Saturday, August 28, 2021

Call for Judgment: What do you stand FOR?

Timed out and failed. Josh

Adminned at 31 Aug 2021 13:49:12 UTC

For each of the following Legislators: Clucky, Cuddlebeam and Chiiika, increase their empathy by 1 unless they performed a veto this dynasty.

Different admins have been counting the lack of an explicit author vote FOR differently this dynasty.

Here: ais did not explicitly vote FOR, but Bucky still increased their empathy by 1

Whereas here: Cuddlebeam did not explicitly vote FOR but I failed to increase their empathy by 1:

Same thing happened when Josh failed a couple of timed out proposals today. And while those failures were technically illegal due to the fact that one of them should’ve been an enactment, there does appear to be disagreement on what counts as “voting FOR” a proposal so I figured we should use a CfJ to resolve things. (if this fails, might be good to just auto decrease ais’s empathy by 1)


Clucky: he/him

29-08-2021 00:04:32 UTC

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


29-08-2021 02:00:47 UTC

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.

Clucky: he/him

29-08-2021 02:47:14 UTC

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.


29-08-2021 02:54:36 UTC

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.

Clucky: he/him

29-08-2021 05:06:08 UTC

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


29-08-2021 05:43:22 UTC



29-08-2021 05:46:11 UTC

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

Anyway, for


29-08-2021 10:07:16 UTC

CoV against

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.)

Josh: he/they

29-08-2021 14:30:53 UTC


Clucky: he/him

29-08-2021 17:13:18 UTC

@ais no, you don’t

lemon: she/her

30-08-2021 01:24:08 UTC



30-08-2021 03:18:44 UTC

CoV against per ais

Clucky: he/him

30-08-2021 05:24:07 UTC

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

Darknight: he/him

30-08-2021 12:09:59 UTC


Josh: he/they

30-08-2021 14:56:12 UTC

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

lemon: she/her

30-08-2021 21:57:26 UTC

against sure, CoV