Wednesday, January 13, 2010

Call for Judgment: To stop the universe exploding

Failed per “Any CfJ that has no effect on the ruleset or gamestate may be automatically failed by any admin.” in Rule 1.6. -Ornithopter

Actually, this does have an effect on gamestate. It causes itself to be a “waste of time”, not completely nil. Unadminning- Ienpw.

Re-adminned; timed out.—alethiophile

Adminned at 14 Jan 2010 13:44:08 UTC

Retroactively cause this CFJ to have been a waste of time.

Because, apparently rereverting obligates someone (it’s unspecified who) to create a CFJ. That clause in rule 1.7 (“If such an undoing is disputed, a Call for Judgment shall be raised.”) looks rather weird and problematic; what it says is probably not what it means.

posted by ais523 at 13 Jan 2010 18:15:07 UTC Comments (15)

Comments

Klisz:

13-01-2010 18:17:45 UTC

Not a CfJ.

Klisz:

13-01-2010 18:18:06 UTC

Never mind.

ais523: Mastermind

13-01-2010 18:18:37 UTC

I think I managed to set the cats before you commented, but it needs an admin to check.

Klisz:

13-01-2010 18:21:05 UTC

Not even an admin can check, I think.

ais523: Mastermind

13-01-2010 18:22:31 UTC

Ugh, this is like the Midnight Crisis but worse. We’re going to need another CfJ just to tell if this was a CfJ. (I thought ExpressionEngine had been upgraded to be able to tell the time of edits, though?)

Klisz:

13-01-2010 18:26:02 UTC

If admins can check, then I don’t know how.

Kevan: he/him

13-01-2010 18:27:01 UTC

It was indeed upgraded to do that; the entry was created at 18:16 and edited into a second version at 18:17. (Sadly it doesn’t give it down to the second.)

I think we can give you the benefit of the doubt, if Darth’s “never mind” means that it wasn’t in the category when he read it, but was when the page reloaded after posting his comment.

Kevan: he/him

13-01-2010 18:44:48 UTC

against Although you could have made this a CfJ to urgently fix the problem of Rule 1.7 being a bit broken…

spikebrennan:

13-01-2010 18:58:27 UTC

against

ais523: Mastermind

13-01-2010 19:37:22 UTC

@Kevan: I prefer to change such rules via proposal; doing it via CfJ feels a bit backdoory. (And against.)

redtara: they/them

13-01-2010 20:31:03 UTC

against

Bucky:

14-01-2010 20:19:03 UTC

against

Qwazukee:

14-01-2010 21:30:03 UTC

against Can this not be auto-failed?

redtara: they/them

14-01-2010 21:33:07 UTC

It has an effect on gamestate.

Qwazukee:

14-01-2010 21:35:41 UTC

What effect?