Friday, October 21, 2011

Call for Judgment: Time to take control

Illegal due to failure to explain fully - flavour text does not count per the glossary. -adminned by coppro

Adminned at 22 Oct 2011 14:39:38 UTC

Change the following rule under ‘Gamestate Tracking’ from:

A proposal, call for judgment, or declaration of victory cannot simultaneously be any other type of official post unless otherwise specified by dynastic rules.

to

Artists may not create a post, nor edit a post, such that that post is in more than one of the following categories: Call for Judgment, Proposal, Declaration of Victory, Ascension Address.

Fail all Proposals which are pending at the time of this Call for Judgement being posted. If any proposals are enacted between the time of this Call for Judgement being posted and the time of this Call for Judgement being enacted, all amendments these proposals make to the ruleset must be reverted. Fail all Proposals which are posted between the time of this Call for Judgement being posted and its enactment.

In the rule ‘Calls for Judgement’, add the following after “by posting an entry in the “Call for Judgment” category”:

unless the Artist already has 2 Calls For Judgement pending, or has already made 3 Calls For Judgement that day

If the Wiki page “The Faux Pas” exists, make it blank.

There has been a lot of mess around after the Agoran invasion. And what this nomic needs is to have its core rules sorted out before we sort out the mess. Regards to Coppro for his wording of the fix. Since all proposals are illegal under the current gamestate, they should be failed. The second amendment is to limit the ridiculous amount of CfJs we’re getting. And this also gets rid of ais523’s Faux Pas.

Comments

Amnistar: he/him

21-10-2011 13:41:34 UTC

against limiting the CfJ is bad.

Prince Anduril:

21-10-2011 13:48:56 UTC

Yeah, and just read Kevan’s reply to a comment I made, which renders the Proposals currently pending legal. I was thinking of limiting the CfJ for a limited period of time to defend ourselves against the invasion, after which we might remove the limit.

Ornithopter:

21-10-2011 13:57:54 UTC

against per Amnistar

Also, proposals are admittedly illegal right now, but are being held open because a pending CfJ might make them retroactively legal.

Rodney:

21-10-2011 14:15:40 UTC

against If CfJs spamming is a problem, we should stick something in the fair play rule.

scshunt:

21-10-2011 14:30:23 UTC

against

Roujo: he/him

21-10-2011 14:59:59 UTC

against

ais523:

21-10-2011 15:08:58 UTC

against Limiting CFJs daily is fine. Limiting open CFJs is bad. Also, the limit wouldn’t make much of a dent on the current CFJ count, because there’s a huge number of different authors there.

Pavitra:

21-10-2011 15:32:31 UTC

against

Shadowclaw:

21-10-2011 15:56:53 UTC

against

ChronosPhaenon:

21-10-2011 16:25:22 UTC

Current rule 2.1 already sorted out the Proposals’ legality

“Whenever an Artist posts a blog entry which is not a Proposal, Call for Judgment, Declaration of Victory or Ascension Address, that entry is considered a Work of Art. “

Also, I agree with ais523: “Limiting CFJs daily is fine. Limiting open CFJs is bad.”

ChronosPhaenon:

21-10-2011 16:26:46 UTC

against Sorry, forgot to actuallt cast my vote.

Brendan: he/him

21-10-2011 16:34:54 UTC

against

Bucky:

21-10-2011 17:23:55 UTC

against

Hix:

21-10-2011 17:36:05 UTC

against

Wooble:

21-10-2011 18:01:53 UTC

against

redtara: they/them

21-10-2011 18:52:37 UTC

against  against  against

Qwazukee:

21-10-2011 19:21:27 UTC

against

Darknight: he/him

22-10-2011 01:33:36 UTC

against

Kevan: he/him

22-10-2011 09:46:22 UTC

against Daily (or evenly weekly) CfJ per person seems like a good idea. If it was a CfJ that had support someone else will raise a second one for you.

Josh: Observer he/they

22-10-2011 10:35:51 UTC

against

Ornithopter:

22-10-2011 21:26:49 UTC

Issue clearly explained in flavor text, CFJ is legal.

Ornithopter:

22-10-2011 21:39:59 UTC

Flavor text is not part of the post, per the Appendix.