Thursday, July 10, 2008

Call for Judgment: The G-Man Speaks

reached a quorum, final vote 2-7—Yoda

Adminned at 12 Jul 2008 13:09:41 UTC

Clucky has for all practical purposes barred me from making a proposal by saying that rule 2.1 G-Man states that I am not considered an Adventurer; therefore, I cannot make proposals.  However, rule 2.1 G-Man states that this is true for the purposes of “Dynastic Rules”.  The rule “Proposals” is not a Dynastic Rule, it is a Core Rule.

If this CfJ passes, replace “and proposals” with “and the effects of proposals” in rule 2.1 G-Man.  If it fails, I can no longer make proposals.

Comments

Yoda:

07-10-2008 14:40:19 UTC

for explicit author for

Oze:

07-10-2008 14:41:35 UTC

for

Clucky:

07-10-2008 14:43:22 UTC

against Because I can and because I think its funny the hole you put yourself it. =P

And if it fails, nothing happens. Just like proposals, a fail clause in a CfJ is pointless because the text is only parsed if it passes. I could not, for example, make a CfJ saying “If this CfJ passes I win. If it fails I win”.

Yoda:

07-10-2008 14:52:31 UTC

I realize that, I am just pointing out what the final interpretation will be if this does fail.

Bucky:

07-10-2008 14:53:24 UTC

against on general principle.
First, Clucky’s interpretation appears correct.  And second, a CfJ over the interpretation of the rule shouldn’t modify that rule, only clarify it.

Yoda:

07-10-2008 15:01:31 UTC

This is the only way I can change a rule if Clucky keeps interpreting that way, so that is how I’m doing it.

Yoda:

07-10-2008 15:02:14 UTC

Plus, you guys won’t think it’s funny when you can’t make proposals…

Clucky:

07-10-2008 15:06:16 UTC

No, a proper CfJ would simply state that “proposals” means “the content of proposals” not “the rule ‘proposals’” and thus Yoda is allowed to legally make proposals.

Yoda:

07-10-2008 15:54:36 UTC

But in order for a CfJ’s effect to be noticed, something has to be changed, so I changed the rule to be more clear.

Seeking:

07-10-2008 16:14:07 UTC

for

Amnistar:

07-10-2008 17:32:21 UTC

against

However I’d vote for a proposal that fixes the loophole.

Yoda:

07-10-2008 22:27:43 UTC

against COV in favor of the proposal

arthexis:

07-11-2008 02:01:39 UTC

against Voting for on the proposal instead

Darknight:

07-11-2008 07:49:58 UTC

against

Zeofar:

07-11-2008 08:52:56 UTC

against

Zeofar:

07-11-2008 08:53:59 UTC

Uh-oh, I frgot I was Idle. What sould I do!?!?!?!

Yoda:

07-11-2008 14:19:50 UTC

You can unidle, then vote again.

Yoda:

07-11-2008 14:22:35 UTC

You’re an admin, so you can do it yourself if you want.  Just go to Make a New Post -> Templates -> Players List and move your name from the idle list to the active players list.  Be sure to update the number of active adventurers as well.  Then, you just need to make a post anouncing your unidling and you can vote.

Or, if you would rather, you can make a post requesting unidling and someone else can do it for you.

Clucky:

07-11-2008 14:34:51 UTC

You still need to make a post to the blog declaring you are active though.

Yoda:

07-11-2008 21:27:37 UTC

Didn’t I say that?

Rodlen:

07-12-2008 02:05:45 UTC

Yes. You did.

Zeofar:

07-12-2008 07:12:17 UTC

against