Thursday, July 07, 2016

Call for Judgment: Remote Lotto Entry?

Passes 6-0 with a quorum of FOR votes. -Bucky

Adminned at 08 Jul 2016 03:05:33 UTC

WHEREAS the rule Raffle says “Whenever a Scribe is in the Lottery Room, as a weekly action that Scribe may “Write their name on a ticket””
and WHEREAS GenericPerson did attempt to Enter Raffle,
and WHEREAS GenericPerson was in the Scriptorium at the time,

Remove GenericPerson from the Raffle’s Entry List.  If they won the Raffle before this CfJ was enacted, confiscate the Paper they won.

The 1 paper has already been refunded by GNDT-dispute, but that doesn’t work for the ruleset.

Comments

Larrytheturtle:

07-07-2016 22:16:30 UTC

I mean, if it was an illegal entry, then he illegally edited the ruleset and you should be able to edit it back to reflect the true gamestate without cfj?

RaichuKFM:

07-07-2016 22:35:01 UTC

for Not really much reason not to vote for.

The platonic gamestate is what it is whether the Ruleset reflects that or not, but, the Ruleset doesn’t have a clause referring to fixing illegal edits of itself, I don’t think?

But there is such a clause for the GNDT.

Larrytheturtle:

07-07-2016 22:38:27 UTC

for actually, upon looking at it, as it is currently worded, that page IS the ruleset and a platonic gamestate/ruleset does not exist.

Larrytheturtle:

07-07-2016 22:44:39 UTC

Well, it does for the gndt. Not the rest. That is weird and kinda silly and we should change that.

Izzoboetam:

07-07-2016 22:55:18 UTC

for

Clucky:

07-07-2016 23:22:45 UTC

for

though I don’t understand why you couldn’t just update the ruleset page as well…

Previously, gamestate was that Person had attempted to perform an action (enter the lottery) that they weren’t allowed to do

Now, gamestate is such that Person has attempted to perform an action (randomly add their name to the lottery list) that they aren’t allowed to do.

If this fails, we’ll arguably need another CfJ to reset Person’s paper to 12. Would’ve been better to either leave it at 12 and have the CfJ reset the whole action, or reset the whole action and if Person disputes, then they can use a CfJ to resolve

Clucky:

07-07-2016 23:23:24 UTC

If someone illegally passes a proposal and edits the ruleset as a result, I can change that and reset the ruleset. how is this any different?

Larrytheturtle:

07-07-2016 23:34:11 UTC

You legally can’t do that. The ruleset has no clause saying you can undo illegal edits. It is kinda a problem actually. I never realized it before just now while looking at it because of the CFJ.

Clucky:

07-07-2016 23:52:58 UTC

if an action isn’t allowed to be done, i’m not sure why you need a rule to undo the doing of that action.

Clucky:

07-07-2016 23:53:27 UTC

like, its probably a good thing to clarify. but I don’t think its illegal to revert illegal ruleset changes

Bucky:

07-07-2016 23:54:14 UTC

I think there *is* a platonic ruleset that can’t be illegally modified.  But I also think serious disputes about the state of the Ruleset should be handled by CfJ rather than admin fiat.

RaichuKFM:

07-08-2016 00:02:51 UTC

Yeah.

And possibly leaning towards more CfJs than strictly necessary is a lot better than leaning towards fewer, I think.

I think the existence of the platonic ruleset is implied by “The Ruleset and Gamestate can only be altered in manners specified by the Ruleset.”, (thus, illegal changes didn’t happen, because they can’t) but actually being able to fix the appearance of gamestate to match the actual, platonic gamestate is fuzzy, except in the case of the GNDT.

Clucky:

07-08-2016 00:06:12 UTC

CfJs are an unnecessary hammer at times though. In a case like this, I feel like there is no actual dispute. Person just misread the rules. Once they get on, I imagine they’ll agree with Bucky’s interpretation. I feel like we should only have to use CfJ’s when two player actually disagree on a interpretation of the rules.

RaichuKFM:

07-08-2016 00:13:16 UTC

If fixing something can only legally be done by CfJ,

Then, even if everyone would unanimously vote FOR such a CfJ,

It still needs to be made to legally fix the thing.

Bucky:

07-08-2016 01:29:10 UTC

Incidentally, the Lottery Room isn’t a real location.

GenericPerson:

07-08-2016 02:36:18 UTC

for Terribly sorry, I forgot the location requirement.