The approach you are proposing is not adherent to the way things are usualy done around here.

Tha said, I like it… ;)

Why only two possibilities? I like it too.

Perhaps something based on random Judge selection in a semi-Suber fashion.

I dislike the idea of having only 2 possible interpretations, and then having people constantly having to resubmit their CfJ to include a new interpretation.

As far as I’ve seen it in the past, the point of CfJs is to get a Quorum to agree on an interpretation of the ruleset as it applies to a particular bit of gamestate. As we don’t want to legislate interpretation universally, it has to have a gamestate effect, or we get into the situation where we say that “such and such a rule needs to be interpreted in such and such a way” which I think is a road we don’t want to go down.

I agree; there should be an arbitrary number of interpretations, and each voter should have to pick which they prefer (:IMPERIAL: votes should defer which interpretation to pick).

Random judges sounds a bit dodgy. What if a new player is selected judge. I prefer Quorums. At least that is a bit safer, and makes the decision less arbitrary.

zuff - What if you think both interpretations are wrong? And why not make both interpretations essentially the same, save some minor technicality. This seems to turn CfJs into will-imposing tools.

The distinction is between setting the gamestate to seomthing and coming to an official agreement as to what it was all along. As an example, suppose you illegally change my ‘Counter’ value in the GNDT from 0 to 1. I make a CFJ setting my counter to 0. Historical interpretation is that it can be auto-failed, because it actually has no effect on gamestate - my counter is already 0, regardless of what the GNDT says.

I’m open to multiple interpretations, but I’d thought of just two originally because I was thinking FOR/AGAINST/VETO but we could also use the EVC trick.

Thus, this would allow for a CFJ like:

Problem: X set my GNDT status is 1. It should be 0.
Interpretation 1: My GNDT status is 1. Change the rules so this is clear.
Interpretation 2: My GNDT status is 0. Change the rules so this is clear.

Then if either interpretation is selected, it is considered to have always been correct, and the specified changes are applied to account for the situation.

“zuff - What if you think both interpretations are wrong? And why not make both interpretations essentially the same, save some minor technicality. This seems to turn CfJs into will-imposing tools.”

Like I said, offer an arbitrary number of interpretations.

A vote “:FOR: interpretation” does the obvious.

A vote “:AGAINST:” is a rejection of the CfJ entirely.

I like this. =3

I dislike the idea that you can vote FOR a proposal but the outcome be AGAINST what you think should happen.

It wouldn’t; it would be like N separate proposals, one per interpretation.

Ah, but I understand what you’re talking about, Amnistar. For the others:

Say that a CfJ is made with 2 possible outcomes.

* A third of the player base is against both, and thus votes AGAINST.
* Another third, plus one, is for Solution A and against Solution B and thus votes FOR A.
* The last third, minus one, if for Solution B and against Solution A, and thus votes FOR B.

We’d have to be careful that nothing happens if no single Solution reaches Quorum. Otherwise, if the CfJ passes on votes alone, Solution A would pass even though two thirds of the players (minus one) are against it.

Is that what you meant, Amnistar?

EVCs’ comments is not a good way to sort it out.

At some point here, you’re going to run into ‘s theorem.

You can’t have stuff happen upon failure. It needs to either be “change this or leave everything as is”. otherwise I could make option A Clucky wins, and make option B Darknight wins. That way at least one of us wins.

Roujo, yes that’s what I mean. EVCs for major issues is a bad idea, and CfJs are supposed to be reserved for major issues.

I don’t like limiting it to 2 interpretations.

Part of the issue is exactly what happens when there’s a difference in interpretation.

(A) Whenever two players disagree on a rule, the gamestate “splits” into two different games. Any action posted to this blog is in tried in both. CfJs attempt to merge the games by taking legal actions in both games that make the gamestate the same. The question of which gamestate was “right” is thus made moot, and the game continues.

(B) Whenever two players disagree on a rule, the gamestate enters a murky period of superposition. An action posted to this blog may or may not be legal. CfJs declare one interpretation correct, and the other interpretation was always wrong. The game continues.

BlogNomic has never articulated a particular position, but it’s been closer to (A) than not. (See, the Consensus Gamestate CfJ).  When some historic bug is found, we have more of a (B) B Nomic-style “It turns out the game hasn’t existed for the last few years.” It usually depends on the positions and how serious everyone is arguing about it.

I personally would prefer a permanent (B)-style CfJ system, as any paradoxes would have never happened in the first place. In the middle of writing this post, though, I’ve realized there’s not much difference except in the particular flavor of headache we have while trying to solve it.

Looking at the history, it seems the only reason we have the “no effect on gamestate” clause at all was to fix a dynastic problem a couple of years ago, possibly to do with the old anonymous CfJ account being used to create meaningless CfJs. It’s still a useful clause for shutting down badly-worded “I reckon action X was illegal, what do you guys think?” CfJs that forget to give us a resolution to actually vote on, and it’s easy enough to reword it so that it only applies to those.

Perhaps we could clarify that a failing CfJ explicitly endorses the apparent status quo? I can see that switching to an Agora-style “A/B/reject” CfJ system would be an easier way to resolve Coppro’s concerns, but it seems important to keep the two nomics distinct.

FWIW, I’ve never seen anything like “A/B/reject” implemented in Agora.

No? I was having this conversation with ais523 a while ago, and that was how I understood his description of Agoran CfJs to work - an arbitrary player presents a CfJ with multiple resolutions, and players can either approve one particular resolution or reject them all, in which case the CfJ is passed to someone else. He may have been simplifying for the sake of whatever discussion we were having, though.

While it’s true that A/B/reject is, more or less, the way that Agoran CFJs are decided, there are several differences - they never have any effect on gamestate, are not binding, and are judged by only one player, possibly with an appeal. The more controversial the issue, the more well-reasoned the judgment has to be, with the intended effect that it serves to define a consensus gamestate. Any actual changes desired must be enacted by proposal through the normal mechanisms.b