Saturday, June 25, 2016

Call for Judgment: Secondary Poll

Reaches quorum and passes 4-1. -RaichuKFM

Adminned at 26 Jun 2016 01:09:51 UTC

If the Declaration of Victory “Snappy Title” enacted, this Call for Judgement does nothing.

Otherwise, fail the Declaration of Victory “Snappy Title”, if it did not already fail.

Additionally, change the gamestate to reflect the following:

The Call for Judgement “Quorum is One” never legally enacted; revert its enactment, then fail it.

If the rule Official Position was repealed, unrepeal it.

No Scribes were ever legally granted the Official Position “Proxy”; set their Official Position to “-”.

Please keep actual arguments about the scam in the DoV comments, for clarity.

Anyways, here, this way actual gamestate will reflect majority opinion on what it should be, unambiguously.


RaichuKFM: she/her

25-06-2016 18:34:53 UTC

against Obviously.

(Again, Clucky’s doesn’t work, because Calls for Judgement don’t pass; only Proposals do.)

Clucky: he/him

25-06-2016 18:57:23 UTC

against way too unnecessarily wordy and so way too afraid RaichuKFM has another scam up his sleeve.

If my CfJ passes or is enacted or whatever you want to semantically call it, I’ll revert Raichu’s original CfJ.

If Raichu still feels his CfJ was legally enacted at that point then we can go from there.

RaichuKFM: she/her

25-06-2016 19:01:14 UTC

I swear this is not a scam. Pinky promise! To the best of my knowledge, this is a completely legitimate and comprehensive manner of setting gamestate to the way you argue it was,

I’m going to argue semantics and the letter of the rules, yes, it’s a nomic; but I’m not scamming you with an actually broken version of a CfJ to undo this. That would just be, dumb.


25-06-2016 19:04:03 UTC


RaichuKFM: she/her

25-06-2016 19:11:07 UTC

Eep. Larry, you okay there? If anyone’s legitimately upset (about this, and not something else, a la Kevan), I think a break is in order.

Also, wait, did you change your mind about my scam’s Dynastic feasability? If so, why? If not, er, wrong button there, I think.


25-06-2016 19:14:35 UTC

against wrong button. Also, I’m fine. It was for emphasis not anger.

Clucky: he/him

25-06-2016 19:17:50 UTC

Right. Which is why Raichu shouldn’t have undone my re-opening of his illegally passed CfJ…


25-06-2016 19:21:37 UTC

Which in my opinion is why you shouldn’t have undone the passing of his cfj in the first place. You have stated your opinion and he has stated his and you both just have to wait to see what everyone feels.


25-06-2016 19:28:16 UTC

Also I have carefully read this and there isn’t a scam in this.

Clucky: he/him

25-06-2016 19:30:07 UTC

The way it should work, at least in theory, is that

a) Person A does a move

b) Person B thinks this move is illegal, and reverts it. They assume good faith that person A just made a mistake and don’t want to slow the game down

c) If Person A believes their move was legal, they then can use a CfJ to resolve the conflict

RaichuKFM: she/her

25-06-2016 19:41:00 UTC

It should go to CfJ at point B if you can’t assume in good faith that it was a mistake, or can imagine it will be contested.

I’m pretty sure it was abundantly clear that we outright disagreed, not that I’d made a mistake. So uh. Yeah.

This is a petty and irrelevant argument in any case, and I don’t think reverting illegal actions without CfJ is actually permitted by the rules? I skimmed them for the mentions of illegality and found no relevant provisions. So the whole thing past my resolution was illegal, and my resolution itself was potentially illegal; the latter revisions don’t matter, at all, and so we can safely ignore them; this is to decide whether or not my original resolution was legal, or illegal.

This is the exact reason I asked that we didn’t take this to a mess of CfJs.


25-06-2016 21:43:23 UTC

@RaichuKFM: If you wanted to clean up the potential scam in good faith, you should not have tried to achieve victory with it.

@Everyone else: Why didn’t you listen to me when I said the Official Positions rule was terrible for including Proxy? Every time I say that about a proposal and it passes X-1, it blows up in our face.

( for )

RaichuKFM: she/her

25-06-2016 21:44:18 UTC

for Per Bucky’s second point on my DoV.

RaichuKFM: she/her

25-06-2016 21:47:11 UTC

Also, I admit to attempting to win over attempting to fix the hole.

However, it doesn’t seem that there’s a hole.

I also don’t regret any of my actions other than, well, being wrong about the rules.

Anyways, time to clean this mess up.


25-06-2016 21:51:27 UTC


Clucky: he/him

25-06-2016 22:22:18 UTC

Reading it closer, I’m still opposed to this primarily on grounds that I don’t think this does stuff CfJ’s should be doing, such as failing legally created DoV’s early. The CfJ is not a “proposal with slightly different rules”.

RaichuKFM: she/her

25-06-2016 22:23:12 UTC

Clucky, you’ve killed me.

I’ve died of laughter.

Please just vote FOR already.


25-06-2016 22:57:40 UTC

If you feel that way, why don’t you propose something that better defines what cfjs are allowed to do because as is they basically are proposals with different rules?

RaichuKFM: she/her

25-06-2016 22:58:52 UTC

(Also, I feel like that last line was a tad rude of me, so I’d like to apologize.)

RaichuKFM: she/her

25-06-2016 22:59:25 UTC

Uh, first two lines, of that last comment. My mind is frazzled today.


25-06-2016 23:05:45 UTC

@Larrytheturtle: CfJs need unrestricted access to gamestate because they need to be able to revert any illegal action, including marking a Failed DoV Pending in a questionably-legal manner.


25-06-2016 23:16:31 UTC

i didn’t stay I agreed with him, just that if he feels they are being used in a wrong way then he should propose something to clarify how he thinks it should work.

RaichuKFM: she/her

25-06-2016 23:19:51 UTC

Yeah. I’d suggest making a Fair Play rule about CfJ abuse, rather than actually limiting their scope, if one is to do something, though I don’t think anything actually needs to be done.

Clucky: he/him

25-06-2016 23:24:20 UTC

I’m also considering a proposal to replace “urgent attention” with “urgent clarification” to help point out CfJ’s are there for clarification and dispute resolution, not passing new stuff


25-06-2016 23:27:09 UTC

*say I agreed

RaichuKFM: she/her

25-06-2016 23:27:25 UTC

No, I think that would be too limiting.

They’re a tool for a lot of things; not just fixing illegal actions; they’re the one check on a mad emperor, for instance.


25-06-2016 23:29:38 UTC

Kinda random but what do people think of something where a proposal that alters core rules can’t be vetoed. I always have thought that should be a thing but it never came up so I haven’t done anything.

RaichuKFM: she/her

25-06-2016 23:31:09 UTC

No, I think that needs to be vetoable, in case it would otherwise pass and break a Core rule.

Clucky: he/him

25-06-2016 23:59:16 UTC

yeah it certainly needs to be vetoable

RaichuKFM: she/her

26-06-2016 00:33:00 UTC

Can someone else vote for on this?

Otherwise we have to hate several more hours for the DoV to time out before the game can start again.


26-06-2016 01:01:58 UTC

for Let’s clear this out, shall we?