BlogNomic: The First Dynasty of Desertfrog

The main argument in favor for why the auto FOR vote should count as “Voting FOR” (other than common sense) is that we use the same language in Imperial Deferential “If the Wielder of Vetoes has voted DEFERENTIAL on a Proposal, that vote is instead considered to be valid and either FOR (if more Legislators have voted FOR the Proposal than have voted AGAINST it)”.

In the past, 1 author FOR vote 3 other FOR votes have always been enough to flip an imperial deferential over 3 against votes. And while “we’ve been playing this way in the past” doesn’t mean we can’t have been playing it wrong now… couple that with the fact that having your vote be FOR but not “Voting FOR” is weird… I think this is the right move to make

So I guess this comes down to whether there’s any distinction between “has voted FOR”, “is voting FOR”, and “has a vote of FOR”. I don’t think it’s sensible for such a distinction to exist, as the rules use them mostly interchangeably. Just because it isn’t sensible doesn’t automatically mean it isn’t the case, though.

From the Glossary:

The word “Vote”, used as a noun, means a Vote that is cast in accordance with Rule “Votable Matters”. The word “Vote”, used as a verb, means the act of casting such a Vote.

From the core rule “Votes” (a subrule of “Votable Matters”):

Additionally, if the author of a Votable Matter has not used a valid voting icon in a comment to the post, then the author’s Vote is FOR.

The only conclusion I can draw from this is that if creating a proposal doesn’t count as voting (verb) FOR that proposal, it doesn’t count as a valid FOR vote at all – glossary definitions overrule core definitions, so if a player hasn’t cast a vote, they don’t have a vote, even if the core rules try to say otherwise.

I think we can probably use the Appendix definition backwards, inferring that “doing X means the author’s vote is FOR” implies “doing X is equivalent to casting a vote of FOR”, given that the Appendix defines the two to be equivalent. This seems to be a reading that fits slightly better with the exact wording of the rules in question than the alternative argument of “the author’s implicit FOR isn’t a voting action, thus according to the appendix, the author can’t have a FOR vote even if they cast one explicitly, despite the fact that the core rules say the opposite”, and I can’t see any other readings that are compatible with the rules.

I think we could benefit from a wording improvement to “Votes”, e.g. changing “Additionally, if the author of a Votable Matter has not used a valid voting icon in a comment to the post, then the author’s Vote is FOR.” to “Additionally, when creating a Votable Matter, its author automatically votes FOR on it.” – this is both less ambiguous, and shorter, so it seems like an improvement. That could plausibly be part of this CFJ.

Anyway, based on the above reasoning, I’m planning to vote FOR on this.

huh? I don’t see how you reach that conclusion.

In accordance with the rule “Votable Matters”, the author has cast a FOR vote by creating such a proposal, and thus creating such a proposal, because it caused them to cast a vote, counts as voting for.

The appendix overrides the core rules when there’s a contradiction.

The appendix explicitly defines “vote” as a noun, so the core rules can’t produce a definition that contradicts with that definition. So either the author’s implicit vote has been “cast” or it isn’t valid at all – the former definition seems to make more sense.

The appendix does not define vote as a noun. It defines it both as a noun and a verb.

It defines “‘vote’ as a noun”. It also defines “‘vote’ as a verb.”

Anyway,

CoV

I agree there’s a problem, but this CFJ doesn’t solve it properly – it doesn’t correct the tracking page, but rather it increases the actual Empathy values. In other words, the value that’s being increased isn’t the incorrect value shown on the tracking page – it’s the correct value that they should have been awarded, and which anyone can adjust the tracking page to match. So this CFJ by definition leaves Clucky, Cuddlebeam and Chiiika’s Empathy values 1 higher than they should be.

You need to uphold the original Empathy calculation first, then increase the values. (Or if we all agree that they should be increased, just increase them on the tracking page, without a CFJ involved.)

@ais no, you don’t

CoV per ais

but you don’t need to uphold anything. you can just fix the values.

and then if someone tries to argue the values are still wrong point to this CfJ as evidence for them being fixed.

no need for any sort of excessive hand wringing and rules lawyering

I semi-agree with Clucky but also the dynasty is (hopefully) over, so cov

sure, CoV