Sunday, March 09, 2008

Call for Judgment: You must gather your party before venturing forth

Passed with quorum, but no effect.  - Jack

Adminned at 12 Mar 2008 17:12:24 UTC

Several captains disagreed whether or not Proposal: This is really hard would actually work as written, since it doesn’t amend the ruleset in any way. Partly because of this discussion, Jack did not actually create the NPC while enacting the proposal.

I feel it’s important to set a precedent for this sort of thing, and since I also don’t agree with the other factor in Jack’s reasoning “Since ‘The Man of the Hour’ is likely to be passed anyway, I won’t bother doing anything with this”, I decided to post this Call for Judgment.

As non-captain Josh noted in the comments of the proposal in question, ‘rule 1.3 says quite explicitly that “Any Captain may submit a Proposal to change the Ruleset or Gamestate”’ (his emphasis). My proposal was therefore completely functional, seeing that it proposes to alter the GNDT (which is part of the gamestate).

If this Call for Judgment passes, create the NPC described in the aforementioned proposal.

posted by Purplebeard at 09 Mar 2008 22:18:00 UTC Comments (21)

Comments

Yoda:

09-03-2008 22:42:45 UTC

against see http://blognomic.com/archive/the_money/

arthexis: he/him

09-03-2008 23:01:51 UTC

for
In short, what I think: The proposal should have created the entity in the GNDT. But since the entity would not have been protected by any rule, one could had erased it again afterwards.

Darknight: he/him

09-03-2008 23:59:39 UTC

I think this is the most split CoJ since I’ve been a member here. Right now I can’t place a vote so I’m gonna wait for what everyone else has ta say

Purplebeard:

10-03-2008 06:52:14 UTC

for Explicit vote.

Yoda: the main problem with that proposal was that it tried to fiddle with GNDT columns that didn’t exist. This issue didn’t really come up there, apart from some offhand comments.

Yoda:

10-03-2008 15:02:54 UTC

It is the same idea with rows as it is with columns.

Yoda:

10-03-2008 15:05:27 UTC

A quote from Amnistar:

“If someone adds it to the GDNT it will get deleted, because it doesn’t exist in the rules.  The rules are what needs to define collumns.”

Chivalrybean:

10-03-2008 17:02:10 UTC

for to help this to pass.

Yoda:

10-03-2008 17:28:24 UTC

In about 5 hours, this will be a moot point anyway.

LykeX:

10-03-2008 18:26:30 UTC

Actually, I don’t think MofH could have been erased from the GDNT, if it had been created, since:

“The Ruleset and Gamestate can only be altered in manners specified by the Ruleset.” (rule 1.1)

If MofH isn’t mentioned in the ruleset, there can be no rules governing the manner in which he may legitimately be erased.

Therefore, such an action could only happen through another proposal, either directly erasing him or making a rule allowing his erasure.

And for

spikebrennan:

10-03-2008 19:28:11 UTC

for
The rules permit the GNDT to be changed by proposal.  This proposal would have changed the GNDT.  I don’t see the problem.

Jack:

10-03-2008 20:26:48 UTC

for

Chivalrybean:

11-03-2008 00:46:42 UTC

Is the GNDT part of the game state?

Yoda:

11-03-2008 01:14:31 UTC

Actually, I don’t think so.  I would say it is a reflection of the gamestate.  I could be wrong about that though.

Yoda:

11-03-2008 01:17:01 UTC

Rule 1.7:

“Specific parts of the Gamestate data shall be tracked by the Generic Nomic Data Tracker”

Yoda:

11-03-2008 01:23:35 UTC

I would interpret this as the GNDT being a reflection of specific parts of the gamestate as allowed by the ruleset.  Therefore, modifying the GNDT directly without modifying the gamestate or the ruleset would not do anything.

aaronwinborn:

11-03-2008 16:09:49 UTC

imperial

Purplebeard:

11-03-2008 18:34:08 UTC

Yoda: You’re making a logical fallacy there. I didn’t propose to modify the GNDT, but to create an NPC which is tracked in the GNDT. In other words, I created a new entity (thereby changing the gamestate) and politely asked the GNDT to track it for us.

Yoda:

11-03-2008 19:59:07 UTC

for COV then. This won’t do anything anyway.

Josh: he/they

11-03-2008 20:01:31 UTC

Hooray, I’m a non-Captain!

Also, keeping true to form: from the Glossary, “Gamestate is defined as any information which the Ruleset regulates the alteration of”. The ruleset specifies when the GNDT may be altered, therefore the GNDT must be gamestate.

Darknight: he/him

11-03-2008 21:19:26 UTC

for

Lugosh:

12-03-2008 19:05:32 UTC

for