, I’ve made up my mind. for

Kevan: HE/HIM

12-16-2013 21:37:03 UTC

[turtlemoon, Josh] A closer analogy might be the replacing a law that said “a citizen may punch their spouse once a year” with “a citizen may slap their spouse once a year”. Someone who punched their spouse the day before the law changed and slapped them the day after would be acting legally.

Kevan: HE/HIM

12-16-2013 21:46:27 UTC

Although, hmm, that changes a bit when the new law is explicitly a subset of the older one. But if read as changing from “punch spouse for exactly 50 hit points damage” to “exactly 20”, the action could be repeated.

IceFromHell:

12-17-2013 01:07:07 UTC

“Punching spouse for X hit points damage”
I laughed really loud at this.

On topic:
“Any CfJ that specifies neither changes to the Gamestate or Ruleset nor corrections to any gamestate tracking entities may be failed by any Admin.”
I thought that CfJ always changed rules if it was not a very specific discussion.

Also against because I think this falls into the turtlemoon example more than the other ones pointed by Kevan.

Kevan: HE/HIM

12-17-2013 09:28:37 UTC

Turtlemoon’s example isn’t changing the action, only its frequency. If the rule here was originally “an Oligarch may reduce the Despot’s Power by 25, twice a week” and became “once a week”, legacy actions from the old rule would affect the new one, because they were both actions of “reduce the Despot’s Power by 25”.

By changing the action we change the answer to the question “has this action been taken already this week?”.

IceFromHell:

12-17-2013 22:20:21 UTC

We changed the action’s POWER, an attribute of the action, just like FREQUENCY. If we would not change THE action in the latter, I can’t agree we changed it in the former either.
In other words, “reduce the Despot’s Power by” defines the action, both the amount and the frequency are just attributes.

Kevan: HE/HIM

12-18-2013 00:09:24 UTC

Frequency isn’t an attribute of the action, it’s an attribute of the rule that governs whether or not the action can be performed. If we say that an action now modifies Power differently, or affects Credibility instead, or targets the Brigadier rather than the Despot, then I’d say it became a different action.