Thursday, March 02, 2006

Call for Judgment: See, I can be silly too

Failed 1-10. Reaches Quorum against. Failed by Angry Grasshopper.

Adminned at 02 Mar 2006 17:42:23 UTC

Rule 1 states as follows:

Spivak pronouns, as defined in the Glossary, shall be used whenever a Swashbuckler is referred to.

As Captain’s DOV relies on his name being refered to in the ruleset, but his name does not take the form of a Spivak pronoun, it is illegal. Since Smith and both of ‘Then E’s DOVs are reliant on arguments put forward by Captain’s DOV, they are also illegal. If this CFJ passes, all four immediately fail.

Kevan’s DOV relies on him believing that he has “achieved victory as specified in the current Ruleset.” Seeing as the current Ruleset defines ‘victory’ as the title of rule 2.19 more than anything else, it is clear that this is not the case, but his DOV is legal. This CFJ does not affect Kevan’s Declaration.

If it passes, it also makes the following changes to the gamestate:

In rule 1.9, change the following:

Every Swashbuckler may respond to the Declaration of Victory saying whether e regards it as legal and comprehensive, or illegal, or incomplete

Change Captain’s name back to ‘Bucky’, ‘Then E’‘s name back to whatever it was before, and amend Rule 1.2 as follows:

A Swashbuckler may change eir name or eir sidebar link by editing eir blognomic.com profile. A Swashbuckler’s name may only ever act as a signifier identifying a certain player. A name change may never create a meaning in the Ruleset that was not present before it. The Captain can overturn a name at any time by posting to the front page of BlogNomic.

Add the following to the glossary, entitled Pedantry:

Overly pedantic play, such as declarations of victory that rely solely on the twisting of linguistic definitions, may be considered an acceptable reason for voting against a proposal, CFJ or Declaration of Victory.

Comments

Hix:

02-03-2006 18:24:24 UTC

against

Rodney:

02-03-2006 18:27:38 UTC

against

Bucky:

02-03-2006 18:35:21 UTC

The Pedantry entry is a direct assault on the philosophy of Nomic Postmodernism and thus will not be tolerated.

against

Furthermore, such “linguistic twisting” is a relative measure relying on interpretation.  A more acceptable measure would be something like, “If a Swashbuckler feels that the logic behind a DoV is flawed or based on an incorrect interpretation of the ruleset, E may vote against it,” which is also implicit and therefore needs not be stated.

Also, the prevailing interpretation of the rule, “Spivak pronouns, as defined in the Glossary, shall be used whenever a Swashbuckler is referred to.” seems to be that “Spivak pronouns, as defined in the Glossary, shall be used whenever a generic Swashbuckler is referred to.”  This is correct iff 9 more swashbucklers vote against  on this CfJ.

Kevan: he/him

02-03-2006 18:45:29 UTC

I really don’t think “prevailing interpretations” are going to save you.

Kevan: he/him

02-03-2006 18:58:42 UTC

against But mm, I’m not really happy with “overly pedantic play” as a defined disapproval - it’d be a shame if people were scared off from pulling clever but reasonable scams for fear of appearing “pedantic”. I think we’re doing okay with “legal” and “illegal”, really.

And the Captain overturning names won’t stop any name change that had a DoV made immediately as a result. Deed Poll was designed to deal with this, and looks like it might pass when we come out of Hiatus.

Purplebeard:

02-03-2006 19:03:01 UTC

against

smith:

02-03-2006 20:01:09 UTC

against I don’t think it’s worth layering on terms which themselves are open to interpretion - players will disagree what is ‘overly pedantic’. Let’s keep the ruleset as lean and mean as possible.

Scaramouche:

02-03-2006 20:10:37 UTC

against Foiling Bucky via a clever technicality = yes.  Taking pedantry out = no.

90000:

02-03-2006 21:15:42 UTC

for

Angry Grasshopper:

02-03-2006 22:25:07 UTC

Don’t be so pedantic. ;)

against

Personman:

03-03-2006 01:03:23 UTC

against I liked up until the ‘overly pedantic’ clause. Personally, I thought that spivak pronoun (mis)interpretation was beautiful, and exactly the sort of response called for in situations like these. Do this again but with just that part, and then I will be happy. And vote for it.

Elias IX:

03-03-2006 01:39:34 UTC

against, to finish it off.