Friday, October 21, 2011

Call for Judgment: Time travel can’t change the past

CfJ is illegal because it does not “describe the issue” per Rule 1.7. -Ornithopter

Adminned at 22 Oct 2011 14:27:11 UTC

Change the section of the first paragraph of Rule 1.2 that reads “announcing their arrival” to instead read “making clear their wish to be an Artist”. If the term “Artist” in the ruleset is replaced by another term before this CfJ passes, use that term in place of “Artist” where it appears in the altered ruletext.

Retroactively alter every action in BlogNomic history since the word “announcing” first appeared in Rule 1.2 to have happened as if the rule read this way at the time.

I have attempted to make this as cross-factional as possible. Please vote in that spirit by looking beyond the immediate issue of whose votes count on the current CfJs. Not excluding anyone from being grandfathered in may be controversial, but I feel any attempt to exclude certain categories of people would have created even more controversy.The enormous retcon actually preserves things as they are and prevents a larger retcon from happening—one that would be an enormous pain to implement and would make an unknown number of BlogNomic Artists cease to be Artists.

Retconning is always ugly, but my hope is that this CfJ will garner such overwhelming support (or antagonism) that it’s passing (or failing) will not be in question, and current voting matter can be adminned as if this CfJ has already passed (or failed).

Comments

Amnistar: he/him

21-10-2011 16:50:53 UTC

for  looks legitimate to me.

scshunt:

21-10-2011 16:53:32 UTC

for since I don’t believe this has any effect but is limited to papering over an ambiguity.

Brendan: he/him

21-10-2011 16:57:02 UTC

for

Pavitra:

21-10-2011 17:05:07 UTC

arrow but against because I think this would retroactively as-if-make Rule 1.2 have had the word “Artist” in pre-Art Dynasties.

Klisz:

21-10-2011 17:05:10 UTC

for

zuff:

21-10-2011 17:09:33 UTC

for

ChronosPhaenon:

21-10-2011 17:09:56 UTC

for

[Pavitra] Arguably, old rulesets are not part of the Gamestate, and would not be affected by this.

Roujo: he/him

21-10-2011 17:11:23 UTC

for

ais523:

21-10-2011 17:14:49 UTC

for if this actually works and won’t just deregister everyone.

If it does deregister everyone, we can just get 75th Trombone to fix things as likely the only remaining player, so that’s fine too.

Prince Anduril:

21-10-2011 17:15:48 UTC

for

flurie:

21-10-2011 17:18:43 UTC

for per ais

Murphy:

21-10-2011 17:19:36 UTC

for

southpointingchariot:

21-10-2011 17:20:55 UTC

This would give huge power to admins, who could decide who is and who is not legitimate. I think we need to stick to more factual methodology. against

lazerchik:

21-10-2011 17:41:45 UTC

for

Amnistar: he/him

21-10-2011 17:56:58 UTC

Chariot, discrepencies can be CfJ’d.

Wooble:

21-10-2011 18:00:24 UTC

for

Pavitra:

21-10-2011 18:24:20 UTC

[Chronos Phaenon] I mean that this:

Retroactively alter every action in BlogNomic history since the word “announcing” first appeared in Rule 1.2 to have happened as if the rule read this way at the time.

when deciding how to alter old action, would alter them as though they had been taken under an “Artist”-containing Rule 1.2.

ais523:

21-10-2011 18:27:31 UTC

OK, so after IRC discussion, this is broken and deregisters everyone. But that’s a good way out of the current crisis, right?

against

Bucky:

21-10-2011 18:28:58 UTC

against .  Do not deface our history.

Hix:

21-10-2011 18:30:34 UTC

against “Retroactively alter every action in BlogNomic history” doesn’t set off anyone else’s alarm bells?  I’m not trying to be mean here, but it’s hard to take seriously anyone who thinks this is reasonable.  One little flaw in the wording (such as the one Pavitra points out) causes massive headaches.

ais523:

21-10-2011 18:33:54 UTC

Found where the bug was introduced (some time during the second metadynasty, i.e. the Switch Metadynasty). The correct word to use is “player”; and here’s a list of then-players who’d still be players after the retroactive change:

75th Trombone, Cayvie, Chronos Phaenon, Cosmologicon, Excalabur, gazebo_dude, Jamuraa, Noel, Plorkyeran, Purplebeard, Quazie, Rodney, Shadowclaw, Smith, TAE, Josh, KnightKing, Noah, Paladin

Josh and 75th Trombone, as current admins, could then process registrations for everyone who still wanted to be a player. So it’s not a disaster, just a gamestate reset, and it might be quite interesting.

for

Pavitra:

21-10-2011 18:35:48 UTC

...okay, look, a massive retcon might be fun under different circumstances, but right now it’ll just be “Agora killed BlogNomic ZOMGL” and nobody wants that except Wooble.

redtara: they/them

21-10-2011 18:57:32 UTC

for

ais523:

21-10-2011 19:27:14 UTC

CoV against, then.

If we’re going to kill BlogNomic, let’s do it with just BlogNomicker’s votes.

zuff:

21-10-2011 19:29:01 UTC

CoV against arrow arrow arrow

Rodney:

21-10-2011 19:31:10 UTC

against I think there’s better ways to do this.

Qwazukee:

21-10-2011 19:31:27 UTC

against Making our core ruleset more vague? When did that become an ok thing?

redtara: they/them

21-10-2011 19:38:43 UTC

against Oops.

Ornithopter:

21-10-2011 19:46:27 UTC

against

redtara: they/them

21-10-2011 19:56:53 UTC

That was a CoV, by the way.

monqy:

21-10-2011 20:33:09 UTC

against

ChronosPhaenon:

21-10-2011 21:59:10 UTC

against COV

Brendan: he/him

21-10-2011 22:01:16 UTC

against COV

Shadowclaw:

21-10-2011 22:17:59 UTC

against

Darknight: he/him

22-10-2011 01:39:48 UTC

against

Prince Anduril:

22-10-2011 08:23:35 UTC

against cov

Kevan: he/him

22-10-2011 09:47:47 UTC

against

Josh: Observer he/they

22-10-2011 10:36:36 UTC

against

Ely:

22-10-2011 16:11:38 UTC

against

scshunt:

22-10-2011 21:10:33 UTC

against