Saturday, June 20, 2009

Call for Judgment: Voting Confusion

Fails 0-7. - Qwazukee

Adminned at 22 Jun 2009 13:23:49 UTC

A Contestant with Immunity cannot become a Nominated Contestant in a Voting Event. For the purposes Voting Events, all Contestants with Immunity are considered to have -1 Votes.

This avoids a paradox in the Ruleset. Someone can add these to the Ruleset by Proposal if they want to, but I thought we should pass a CfJ right away to clarify this position.

Comments

Clucky:

06-20-2009 16:41:13 UTC

against

a) This is an improper use of a CfJ
b) There isn’t a paradox. They can still be nominated, they just can’t actually be sent out.

Qwazukee:

06-20-2009 16:53:26 UTC

The issue is, what happens when the Voting Event ends and someone with Immunity would otherwise be Voted Out? Is the other Nominated Contestant Out? Or is no one Out?

And this is a proper use of CfJ; CfJs are intended to clarify ambiguity, and the rules certainly are ambiguous on this point.

for

Clucky:

06-20-2009 16:58:19 UTC

But no ambiguity was expressed. You are just cheating the system to get three proposals in.

The rule set clearly states “immunity means you cannot become out”. Thus even if someone is supposed to become out, they cannot become out. So no one becomes out. I fail to even see the ambiguity.

Qwazukee:

06-20-2009 17:06:05 UTC

What would be achieved by me trying to cheat the system for this rule? I’m trying to help, man, please stop accusing me of things.

To reiterate, the ambiguity is, “What happens if someone losing a Voting Event has Immunity?”

The question is, “Is the next person in line in the Voting Event Out?”

The answer is, “It doesn’t seem to be clear, let’s CfJ it into something that isn’t ambiguous.”

Bucky:

06-20-2009 17:07:54 UTC

against as per Clucky

Clucky:

06-20-2009 17:15:25 UTC

Why would the next person in line be out? Nothing in the rules says they should be. You have realized that someone with immunity might get nominated and thus no one will be out, you want to speed the game along, and you are out of proposals to do so which. So you resort to a CfJ

Qwazukee:

06-20-2009 17:21:24 UTC

I don’t know what happens! The rules say that someone becomes Out and they also say that said someone cannot become Out! Maybe your own interpretation is obvious to you, it is not obvious to me.

I couldn’t care less about this issue other than trying to clarify ambiguity. With any luck, the Final Showdown will occur soon, making it a moot point as to whether one is In or Out. Further, I get my next slot back in 4 hours! If I had a self-interest in the case (which I don’t so I don’t know why you’re accusing me), I could wait until then and Propose this.

Clucky:

06-20-2009 17:42:57 UTC

The rules also state stuff like “outsiders cannot change their location” and “you may change your location at anytime” and there is no ambiguity there.

Qwazukee:

06-20-2009 17:53:04 UTC

It is a generally accepted use of CfJs to try to fix contradictions in the Ruleset.

Clucky:

06-20-2009 19:00:10 UTC

But there isn’t a contradiction.There is just you wanting to move the game along faster.

Qwazukee:

06-21-2009 04:08:19 UTC

Honestly don’t care.  against

ais523:

06-21-2009 04:09:44 UTC

It’s hardly likely to make a difference either way; I’ll wait until there’s a strong tendency and then bandwagon to get rid of the CfJ faster.

Darknight:

06-21-2009 05:17:45 UTC

against

Qwazukee:

06-22-2009 07:28:50 UTC

Failing 0-3, needs 8 votes against to do anything with. Any chance we could fail this as not effecting the Gamestate? It’s impossible for it to do anything, without a rules change. . . .

ais523:

06-22-2009 16:29:52 UTC

against on the basis that this is unlikely to do anything.

Ienpw III:

06-22-2009 18:01:14 UTC

against

Wakukee:

06-22-2009 19:43:15 UTC

against