BlogNomic: The First Dynasty of Desertfrog

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

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.

“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.

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.

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.

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.

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

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.

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

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