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.
Hix: