Sunday, December 18, 2022

Call for Judgment: The Persistence Of The Persistence

Passes 4-3. — Quirck

Adminned at 21 Dec 2022 12:20:57 UTC

If there is not a rule called Persistence, add it as a subrule to the rule Possession, with the text indicated in this proposal, and then, if it is not already resolved, fail it.

If there is a rule called Persistence and it is not a subrule to the rule Possession, move it such that it is.

If there is a rule called Persistence and it is a subrule of the rule Possession then this CfJ has no further effect.

Comments

JonathanDark: he/him

18-12-2022 17:17:55 UTC

Why is this a CfJ instead of a Proposal? I thought CfJ was to adjudicate rule interpretations and executions.

Josh: Observer he/they

18-12-2022 17:33:15 UTC

CfJs are for “if an Explorer feels that an aspect of the game needs urgent attention”. As per the comments on persistence there is some lack of clarity about how to resolve it. Ambiguous ruleset is fairly urgent.

Kevan: he/him

18-12-2022 17:42:16 UTC

“two or more Explorers actively disagree as to the interpretation of the Ruleset” seems the more relevant angle of CfJs here, really. Does anyone think that a proposal written like that should enact and create a new rule for the addition to be a subrule of?

If the stances are currently a mix of “this doesn’t work” and “I don’t know if this works”, it would seem more expedient to just say it hasn’t worked and move on.

Josh: Observer he/they

18-12-2022 17:47:07 UTC

That’s a bizarre interpretation. Are you arguing that there’s no precedent for a CfJ that amends a drafting error and sets the ruleset to what everyone voting on it thought it would be?

Because if so then you and I have been playing different games for the past twenty years.

Kevan: he/him

18-12-2022 17:54:34 UTC

I was going down your “ambiguous ruleset is fairly urgent” path there.

Which line is this CfJ actually taking? Is it that admins are at odds over how to enact a proposal (“two or more Explorers actively disagree”), or that the proposal has plainly failed due to a drafting error but since it had the votes we should apply its edits as soon as possible (“needs urgent attention”)?

If it’s the former, okay, I’ll hold off on resolving the proposal and we can have a vote. If it’s the latter, I don’t think it’s urgent, someone can just repropose it.

Josh: Observer he/they

18-12-2022 18:00:52 UTC

It’s the latter, and I do think that it is urgent, personally (and I find this particular line of enquiry to be a novel and slightly hostile revision to the meta surrounding the correction of errors). But by all means vote your conscience.

SingularByte: he/him

18-12-2022 18:11:19 UTC

Honestly, a cfj would have been my first response to the situation too.
for

Kevan: he/him

18-12-2022 18:14:42 UTC

against as there’s no disagreement over legality and it’s not been shown to be urgent.

[Josh] If a proposal were to amend the ruleset or gamestate in an unwanted and harmful way due to a drafting error then yes, we would probably address that with a CfJ. But a proposal failing to modify the ruleset doesn’t create an urgent problem. I’d say that the precedent was for reproposal, which looking at the archives is what happened for the two past examples I mentioned in Persistence comments.

Bucky:

18-12-2022 21:45:01 UTC

against
I think the CfJ is warranted but I side with the enacter’s interpretation.

Darknight: he/him

19-12-2022 05:33:35 UTC

against

quirck: he/him

19-12-2022 07:49:21 UTC

for to make the intended changes. Though I agree it could’ve been a proposal

Brendan: he/him

19-12-2022 17:05:09 UTC

for