Wednesday, November 02, 2011

Call for Judgment: Socialism is a threat to our nation

Times out and fails 3-8. -coppro

Adminned at 04 Nov 2011 20:10:36 UTC

Issue:

Flurie is stating that the current wording of “Socialist Doctrines” makes it do nothing because the words “eligible to 1 SP” are not equivalent to “eligible to receive 1 SP”.

However, if this were true, rule “Stimulus Package” itself would be broken. Take a look at the wording:

Whenever a Player becomes eligible to receive a SP, that player may increase by one their SP count in the GNDT once, but only within the first 24 hours of becoming eligible.

Emphasis mine. As you can see, if we accept the interpretation, any player that right now becomes eligible to receive SP and who is a Socialist will be able to claim SP anytime, since thanks to Pavitra’s use of Socialist Doctrine made us all “eligible” which is not the same as “eligible to receive”.

Proposed Fix:

Revert all effects of the actions delimited in rules Socialist Doctrines and Neoliberal Doctrines. Change the text of “Stimulus Package” so that the first line of the second paragraph instead reads:

Whenever a Player becomes eligible to receive a SP, that player may increase by one their SP count in the GNDT once, but only within the first 24 hours of becoming eligible to receive that SP

.

Comments

arthexis: he/him

03-11-2011 00:02:09 UTC

And I am using an optimistic interpretation. If we where pessimistic, we could say that since the two terms are different, no one should have any SP.

Spitemaster:

03-11-2011 00:07:43 UTC

for

eelpout:

03-11-2011 00:16:37 UTC

Help me with “revert all effects” with a fungible currency.  If I socialized myself 2 more SP (total 4) and then bought myself into free agency (leaving me with 2 again) would my employment revert or my remaining 2 revert?

eelpout:

03-11-2011 00:18:00 UTC

(sorry, meant 1 not 2 for buying out employment).

arthexis: he/him

03-11-2011 00:27:17 UTC

I am guessing everything you did would have to be reverted.

omd:

03-11-2011 01:51:39 UTC

against

eelpout:

03-11-2011 02:16:52 UTC

ah, hmm… that means if my SP affects anyone else in the meantime those are all reverted; can freeze the game that way.  against

Bucky:

03-11-2011 02:41:55 UTC

for

Doctor29:

03-11-2011 04:00:12 UTC

against

scshunt:

03-11-2011 04:00:53 UTC

imperial

scshunt:

03-11-2011 04:02:52 UTC

CoV against due to the reversion clause; I disagree with flurie and I don’t agree with your analysis; the text is clear from the context.

arthexis: he/him

03-11-2011 04:33:14 UTC

@coppro: If the CfJ I will asume that both rules are undestandable from their context and not in error.

scshunt:

03-11-2011 04:37:32 UTC

The error flurie cited isn’t entirely clear. I don’t care enough to argue since there’s a fix in the works, and we can just try not to give ourselves SP for socialism and the world will go on. I think the one you cited is clear.

arthexis: he/him

03-11-2011 04:44:16 UTC

I just gave myself SP due to Socialism. If I don’t grab it now, we won’t be able to grab it due to the timing restrictions of claiming SP.

omd:

03-11-2011 04:54:08 UTC

Okay, here’s why I voted against:

- The reasoning in the first paragraph doesn’t make sense.  “Eligible to receive X” and “eligible” are definitely the same thing (if the latter refers to the former), but “eligible to X” is a different construction.  I think it’s an obvious synonym, but if it weren’t, “eligible” in “Stimulus Package” would still refer to “eligible to receive a SP”.

- There is no point in reverting actions - it would be better to say “change the gamestate to what it would be if this had always been true”.

Shadowclaw:

03-11-2011 12:55:42 UTC

against

flurie:

03-11-2011 14:52:03 UTC

My reasoning is the same as comex’s. “eligible to 1 SP” is unclear.  The implied word could be gain OR spend. While gaining SP is clear from dynastic rules, spending any currency is described in the appendix, so there is no reason for a dynastic rule needing to describe the process. For that reason, I believe that the rule does nothing in its current form.

Prince Anduril:

03-11-2011 14:57:12 UTC

against

Pavitra:

03-11-2011 16:33:22 UTC

against I think the phrasing is reasonably clear. Compare “entitled to cake”: the most natural reading is “entitled to have cake” (implying an entitlement to receive cake, given context); “entitled to lose cake” would be an entirely unreasonable interpretation.

flurie:

03-11-2011 17:39:33 UTC

Pavrita, you’re using a different word. How about the phrase “eligible to cake”? It doesn’t parse, and that’s because there’s a word missing.

Pavitra:

04-11-2011 01:58:45 UTC

I just noticed this in the Glossary (3.3.1, first bullet point):

Any situation which would require a roll of DiceX when X is zero or lower always yields a value of 0 unless stated otherwise.

This may affect the consequences of certain recent events.

arthexis: he/him

04-11-2011 05:13:37 UTC

Pavitra: Good catch.

ais523:

04-11-2011 09:46:26 UTC

Even before Pavitra’s comment, I’d already fixed at least one GNDT action that was contrary to that rule. There may be others.

ChronosPhaenon:

04-11-2011 12:25:25 UTC

against