Saturday, June 14, 2008

Call for Judgment: The Timer is at 1

Reached quorum of against votes—Rodlen

Adminned at 18 Jun 2008 08:44:02 UTC

Passing proposal Synchronize Your Clocks set the timer to 10. Before voting closed, two administrators agreed that the clock was not in base 10, but in base 2. This proposal was enacted 8 days ago, and a note of the new undisputed interpretation of the timer was made to the timer’s thread.

Today there is a post: “By the decree of the DDA Commander, the timer is in base 10.” But there is no provision for any “decree” in the ruleset.

I submit that the timer is not currently 9, but 1.



06-14-2008 19:27:42 UTC

for Explicit author vote


06-14-2008 19:39:06 UTC



06-14-2008 19:42:27 UTC

The timer was lowered to 10 from 30.  You can’t have 30 in base 2.


06-14-2008 19:43:43 UTC

for though this is pretty much one person’s word against another, and I’m picking the higher potential fun factor - saying it’s in base 2 is iffy and not stated in the ruleset, and decreeing as the Commander is meaningless.


06-14-2008 19:58:01 UTC

The Boom rule shows that the bomb is in at least base 4.

“The timer starts at 30.”


06-14-2008 19:58:33 UTC

Oh, and the agreement of two admins means very little.


06-14-2008 20:10:16 UTC

Except that voters had a chance to defeat the proposal knowing how administrators would interpret the timer, and they chose to pass it. The interpretation wasn’t decreed after the fact, it was made with explicit voter consent.

I’m not convinced that the base of the timer’s numbering system can’t change over time. It could have started with 4, as I initially posted, and moved to 2 later. I plan on voting FOR your proposal to define everything as base 10 when this closes.


06-14-2008 21:57:12 UTC

for I agree with jay.  The timer started at base 4 and changed to base 2 when the proposal passed.  The Commander’s decree that the timer is base 10 is now in effect, but it came too late to save the timer from becoming 1.

Darknight: HE/HIM

06-14-2008 22:41:37 UTC

wow did i ever stir the pot when i was on yesterday eh? srry rod but for


06-14-2008 23:32:49 UTC

against The ruleset also does not provide for any Administrators to “declare” special interpretations of the ruleset. Also, the agreement of the second administrator was shortly before the closing of the vote, allowing very little time for any objection from anyone who had seen that there was any support for such a movement. Regardless, a Call for Judgment should have been posted on that occasion anyways.


06-15-2008 16:52:15 UTC

against COV

I just realized that this is a very dangerous precedent to set.  Anyone can declare that their interpretation of a particular section of the ruleset means anything they want, including that they have achieved victory.  This is an extreme case but is still a dangerous precedent.


06-15-2008 22:48:52 UTC

You know, if the counter changes before this passes or fails, this will have no effect.


06-16-2008 00:39:55 UTC

Obviously the current posted timer would be declared inaccurate, and we’d be subtracting 1 from 1.

Live by the cheap win, die by the cheap win.


06-16-2008 03:29:18 UTC

No, the current posted timer would end up going to 8, causing this to be unable to change it to 1.


06-16-2008 17:57:33 UTC

It would require another RfJ to point out that 8 isn’t a binary number unless you turn it sideways, including a rider clarifying the correct timer value of zero.

You know I’m just messing with you right?


06-16-2008 18:54:48 UTC

Yes, I do know.

However, good sir, there is no such thing as an RfJ, and therefore your last comment is a failure.


06-16-2008 18:55:54 UTC

against for logic’s sake


06-16-2008 20:07:13 UTC

To 8 And Beyond!


06-18-2008 05:52:35 UTC