Call For Judgment
Call For Judgment
The proposal "Walkers Unite" has been enacted, but without the kickback being implemented. There is some controversy around this, so for completeness I am posting this CFJ along with my argument as to why the kickback should be implemented. If this CFJ passes, then the kickback in the "Walkers Unite" proposal will be implemented.
Though this post comes from the anonymous CfJ account, I don't think it hurts my case to divulge that this CFJ is being posted by Encesantiams.
One argument against implementing the kickback is over the wording "every Disciple who used a Walkvote to cast a 'YES' vote on this proposal shall recieve 3 Walkvotes". The argument against handing out the kickbacks is that there is no such thing as a "'YES' vote". I refer you to the comments attached to "Walkers Unite" and "Splitting Hairs" for the arguments against enactment, as I would not being doing them justice to restate them myself.
In rebuttal to this, I claim that since "'YES' vote" is not a game-defined term, it takes on the standard english usage. The standard english meaning of a "'YES' vote" is clearly the same as a "'FOR' vote" in this context. The muddled wording I used in my proposal should be interpreted according to standard english usage, thus eliminating the argument that a "'YES' vote" does not exist.
Another argument against implementing the kickback, raised by Smith, is that it would set a bad precedent against the intentional use of sneaky language. The "Walkers Unite" proposal could have been a trick to lure people into wasting their Walkvotes (which will be the net effect of the proposal if this CfJ doesn't pass). Smith wonders in a comment to "Splitting Hairs" if the miswording was an intentional lure. It was not, though I don't know if me claiming that necessarily has any bearing on the case.
Smith worries that if we don't enforce the use of well-defined terms, then trickery and sneaky misdirection will be hindered. I, for one, would hate to see an end to trickery and sneaky misdirection. However, I believe that any such misdirection must fall within the glossary rule asserting that undefined terms default to their standard english usage. Sneaky misdirection must not be an exception to the glossary rule.
That is all I've got to say on the matter. Make up your minds and let's move on.
4-10. Failed to reach quorum in four days. Failed by Excalabur, 18th July at 16:21.
The proposal "Walkers Unite" has been enacted, but without the kickback being implemented. There is some controversy around this, so for completeness I am posting this CFJ along with my argument as to why the kickback should be implemented. If this CFJ passes, then the kickback in the "Walkers Unite" proposal will be implemented.
Though this post comes from the anonymous CfJ account, I don't think it hurts my case to divulge that this CFJ is being posted by Encesantiams.
One argument against implementing the kickback is over the wording "every Disciple who used a Walkvote to cast a 'YES' vote on this proposal shall recieve 3 Walkvotes". The argument against handing out the kickbacks is that there is no such thing as a "'YES' vote". I refer you to the comments attached to "Walkers Unite" and "Splitting Hairs" for the arguments against enactment, as I would not being doing them justice to restate them myself.
In rebuttal to this, I claim that since "'YES' vote" is not a game-defined term, it takes on the standard english usage. The standard english meaning of a "'YES' vote" is clearly the same as a "'FOR' vote" in this context. The muddled wording I used in my proposal should be interpreted according to standard english usage, thus eliminating the argument that a "'YES' vote" does not exist.
Another argument against implementing the kickback, raised by Smith, is that it would set a bad precedent against the intentional use of sneaky language. The "Walkers Unite" proposal could have been a trick to lure people into wasting their Walkvotes (which will be the net effect of the proposal if this CfJ doesn't pass). Smith wonders in a comment to "Splitting Hairs" if the miswording was an intentional lure. It was not, though I don't know if me claiming that necessarily has any bearing on the case.
Smith worries that if we don't enforce the use of well-defined terms, then trickery and sneaky misdirection will be hindered. I, for one, would hate to see an end to trickery and sneaky misdirection. However, I believe that any such misdirection must fall within the glossary rule asserting that undefined terms default to their standard english usage. Sneaky misdirection must not be an exception to the glossary rule.
That is all I've got to say on the matter. Make up your minds and let's move on.
4-10. Failed to reach quorum in four days. Failed by Excalabur, 18th July at 16:21.
<< Home