At present, you can’t submit a CFJ unless two Nomicers actively disagree about the interpretation of the ruleset or a Nomicer feels an aspect of the game needs urgent attention. If neither of those conditions are true, the CFJ is illegal and has no effect. Additionally, it’s usually impossible to determine whether the latter condition is true, because it’s entirely dependent on Nomicers’ mental states (including Nomicers who might be entirely uninvolved).

This proposal seems very likely to cause idle Nomicers to submit CFJs for which they don’t know that either of those conditions is true, which is likely to lead to more problems than it solves.

(Yes, CFJ submission should be legal regardless, but people keep voting down my attempts to fix this sort of thing.)

@ais You’re mistaking an inclusive permission for an exclusive one; the rule Calls for Judgement doesn’t set out the only circumstances where a CfJ can be posted and doesn’t claim that any CfJs posted through other mechanisms are illegal. If this rule gives permission to post a CfJ for other reasons then it is legal to do so under this rule.

It feels weird to have these done as a call for judgement, and I’m honestly leaning towards just saying we should repeal the rule in the first place. It’s not been used before (to my knowledge), and it seems like just a big exception to the rules for no real benefit.

If someone wants a benefit to catch up when they join and just do it as a proposal after unidling, I’ve honestly never seen such a request voted down.

I’ve giving a *very* grudging   here, but only for the sake of making the Recusants rule less broken.

I’m*

Precondition Unidling has only been on the books for a few months. The intention was that it would be for bigger “I’ll play if you remove all the dice rolling” conditions, as much as for gamestate compensation - the kind of thing that a quorum might actually not object to repealing if asked, but which would feel a bit more aggressive to join and immediately propose.

If it does turn out that nobody ever uses it, though, sure, it should go.

CoV The new rule says “as if they were not idle”, which I think copies the restrictions from the existing CFJ rule onto idle CFJs, so I don’t think Josh’s argument actually fixes this.