Thursday, December 02, 2010

Proposal: Ruleset Accuracy fix (Core proposal)

Timed out and failed, 14-0. Josh

Adminned at 04 Dec 2010 02:25:44 UTC

Replace

Any CfJ that has no effect on the ruleset or gamestate may be automatically failed by any admin.

in rule 1.6 with

Any CfJ that has no effect on the ruleset or gamestate may be automatically marked illegal by any admin.

Because it’s more accurate.
And how do people feel about allowing comments on illegal posts?

Comments

Darknight:

12-02-2010 04:12:19 UTC

imperial

Josh:

12-02-2010 07:44:07 UTC

against Not sure that this makes a huge difference.

Blacky:

12-02-2010 08:28:01 UTC

imperial

Purplebeard:

12-02-2010 08:44:26 UTC

for

Subrincinator:

12-02-2010 08:45:56 UTC

imperial

ais523:

12-02-2010 09:42:36 UTC

Would “may be marked illegal” make it actually illegal? There’s a distinction.

SethOcean:

12-02-2010 09:43:20 UTC

I don’t see the need to complicate and create a new status for CfJ (and possibly other Votable Matters).

Admins can already mark the post as ‘Failed’ and mark with “Illegal post”. I think that is sufficient.

So against

Kevan:

12-02-2010 10:21:43 UTC

against The concept of a CfJ being “illegal” is entirely undefined by the ruleset.

(It may be worth dropping the bizarre “automatically”, though, and changing “that has no effect” to “that would have no effect if it passed”.)

Purplebeard:

12-02-2010 10:31:24 UTC

against CoV.

William:

12-02-2010 11:20:37 UTC

against per the above

ais523:

12-02-2010 11:27:58 UTC

Well, illegal posts don’t exist at all, from the ruleset’s point of view. You couldn’t even say “a Divinity who makes an illegal CfJ loses 4 Prominence” or something like that, you’d have to word it as “a Divinity who makes a post purporting to be a CFJ, but which is not a legal CFJ”...

Blacky:

12-02-2010 11:34:18 UTC

against CoV So what is a legal CfJ? There is a lot of leeway in the rule. So one would in extremo end up with a CfJ judging whether a preceding CfJ is legal. But does is this case of “urgent attention”?  So is this CfJ actually legal?
—> Keep the status quo and apply sensible reasoning.

ais523:

12-02-2010 12:18:01 UTC

@Blacky: this reminds me of when a DoV was failed on the basis that the person who made it didn’t actually believe that they’d won. (Is that still possible?)

Alecto:

12-02-2010 13:56:02 UTC

against
I don’t think it helps…

Brendan:

12-02-2010 15:38:06 UTC

against

FuzzyLogic:

12-02-2010 16:03:56 UTC

against

Roujo:

12-02-2010 19:01:06 UTC

against

Roujo:

12-02-2010 19:01:17 UTC

(Per all of the above)

Thelas:

12-03-2010 18:18:17 UTC

against, because the change seems unnecessary to me.

Clucky:

12-04-2010 01:05:37 UTC

against