Friday, November 18, 2022

Call for Judgment: [Special Case] Default Statuses Should Be Valid

At 2-2, has been open for voting for more than 48 hours but is not Popular. -Bucky

Adminned at 20 Nov 2022 19:35:41 UTC

Whereas an Ascension Address that says to set a special case rule to its default is illegal, and
Whereas my most recent Ascension Address said “(Other Special Cases have their Default Statuses)”, which I don’t think counts as listing any of them, but better safe than sorry, and
Whereas invalidating an Ascension Address this way without noticing it is both easy and extremely disruptive to any dynasty,

Wherever it occurs in the Ruleset, change

When a new Dynasty is started, the Ascension Address may list any number of existing Special Case Rules to be set to a status other than their respective Default Status. All other Special Case Rules are set to their respective Default Status.

to

When a new Dynasty is started, the Ascension Address may specify that any number of existing Special Case Rules each be set to a specific status. All other Special Case Rules are set to their respective Default Status.

Uphold the Ascension Address posted on November 5, 2022.

Comments

Josh: he/him

18-11-2022 17:30:15 UTC

The first premise is false.

Bucky: Proprietor

18-11-2022 17:38:59 UTC

What else would “may list any number of existing Special Case Rules to be set to a status other than their respective Default Status” mean?

Josh: he/him

18-11-2022 17:46:28 UTC

Well, for a start that would be insufficient to rule the entire Ascension Address illegal - in order to be a valid Ascension Address all a post has to do is be ‘an entry in the “Ascension Address” category’ posted in the right circumstances, the contents are thereafter largely optional.

Secondly, the clause in question doesn’t prevent other statements being made in the post. Statements that Special Case rules should be set to their default value have no legal bearing but their presence is otherwise irrelevant. An Ascension Address can also state that the sky is blue, or that banana bread is delicious - these statements have no ruleset bearing but, you know, they also have no ruleset bearing. Getting from there to “makes the whole post illegal” requires a leap of logic that the ruleset does not support.

And in this instance, those statements having no effect means that they indirectly do have their effects, as the defaults would be set anyway.

The leap of logic here is sufficiently preposterous that it makes me wonder whether there’s something else wrong with the 05/11 AA that is being swept under the rug.

Josh: he/him

18-11-2022 22:23:03 UTC

against

Kevan: he/him

19-11-2022 11:15:57 UTC

Ignoring all the “whereas” as flavour text and agreeing with Josh on the need to uphold, the existing ruletext seems like a clearer step-by-step explanation of the process.

against

JonathanDark: he/him

19-11-2022 22:20:50 UTC

imperial