Tuesday, November 05, 2013

Declaration of Victory: Still gridlocked

Times out, and with total votes exceeding Quorum this passes at 6-2. Congratulations Josh! -RaichuKFM

Adminned at 07 Nov 2013 05:32:53 UTC

I don’t technically need to wait for the other DoV to fail before posting another, under 1.7, and the progress of platonic ruleset effects doesn’t appear to be impeded by hiatus, so: now that the gamestate is polarised and we’re not relying on a potentially dodgy time travel argument, I’ve achieved victory on the basis of rule 2.1.

I was going to do this in four hours anyway so we might as well speed things up a bit if possible.



05-11-2013 13:19:25 UTC

Huh.  So you can.  Interesting, especially because after it fails there’s a chance that you might not be able to. for

RaichuKFM: she/her

05-11-2013 19:13:55 UTC

As I said, I don’t believe you achieved victory, but it is steeped in so much uncertainty that I won’t vote against this.

Clucky: he/him

05-11-2013 19:16:58 UTC



05-11-2013 19:52:57 UTC

Once again,  against because I don’t think the gamestate became Polarized when you claimed, and as a result either the Sequester page is not accurate or the gamestate is not Polarized.

Josh: he/they

05-11-2013 19:54:23 UTC

I don’t understand that objection - I must have missed it in the cluttered last page, sorry. How would the Sequester page be inaccurate?


05-11-2013 20:18:15 UTC

I’m still confused how that was that was two separate edits done at the same time as Clucky said it was on the last DOV. Just because it was affecting two different parts of the ruleset does not make it two seperate edits.

quirck: he/him

05-11-2013 20:19:59 UTC

Hm, just a thought on these successive DoVs: the clause “When a DoV is failed, if it has a number of AGAINST Votes that exceed Quorum, the MN who posted it cannot make another DoV until after 120 hours (5 days) have passed since the time their DoV was failed.” seems to not work when an NM creates a second DoV before a first DoV gets failed.


05-11-2013 20:36:28 UTC

Yeah, which is silly and should be changed so that the same person can not post a second DOV while the first is still pending but it isn’t a huge deal.


05-11-2013 20:38:25 UTC

Also, until such a time as someone explains my previous question to me against

RaichuKFM: she/her

05-11-2013 20:54:38 UTC

against Because public opinion changed I now eat my words. Hey, I’m a politician, aren’t I?


05-11-2013 21:15:36 UTC

@Josh - The Sequester page is inaccurate if at least one extension was illegal and we were therefore Polarized for the last edit.

The gamestate is not Polarized if the “gamestate becomes Polarised at (TIME X)” never triggered due to the fact that TIME X went directly from after the present to before the present due to your edit.


05-11-2013 21:18:06 UTC

However, on close examination, it looks like:
*All updates to the Polarization Time were legal EXCEPT your last one.
*Therefore the gamestate did become Polarized, but not until after your edit.

So for .

Clucky: he/him

06-11-2013 00:39:07 UTC

Larry - yes, Josh only made one edit. But I think it is reasonable to assume that he was really performing two edits, one (illegally) removing the text that wasn’t support to be there and his other standard daily edit. Even if you want to claim it was all in one edit, I think you could also argue that part of an action being illegal doesn’t make the whole action illegal and so only the illegal parts should be reversed.


06-11-2013 00:53:07 UTC

Well, obviously, after this is done, we should have a proposal adding a definition of the word “edit” to the core set ;-)

Maybe a definition of Keyword” too?

I still don’t know for sure if we’re polarized. :-/  imperial


06-11-2013 03:07:15 UTC

Deferential votes don’t work on DOVs just so you know. It’s use is defined in rule 1.5 which is for Proposals.

Josh: he/they

06-11-2013 08:11:22 UTC

For what it’s worth, I’m not sure about one edit action containing two notional edits, but I do agree with Clucky that one part of an action being illegal doesn’t render the whole action illegal - if I was reverting a similar action by another player I would remove the illegal element and leave the legal remainder untouched.


06-11-2013 11:47:50 UTC

Are DoV’s always as fuzzy as this?  for

Josh: he/they

06-11-2013 12:33:02 UTC

No - some (most, probably) arise from the rules making provision for victory to be achieved, and then someone unambiguously achieving the necessary provisions, like in any other game. Some (like this one) arise from exploiting or scamming the rules, however, and those are often fraught.

BN is usually a bit more scam-averse than other Nomics, for some reason, so victory edge-calls are comparatively rare. Personally I find that achieving a straight victory is a bit of a snooze.

RaichuKFM: she/her

06-11-2013 13:20:23 UTC

I normally wouldn’t think that an action being partially illegal makes it all illegal, but I took the edit as one action. Hopefully that explains my position. Also, aren’t Deferentials not useful on DoV’s?


06-11-2013 14:02:38 UTC

Ah, sorry for the deferential votes, then. I may have misunderstood the clause “for the purposes of other rules unless otherwise specified” from 1.5.1.

I’m still a bit unsettled that this whole scheme is based on my mistake with my first attempt to use the wiki to make ONE edit to ONE rule. Especially since it was a result of my trying to make that ONE edit as clear as possible (obviously a standard subsequent edits to the Sequester didn’t need ;-) But, if that’s how it goes, then that’s how it goes. Lesson learned.

As to my attempt to differ, since the Speaker has voted for  so shall I.