Amulets are for chumps anyways.

I’m not yet entirely convinced.

The rule is broken, but as a result, I’m not certain that your interpretation (setting quorum to 1) is any more plausible than any other interpretation; the old version of the rule had two sentences, the first setting it to (number of players/2)+1, the second setting it to (number of players with an attribute mentioned by some gamestate document/2)+1. Not only is this a contradiction (there was nothing to imply that the second sentence took priority over the first), but the second sentence doesn’t mention that it cares about any particular gamestate document; therefore, it must trigger on every CFJ and proposal ever that mentioned a quorum of something other than @s.

Given two contradictory sentences, the first of which sets Quorum to a known value (at the time, 7), and the second of which tries to simultaneously set Quorum to a range of values (including 1, but almost certainly other values), I don’t see how you can sensibly conclude that Quorum necessarily has the particular value 1.

  Agreed with ais, although that second definition needs to be fixed pronto.

Also, what in the world is a “gamestate document?” I would suspect something in the wiki, but I don’t think a CfJ qualifies.

Your argument is possibly true, but your conclusion does not follow.

There are two possible consequences of what you describe:
1) If Quorum can only have one value, then we must use common sense and logic to determine which of the many possible values it takes on. I would say that, in this instance (the argument I used in passing my original CfJ) it would take on the last possible value assigned to it, which would be the 1 given to it in my CfJ.
2) If Quorum can have multiple values (what you seem to be arguing) then I am free to use any of them to Enact or Fail a CFJ, I chose 1.

Either way, my CfJ is still legally Enacted, and this DoV should pass.

Previous Post directed at ais523.

Quazukee: English makes a “Gamestate document” a document containing Gamestate. The Glossary defines “Gamestate” to be anything which the Rulestate regulates the alteration of, which includes the contents of CfJs. Since the post I made contains the contents of a CfJ, it is a Gamestate document.

(note that comments are also gamestate documents, so if the previous change had not been made, I could change Quorum to quite a lot by referencing a Quorum of @s who are either Idle or Active. Like that. (it does not change due to my helpful CfJ which fixed the rule)

I think this is tenuously legal. 

If you ask me, this is perfectly fine. 

Let’s first think about the interpretation of ‘Quorum.’  Who’s to say that Quorum can’t be two values?  In many languages, including Latin, English, and Spanish (I think), numbers are adjectival.  Therefore, in the same way as I can say “My car is shiny” and “My car is red,” I can also say “Quorum is 1” and “Quorum is 8”.

Here’s my argument for this seemingly unreasonable statement.  How can I possibly provide two conflicting numbers to the same value?  Well, do the rules specify that “Quorum is a number?”  No! 

Someone’s going to argue now that we have rules about using the general English definition of words that are undefined in the ruleset.  But “Quorum” IS defined in the ruleset.  According to Rule 3.1:

“Quorum is equal to half the number of @s, rounded down, plus one.”

I think that’s a definition to me!  But that doesn’t say that Quorum can only be equal to one thing.  So I can pass a rule that “Quorum is cheesy”, if I want, and no one can complain about that (even though they will).  Quorum, because it is not thoroughly specified by the rules, is an abstract idea.  Now, back to my train of thought. 

If you ask me “What is your car, in terms of color?”, I’ll answer “Red.”  I won’t answer “Shiny.”  Now back to lilomar’s CfJ.  If you ask lilomar “What is Quorum, in terms of this CfJ?”, he’ll answer “1”.  He could answer 8, but he doesn’t want to.  It doesn’t make sense to him.  And I happen to agree. 

If you don’t buy this idea, here’s a few other ways to think about this that all point to the same conclusion.  If I said “My car is red” 3 months ago, and today I say “My car is silver,” which would more likely be accurate?  Maybe I got a new car, maybe it’s been repainted, I don’t know, but the reasonable conclusion is that my car is no longer red but silver.  Programming languages go along with this idea as well.  In PHP:

$x = 2;
$x = 3;

Could you possibly assert($x == 2); without error?  Not a chance!  So how could you assert that here, in real life?  Does PHP have more common sense than you?!  (JK)

There are only two arguments that I can think of that would warrant failing this DoV.  The first is that Quorum was previously undefined.  If this is true, then it would be unfair to repeal only one votable matter that involved it.  You’d have to repeal all votable matters in this Dynasty that said something about a quorum of a subset of @s.  Impractical. 

The second is that the first definition of something stands.  As a possible defense, you may say that according to the original Nomic ruleset (and maybe the Blognomic ruleset, I haven’t the time right now to check through again), the rule with the lowest ordinal number overrides.  However, all definitions in the Blognomic ruleset are under Rule 3.1, and there are no specifications about rules that contradict themselves (except that rules are permitted to contradict themselves).  Aside from that defense, there is no other way that I can see that would make the first definition unequivocally binding, leaving little evidence that this is a valid interpretation.  Compared to my two justifications above, this one holds no water. 

As a result, and because I think this dynasty has gone on too long, I’m voting .

Oh, and just one other thing I’ve wanted to mention, since this is on a very similar note:  I don’t think Darth Cliche was wrong with what he did.  That was totally legal in my opinion, and if you felt it wasn’t, I don’t think there was any reason to be punitive with the CfJ.  If we told him that we thought that he was wrong, I doubt he would have gained another dictatorship. 

Time to Ctrl-C and refresh the page to make sure I’m not behind with recent commenting activity!

“There are only two arguments that I can think of that would warrant failing this DoV.  The first is that Quorum was previously undefined.  If this is true, then it would be unfair to repeal only one votable matter that involved it.  You’d have to repeal all votable matters in this Dynasty that said something about a quorum of a subset of @s.  Impractical.” comex’s CFJ does just that in only a few lines, by changing the gamestate to what it would be if the rules had been right all along. Whilst discovering this sort of brokeness, and having to fix things, is rare in BlogNomic, it happens all the time in B Nomic, and sometimes even in Agora. And the fix isn’t really that complicated. Yes, it might mean that the gameplay since was broken at the time, but since the gamestate is changed to what it would have been if everything were working correctly, no play is really “lost”.

The way of reading the rule that makes the first definition obviously the correct one, incidentally, is that the first definition sets quorum to a particular value, the second one doesn’t, thus only the definition that makes sense should be binding.

If you support comex’s CfJ, then why are you voting against this?  comex’s CfJ would not repeal this DoV.  Plus, that problem has been solved already by lilomar.

Quorum is never set to a particular value.  It is set to the result of an equation in both cases.  The only difference between the two is that the second case is prefixed by an unambiguous conditional.  I don’t understand the difference that you see between the two that you claim is ‘obvious.’

Glossary: “Quorum is equal to half the number of @s, rounded down, plus one.”

Bucky:
The Glossary also said (at the time of posting of the CfJ): “If a Rule or other Gamestate document refers to a Quorum of some subset of @s (such as a Quorum of @s who share a particular Gamestate attribute, but excluding all other @s) then Quorum is equal to half the number of @s who share that Gamestate attribute, rounded down, plus one.”

Why does that sentence trump this one?

No reason, other than that it makes more sense?

I’m still not convinced that posts are “documents,” except by a rather broad definition. I certainly don’t believe that the intention with that use of “gamestate documents” referred to Proposals or CfJs, but rather to things already enacted.

Not sure why a core rule scam needed to be resorted to here, either. lilomar’s doing well enough anyway

I unidle. Quorum - in the actual definition - rises to nine.

This reminds me of the scam Wak and Qwaz made back in Rod’s meta.

Why I feel that I am justified in a core-rules scam.

I’m posting this due to being accused of “Abusing my Admin powers.” which is ridiculous, IMO but the feeling behind it is that I have behaved unfairly.

1) I was likely to achieve Empororhood even without the scam, so I’m not changing much except the time-scale. I am one of the favorites to win, barring a come-from-behind victory. Galdyn, the @ who is technically winning by gameplay currently, has already stated that he would be passing the mantle to me if he won.

2) If this were not a dynasty which had already switched hands, I would feel differently, I do not wish to remove an RNG from eir role. However, this was not originally Buckys dynasty, it was not his idea or brainchild, he was just keeping it so that we could play it out. He is doing an excellent job, IMO, but I would think that he, as much as the rest of us, would be ready for a change.

Which brings me to 3) Several people have stated that the dynasty is dragging out longer than necessary. Every time I have gotten on IRC the last couple of weeks, someone has mentioned how they wish we could hurry up and finish. Personally, I was not looking forward to another couple of weeks of grinding, even if I was a front-runner.

If you don’t believe the scam was legal, or in the spirit of the game, or whyever you feel it shouldn’t go through, then feel free to vote against this DoV, that’s what it is here for and why I set Quorum back to normal before making it. But I prefer not to be accused of inappropriate behavior, especially without an explanation to back it up.

I’m not saying it’s inappropriate behavior, I’m just wondering if it is necessary. I don’t think it works, which is why I’m voting against it… I personally thought you were gonna win this Dynasty for a while now, lilomar

This doesn’t work, because BlogNomic is a spirit-over-letter nomic. The intent of the rule was obviously meant “quorum of all players”, not “quorum of players who voted on the CfJ”.

Hmm, I seem to be unable to unbold. Does this work?

I personally believe that ‘spirit over letter nomic’ is an oxymoron.  I love Nomics mostly because of the possibility of scamming, and, frankly, I was hoping that this sort of thing would happen more often when I joined! 

A core rules scam that has gone thus far without being noticed or changed certainly deserves to reward the first player who finds it.

On a seperate note, as much as I disagree with your opinion, Darth, I’m glad you’re still lurking around here!

“Spirit-over-letter nomic” is not an oxymoron. A nomic is simply a game where the rules can reach any given state depending on the players’ moves. If you want scamming, try Agora or B.

Excalabur, IIRC, once said to NoOneImportant that the scams we tolerate in BlogNomic are more of the “That’s clever, I didn’t realize that was a consequence of the intended meaning(s) of the rule(s)” kind rather than the “That’s not what the rule(s) meant and you know it” kind.

Oh, I found the exact quote (it’s from Hix, not Excalabur):

In general, a scam is not valid just because one possible interpretation of a rule allows it, especially when the intended interpretation is clear.

The “sneakiness” we tend to appreciate around here is more along the lines of “Oh, that’s clever; I didn’t realize that was a consequence of the rule”, and less like “Oh, that’s not what is meant by the rule, and you know it.”

(Just to make sure everyone knows that that is the intended interpreation, take a look at http://blognomic.com/wiki/index.php?title=Ruleset_62 - it’s a version of the Ruleset from the end of the dynasty that occurred directly before the dynasty in which the “quorum of X” thing was added.)

h2g2guy: could you repost with your vote earlier in your comment? it’s legal the way it is, but it was confusing me for a bit, since I don’t think alethioscript is recognizing it, but blognomicbot is, so they were giving me different totals. (at least, I think it is your comment that is doing it /shrugs)

lilomar: The problem is that blognomicbot only knows how to handle proposals, and thinks you automatically vote for your own DoV. (I’m not sure if you do; I know that when alethioscript was created you didn’t, though, and it thinks you don’t.) I recommend you make an actual vote just in case.

You do according to the rules, must have been implemented since alethioscript was last updated.
Anyway, 

Lol what happened to counting the votes manually?

I think scams are fine, when they work. I just don’t buy into this one.

I’ll vote   because it’s legal.
I don’t like it though.

I don’t believe that the strictest reading of the rules allows this scam, because resolution of a proposal requires the Quorum of (1.5), which is not listed as a different subset, and so “in that reference” (3.1), Quorum is still > 1.

for cleverness.  I think it’s grossly against the spirit of the rules despite its cleverness, and there’s a valid in rules interpretation against it, so I’m voting no.  If you just propose that you are victorious, I would vote for it.

Remember, everyone, dbdougla is against. The arrow messes up automatic vote counters.

Former wording for reference:
“Quorum is equal to half the number of @s, rounded down, plus one. If a Rule or other Gamestate document refers to a Quorum of some subset of @s (such as a Quorum of @s who share a particular Gamestate attribute, but excluding all other @s) then Quorum is equal to half the number of @s who share that Gamestate attribute, rounded down, plus one.”

Under the most reasonable interpretation, the last instance of “Quorum” refers only to its antecedent, the most recent non-parenthetical use of the term.  Had it said “then it is equal to half the number of @s”, it would be much cleaner but mean exactly the same thing.

My AGAINST stands.

RoV for alethio.

I think this is currently passing 7-5.

Is there any reason why variables can’t hold two values at the same time, apart from the fact that they usually don’t?

Darth Cliche: the history of the defition of quorum is irrelevant. What matters is if its interpretation is clear from the current wording. I would argue that it wasn’t before the CfJ, and therefore the scam is legal. I agree with the spirit of Hix’s comment, but I don’t think it applies here (oh, the irony!).

Man I used to try this kind of thing all the time, and it NEVER worked… I guess the current set of Blognomicians are kinder than they once were. :)

dbdougla: I noticed that rule, along with several other restrictions on proposals, which is why I used a CfJ instead. If you look at the requirements for passing a CfJ, I think you will find that it was Enacted legally, assuming you believe the part about quorum being 1 at the time.

As a more legible version of one of my earlier comments:

As proof that my interpretation is in fact the intended wording, look at an old version of the ruleset - the “quorum of a subset of @s” thing was added long after the clause in the CfJ rule.

Idle FOR.

I’m the one who wrote the
“Quorum is equal to half the number of @s, rounded down, plus one. If a Rule or other Gamestate document refers to a Quorum of some subset of @s (such as a Quorum of @s who share a particular Gamestate attribute, but excluding all other @s) then Quorum is equal to half the number of @s who share that Gamestate attribute, rounded down, plus one.”
definition of “Quorum”. 

Now, in the phrase, “then Quorum is equal to half the number of @s who share that Gamestate attribute”, “Quorum” was _intended_ to mean “Quorum, for that specific purpose”—at the time that this new definition was introduced, I seem to recall that the ruleset provided for concepts like “Quorum of non-dead Players” being eligible to vote on certain kinds of proposals.

But the text didn’t explicitly say that—and I think that Lilomar has legitimately found, and legitimately exploited, an unintended loophole in the rule that I drafted.  So bravo.

The issue is that the rule, despite being broken, doesn’t make lilomar’s interpretation any more plausible than the intended one. The rule just contradicts itself.

I say quorum is 0 according to the rule. Therefore the CfJ had a quorum of against votes.

Darth: How do you make quorum 0? and which CfJ?

ais523: If a rule stated

An @‘s location is the last place they were sighted. If an @ was last sighted in the wasteland, their location is “lost”.

would you say that it contradicted itself? If not, what would be the location of an @ that was last sighted in the wasteland?

It seems obvious to me that that @‘s location would be “lost” hence, my interpretation of the quorum definition.

lilomar: I’d say that the rule contradicted itself, and thus we should take the part of the rule that makes more sense. For instance, if the wasteland was a valid location but “lost” wasn’t, I’d interpret that rule as meaning an @ last sighted in the wasteland was located in the wasteland. If “lost” was a valid location but the wasteland wasn’t, the interpretation would be the other way round.

You might be able to understand my point of view better with reference to the relevant Agora rule:

When interpreting and applying the rules, the text of the rules
takes precedence.  Where the text is silent, inconsistent, or
unclear, it is to be augmented by game custom, common sense,
past judgements, and consideration of the best interests of the
game.

BlogNomic doesn’t have a strong tradition of rule precedence; instead, if there’s a contradiction, you pick a rule that makes sense over a rule that doesn’t. A rule that sets quorum to a particular value (say, 8 or 9) makes more sense than a rule that tries to set quorum to multiple different values at once in a way that’s quite hard to measure.

And if location was a gndt value that didn’t have a specific list of values to choose from? Meaning that both lost and wasteland were valid locations?

I think the correct interpretation is that the more specific case, the one that has an ‘if’ clause, takes precedence if it is applicable, that is, if I say to you “I’m going to the park. If it rains I’m staying home.”, then if it rained, you could safely say that I was at home, even though I also said that I was going to the park.

The DoV shows up red. Does that mean its fate is ready to be decided?

Darth Cliche: by every definition of quorum, it is always at least 1. Also, CfJs can pass with a quorum of against votes as long as a majority of votes were for, so that wouldn’t change anything.

glopso: it is set to turn red at one day, which is the time when a dov can be decided IF there are a quorum of votes either way. the tally is currently 8-5, with quorum either 9, indeterminate (one or more integers between 1 and 9), or undefined. Undefined is the tricky one, since we would have to wait 48 hours and see what the majority of votes were. If it is 9 or indeterminate, then once it hits 9 it can be Adminned.

I take that back, quorum is not indeterminate, if it was at one point, my CfJ collapsed it to 9.

Except the CfJ failed, because quorum is nine.

@Darth: think of it this way. If quorum was (7 due to fewer players) then, the CFJ failed and quorum is 9 now on the same reasoning. If quorum was 1, or indeterminate with 1 a possibility, then the CFJ passed and it’s now 9. So it’s 9 both ways.

Okay, quorum is nine now. We’re debating what it was then.

I was talking about now. re: “quorum is not indeterminate, if it was at one point, my CfJ collapsed it to 9.”

Yes, quorum is nine. We agree on that.

Darth: so if you believe that quorum was once 1 (among other values) doesn’t that mean that you agree with me that the CfJ passed?

Quorum might have been one at one point. It depends on whether or not you agree to do a fun dynasty.

Darth: you changing your vote is not preventing me from winning, if you change it, all you are doing is speeding things up.

Hmm… good point. Speed is good.

However, I want to have as much time as possible to convince you to do the newtonian dynasty.

Hold on a second.

Rule 3.2.5 says that “Within the ruleset, a word only refers to the name of a @ if it is explicitly stated that it refers to a @‘s name”; rule 2.16 doesn’t explicitly state that “lilomar” refers to an @‘s name.

This victory is illegal per rule 3.2.5: “Game, Set, Match” does not specify that it is referring to an @ (spotted by Darth Cliche in IRC)

CoV, per rule 3.2.5

sigh. so close…..

That’s a terrible side effect of 3.2.5. Awful luck, lilo

Just so that no-one tries to repeal 3.2.5, I’d like to note that it was prompted when there was a player named “There”.

CoV

Actually, rule 3.2.5 probably helped to defeat Darth’s dictatorship; he obeyed it in that he said “an @ named Darth Cliche”, which made the dictatorship a lot easier to end (as he was no longer an @ after he ragequit). I think it’s a good rule.

Any admin can fail this DoV.

  but I’m not reviving myself :mad: BTW, has there been a Mornington Crescent dynasty yet?

No. Kevan was going to do one if he had won ais523’s third.

CoV
Thats too bad, i didnt want to have to take the time to finish this dynasty

Galdyn: Neither did Purplebeard, and when this fails both he and I are going to post proposals to end the dynasty quickly.