On Sun, 29 Mar 2015, Kerim Aydin wrote:
> On Sat, 28 Mar 2015, Alex Smith wrote:
> > On Sat, 2015-03-28 at 06:39 -0700, Edward Murphy wrote:
> > > For the record, this dates back to the IADoP report of 2014-10-15, and
> > > was equally vague back then.
Ok, here's a timeline, starting in Sept:
1. the DM rule is adopted (R2437). omd becomes DM and claims that
the rule lets the DM modify the text of the rule itself, limited
only by the "public process" clause of R105/10 (since amended).
2. omd announces a proposed change of the rule to an omd
dictatorship rule, and waits.
3. ais523 announces an alternative proposed rule change as a
counterscam.
4. There is some broad assumption (I won't say how much, that would
be biased) that the public process means "wait at least 4 days
after announcement".
5. But omd pulls eir rule change attempt early (just under 4 days).
6. ais523 does eir counterscam after 4 days, though it would fail
if omd's worked.
7. A CFJ is called, however several other players chime in with
lots of reasons that neither scam worked, that have nothing to do
with the 4 days. The bad Moot process means no consensus is
reached.
8. A series of CFJs is called in November, with the intent of seeing
if any of those "lots of reasons" stopped the scam. Those
reasons are cleared away - none of those stopped the scam.
So either omd's or ais523's scam worked, and which one worked
depends on whether the 4-day limit was required.
9. A CFJ to find if "4 days" is required in general (CFJ 3435) finds
that it's on a case-by-case basis:
CFJ 3435 [Judgement by Murphy]
> > STATEMENT
> > For the purposes of Rule 105, "general player review through a
> > reasonably public process" cannot be achieved with a process which
> > (a) is completed in any fewer than 96 hours, and (b) does not inform
> > players in advance about the amount of time it will take to
> > complete.
>
> FALSE. Again, "amount of time" is too vague, and Rule 105 could
> theoretically be satisfied within 24 hours if 100% of players
> explicitly stated their approval within that time (never mind how
> unlikely this is in practice).
10. HOWEVER, no one goes back and re-calls the original question; in
THIS PARTICULAR case, whether omd's 3.9 days was insufficient while
ais523's 4.1 days was sufficient.
So the question remains unresolved.
-G.
