I don’t think we have ever played where capitalization mattered? If it is in the rules somewhere or there is an example of when we have then I’ll change my vote. To me though, I thought of the capitalization as meaningless stylization to help show what part had to be included?

For instance, I assume no one would argue I didn’t enact “Bills AND Coins?” properly because my gndt comments didn’t capitalize the title of the proposal correctly? If we are going to be this strict on capitalization then we would need to be consistent on it.

:D

Per Larry.

Come on, don’t be transparently arbitrary because we pulled a scam that you didn’t think of.

Inconsistent pedantry is stupid pedantry.

Besides, if we’re going to play by strict pedantry, your action only transferred 1 Paper; even if you said ‘All’ in the comment, the record clearly demonstrates, you transferred 1 Paper. The actual body of the comment doesn’t mean anything; you either transferred 1 (and legally did so), or transferred all, which would have been an overdraw, except, you didn’t ovredraw on the premise that it would be retroactively legal. You took 1. So, it would be a race for the admin to enact this to bump Damanor and take it.

And, on another point, Bucky’s move was illegal because he adjusted Stress incorrectly. (Check the GNDT logs.) Not that I think that’s a tenable argument, but I don’t think this is tenable, either. (Nor, as you might recall, did I continue to think the enact =/= pass point was tenable when it was pointed out that passing isn’t codified for anything.)

Please, point to me where case is codified as making an appreciable difference. This is a dangerous precedent, in any case. I’m disappointed in this CfJ, and confused.

Clucky, are you for this simply because you dislike scams? I’m not trying to be accusatory, I’m just, honestly asking. (On that note, while you’re entitled to your opinion, scams are fair, and shouldn’t be punished. The Newbie Guide says as much, even. See: https://wiki.blognomic.com/index.php?title=Newbie_Guide#How_does_a_dynasty_end.3F )

I can’t reconcile the opinions on pedantry you guys have on display here here with the opinions on pedantry with respect to ‘revert the passing’, so I feel like it might just be to go after me, specifically?

And that’s dumb.

Or, it’s just changing opinions on how strict we should be with the exact pedantics to suit your own ends, regardless of who it’s against,

That’s dumber.

Strong against.

I’m sorry, that came off as very accusatory, I think; I blame being tired and finding this silly nonsense in my check right before bed.

I really don’t mean any offense or ill will, if that was unclear. It’s a game.

If you wanna play blognomic the “Work with my friends to sneak scams through” way, you also have to play it the pedantic, rules lawyery way. Can’t have it both ways

Uh. I came up with this scam on my own? I was going to have done it with Cleaning up gold 2.0 had it passed (obviously, with Gold instead of Paper). I made my own Proposal when that failed.

When I realized that I wasn’t going to be on when it timed out, I let Larry into it; if he’d just kept my Paper, I would have laughed. If someone else had stolen it from the Proxy after we gave it to it but before we grabbed it, I would have applauded.

I’d have applauded this CfJ, too, if I thought it more legitimate.

It’s hardly like Larry and I are the freaking DDA or whatever! Hey, remember when we pulled the Christmas Coup? I’ve also collaborated with quirck before, though the one time that actually produced a win was for me, and, only a collaboration after the fact. I’m just very willing to team up with people.

Hell, my first win was from the Fourth Dynasty of scshunt, and I had like, a whole faction voting for my Coup, and I still don’t know why! (Maybe because I represented the legal win? In any case, it was great.)

In the first Dynasty of Larry I was very Pro-York instead of aiming for my personal gain, though, I wound up winning anyways in all the chaos of Purplebeard’s silent idle.

But I digress.

This seems very transparently a vote from you just to screw me, which is dumb. I imagine Bucky either honestly thinks this is a legitimate point, or half does and doesn’t see a reason to bring it up, but… yeah no.

Teamwork scams and rules lawyering don’t actually have anything to do with each other, so your statement doesn’t really make sense, (and I’ve already given my reasons why this seems to be too pedantic, especially given the precedent of, like, our last CfJ?) so, yes, you really could have it both ways,

And if you want to play it spirit over letter when it suits you, you have to play it spirit over letter when that helps out other players. If you want to play it all super pedantic when it suits you, you have to play it when it suits other people, too. You actually can’t have it both ways.

(For clarity, “when we pulled the Christmas Coup”, it was Clucky and I. (Whoops, antecedents.) And it was their idea (and a great one), they just went to me for a collaborator.)

lol that was long enough ago that I don’t remember

don’t get why you are taking this personally. Its not about who tried to pull the scam and more to do with someone tried to pull a scam and now Bucky is being pedantic to stop it.

Its only “personal” in the sense that you seem to be the primary one who keeps trying to inject scams into proposals instead of just playing the game

What, like, literally once?

The other scam was off of Brendan’s Proposal, and this one was originally going to be off of another Proposal that wasn’t mine, that failed.

Also, injecting scams into Proposals is playing the game. Again. It’s in the Newbie Guide, which I’d given a reread after sending it to Af3rwards.

I’m put off by your vote here because you seem to regard pedantry as something to ignore when it enables a scam, and something to effect when it stops one; and then tell me that I have to accept this bit of pedantry, because, I… pulled a scam that was completely independent of pedantry? Even though I accepted our last judgement this Dynasty, that a level of pedantry less pedantic than this CfJ was untenable?

You seem like you’d be the person to hate this sort of pedantic precedent, considering everything you said in the last batch of Calls for Judgement?

How is it tenable to think that ‘pass’, being completely uncodified in the ruleset, can be counted as a synonym for ‘enact’, because of usage and precedant, and also think that Proxy MC Whoever is not an acceptable substitute for PROXY MC Whoever?

It’s less “Proxy MC Whoever is not an acceptable substitute for PROXY MC Whoever” and more ” ‘Proxy (X):’ is not an acceptable substitute for ‘PROXY (X):’ “.

I personally feel that it would be good to have a rule that clarifies that case doesn’t matter (much like the “Superficial differences between the spelling of geographic versions of English, e.g, British English, American English and Australian English shall be construed as irrelevant for the purposes of play.
” rule), but without one I think Bucky has a fair enough point I voted for.

meanwhile there *is* already an already established tradition of using “passes” and “is enacted” interchangeably despite passes not being defined in the ruleset. see: http://blognomic.com/archive/magic_coin_flip

There is also a precedent for no one caring about capitalization though?

I know. That was my point! That it just, counted, and will continue to count; I accepted it, was my point. I just don’t see why, if we can accept something completely uncodified by the Ruleset via precedent, we can’t accept case differences, which is similarly not formally codified but well supported by precedent (I’ll dig something up, if I have to, though I’d rather not), as irrelevant?

I’d make a Proposal to codify the case thing (and also Pass=Enact), now that you mention it, but I just spent my second slot on another shot at reworking Teaming Up, whoops.

Also, okay. If you just think case really is a qualifier, then, I disagree with you, but understand your position. I wish you would have just said that in the first place, instead of the vaguely personal “If you wanna play blognomic the…” thing. Sorry if I came off as an ass.

I can really go either way on case being a qualifier. So boils down to do we want to get pedantic or not. And as I’m not a big fan of people sneaking loopholes into proposals (I much prefer people accidentally pushing loopholes into proposals and then a week later someone stringing them all together) I decided to be pedantic here.

I think that’s an awful way to decide whether you should get pedantic or not.

I’m a gamestate Platonicist, or something; either case is irrelevant, or relevant; and it always has been one or the other.

Voting for on a CfJ whose effects simply serve to codify that case is relevant, is expressing a belief that case is relevant, always has been relevant, (or, at least, always should have been) and, until modified or overturned, will be relevant.

Deciding something general like that due to specific concerns, instead of the actual honest thoughts on how the rules do and should work, seems… wrong? To me?

And.

Means it totally is personal, (albeit not personal-personal, which is, never what I meant), what the heckie?

The rule quotes specific text that must be included in a GNDT comment.  If it just said the comment has to start with “The word PROXY” or something then I might accept that capitalization is inconsequential.

W.R.T. pedantry and consistency, “Quorum is One” had two major issues, one of which was high pedantry and the other of which wasn’t.

Okay; I can understand your position then, although I still disagree with it.

On Quorum is One, yeah, it was indisputably flawed, in addition to the pedantry issues, which were themselves shaky at best. The actual argument bit I was meaning to refer to was the precedent of pass = enact, and what that says for other recognized, precedented, but uncodified conventions like that.

The consistency stuff was more directed at Clucky, as I’m having a harder time reconciling his positions together, but I think it’s mostly worded out by now.

In any case, I’m glad that (unless Casing the Joint is, like, vetoed) this won’t set a bad precedent about case errors, no matter which way it resolves.

The underlying reason for the exact text btw is to avoid looking like you’re trying to cause MC Geran to act when you say make a GNDT comment like “Proxy MC Geran illegally moved; reverting”.

pass=enact isn’t *currently* codified, but some past rulesets relied on it.  E.g. ruleset 60:

“Upon resolution, if a Quorum of Characters have voted on the DoV and more than half of those votes were in favour, then the DoV passes - otherwise the DoV fails”