Saturday, June 16, 2012

Call for Judgment: We can rewind we’ve gone too far

Quorums 1-9 and fails. -scshunth

Adminned at 18 Jun 2012 07:35:57 UTC

Enacting the proposal at http://blognomic.com/archive/the_hard_rules/ was an illegal move: by doing so, Bucky (or Josh, or whoever enacted the Proposal) violated Victory and Ascension’s “This rule cannot be overruled by Dynastic Rules as it relates to Declarations of Victory”.

Here is why…

One of the effects of enacting that Proposal was to create a new Dynastic Rule name “Victory”, subrule to the Hard Rules, which clearly overruled “Victory and Ascension” on the matter of Declarations of Victory - for instance, it allowed some DoVs to be enacted without causing a new Dynasty to begin, which contradicts “When a DoV is enacted, all other active DoVs are failed, and a new Dynasty begins with the Time Monk who made the DoV as its Time Buddha.” from rule “Victory and Ascension”.
This overrule was effective, because of “In the event of a conflict or paradox in the ruleset, the Hard Rules always take precedence.”, and because of whatever the Appendix says about rules having higher priority when they are more specific.

Therefore, the Hard Rules should never have been enacted, and about every game action that has been taken since was illegal.

In order to restore the Ruleset and Gamestate to their legal value:
Repeal all Dynastic Rules except rule 2.1 “The Time Buddha is Not a Time Monk”.
Make Josh the Time Buddha.

You did not see a room full of shiny weapons, you did not see four alien night crawlers. You will love and cherish each other for the rest of your life.

Comments

scshunt:

16-06-2012 17:46:42 UTC

against since nothing actually stops the introduction of contradictions into the ruleset, it only defines how they function.

Josh: he/they

16-06-2012 17:53:50 UTC

for

Rodney:

16-06-2012 18:44:58 UTC

for Since the Hard Rules can’t be altered except by proposal, I think all the other resets don’t work.

Rodney:

16-06-2012 18:48:48 UTC

for Since the Hard Rules can’t be altered except by proposal, I think all the other resets don’t work.

omd:

16-06-2012 19:00:24 UTC

for I don’t think the move was actually illegal but this is still a good idea

Spice:

16-06-2012 19:02:18 UTC

for

Cpt_Koen:

16-06-2012 19:48:42 UTC

Rodney: “They may not be amended by any means other than a Proposal, a Call for Judgement or an Ascension Address”

Cpt_Koen:

16-06-2012 19:55:16 UTC

scshunt: I don’t think this is just a contradiction Victory and Ascension do not read “this rule has priority over any dynastic rule that contradicts it”, it reads “this rule *cannot* be overruled”.
By enacting the proposal, it becomes overruled, which is forbidden. Therefore enacting the proposal is not a legal move.

omd:

16-06-2012 19:55:55 UTC

CoV against

Bucky:

16-06-2012 22:05:39 UTC

My vote on this depends on whether the older proposals in the queue pass.

Josh: he/they

16-06-2012 22:18:42 UTC

Bucky - that seems inconsistent with your comment on the DoV, as no proposals can be enacted until that resolves.

scshunt:

17-06-2012 00:04:05 UTC

Koen: But the rule does not exist to say that it cannot be overruled until it does.

omd:

17-06-2012 01:31:46 UTC

Re-CoV for

omd:

17-06-2012 05:43:41 UTC

I can’t make up my mind against

quirck: he/him

17-06-2012 16:58:10 UTC

for

Cpt_Koen:

17-06-2012 17:14:53 UTC

scshunt: well, I think the rule exists to prevent accidental game freezes like the one is bateleur’s Art Dynasty. But I believe it has the effect to make causing such an overrule illegal.

Kevan: he/him

17-06-2012 18:40:20 UTC

against It’s not illegal to have nonsensical statements in the ruleset, the issue is just how their legality resolves.

If we have “roses are always white, this takes precedence over contrary colour claims and cannot be overruled” and a rule enacts of “Alice has a red rose”, we wouldn’t strike it as an illegal rule, we’d just resolve the simple precedence issue and treat it as white. A rule of “Alice has a red rose and this rule definitely takes precedence over that other one” doesn’t suddenly become an “illegal rule”, merely a more complex interaction.

Clucky: he/him

17-06-2012 18:58:45 UTC

against Because we already have a legal reset in place now

Bucky:

17-06-2012 20:08:00 UTC

against

Clucky: he/him

17-06-2012 20:42:57 UTC

for to undo the scam

Kevan: he/him

17-06-2012 21:25:09 UTC

[Clucky] If the scam worked, we are all Time Buddhas now.

moonroof:

17-06-2012 22:13:41 UTC

against

Spice:

18-06-2012 00:13:25 UTC

against CoV

Rodney:

18-06-2012 00:47:05 UTC

against CoV. It’s useless now.

Darknight: he/him

18-06-2012 07:07:24 UTC

against

quirck: he/him

18-06-2012 10:49:48 UTC

CoV against