BlogNomic: The First Dynasty of Desertfrog

                    Supporting for 11.

Raichu - Political Cpaital only counts on proposals. Sorry. “However, any Political Capital attached to an EVC is added to the counts FOR and AGAINST for the purposes of determining whether or not the <u>proposal</u> has passed or failed.”

Let it not be said that I don’t build in safeguards.

Ah, what, no underline? Sheesh.

No, no, this is a Coup. Read the rules on Coup’s: “Any Honourable Member other than the Speaker may Support or Oppose this attempt by spending 1 Political Capital and posting a FOR or AGAINST voting icon, respectively, in a comment to the Coup (voting icons in comments to Coups for which no Political Capital was spent will be ignored for the purposes of this rule)” You HAVE to spend Capital for it to work, so you have the invalid vote, not me.

Oh, sure, but the extra political capital does nothing. It’s only counted towards FOR and AGAINST for proposals.

Thanks for spotting I I forgot to spend PC; will correct that now.

Correcting my vote.

Forgot to post this bit: “An Honourable Member may Support and/or Oppose a Coup more than once.” So I didn’t do anything wrong.

Huh, that’s a really sloppily worded rule. On balance, I’m pretty sure it’s saying that Honourable Members can change their votes, not that they can vote multiple times - it says that we can vote more than once, but not that every vote so cast counts, and so the clauses in rule 1.5 (“A Votable Matter is a post which Honourable Members may cast Votes on, such as a Proposal, a Call for Judgement or a Declaration of Victory. Each Honourable Member may cast one Vote on a Votable Matter by making a comment to the Official Post that comprises that Votable Matter using a voting icon of FOR, AGAINST, or DEFERENTIAL.”) would seem to take precedence.

That’s just my interpretation, though, and no doubt I’ll have the opportunity to assert it more fully at the DoV stage.

Exhibit A: Any Honourable Member other than the Speaker may Support or Oppose this attempt by spending 1 Political Capital and posting a FOR or AGAINST voting icon, respectively, in a comment to the Coup (voting icons in comments to Coups for which no Political Capital was spent will be ignored for the purposes of this rule). An Honourable Member may Support and/or Oppose a Coup more than once.

Exhibit B: A Coup may be resolved [...] If, at that time, the Coup has more FOR icons in its comments than AGAINST icons, it succeeds and the Usurper has achieved victory.

I think this supports my idea of multiple votes. You said that it means they can change their votes, not that every vote counts, but the Rule itself counts every (paid for) icon, not every EVC. As such, changing your EVC would just mean you made two votes, as this isn’t IN ANY WAY using one’s last valid vote. As such, it does say every vote made counts, and I believe your argument is incorrect.

I see your argument, I just don’t think it holds. A coup is a votable matter; 1.5 says “A Honourable Member’s Vote on a Votable Matter is the last valid voting icon that they have used in any comment on that Votable Matter.” For my money, 2.15 doesn’t do enough to contradict that.

But as I say, this isn’t the point in the process for that argument.

I suppose it isn’t, but I would like to clarify: I think you’re right on the voting, but I don’t think this is voting. You don’t vote For or Against; you Support or Oppose. Even if we call this as a Votable Matter, it doesn’t use votes in its resolution. Oh well.

                    Supporting it for eleven

I’m actually with Raichu on this.

I’ll chime in if some points of order are made about this, or a DoV is made. Until then, glhf.

Oh, and I’ll (attempt to) resolve it as specified by the request of any non-Admin, since the rules state that a non-Admin can resolve it even though they can’t actually do it.

What do you plan to do as new world leader?

Why, I plan to stabilize the country and then reinstate the democracy, of course.

Political capital spent: 1.

The current system is broken; we NEED this revolution to fix it. Support me, and you will help reach a government that works, and represents the people, not the biases of those who can pay politicians off. This is a necessary course of action. If you support me you aren’t giving a madman power; you’re helping to fix this government.

Tricky tricky, but the Ruleset says that only those paid for count, so you can shave off 29 of those.

I don’t think it does, actually. It says the the comments must be paid for but doesn’t explicitly say that the icons must.

Hmm. You did only Oppose it once, but it tallies up icons, not Supports vs. Oppositions. So, its halfway.

“(voting icons in comments to Coups for which no Political Capital was spent will be ignored for the purposes of this rule)”.

I suppose its what we define as the subject: voting icons or comments. I can see it taken either way, really.

I think that if it didn’t mean the comments it wouldn’t have included it in the sentence- “voting icons in Coups for which no Political Capital was spent will be ignored for the purposes of this rule” would be much clearer, so the greater specificity strongly implies that the reference is to the comment.

The rule reads any Voting Icon that isn’t paid for is considered invalid. Not any comment that isn’t paid for. That’s the way I read the rule anyway. I feel that “in comments to coups” and “for which no political capital was spent” both describe the “voting icons” in the context of this sentence.

Perhaps a Point of Order is in Order?

Probably. I’ll do it if no one else wants to.

Doubtless this will go on to a second-order resolution either way.

Hey, Klisz, as insurance could you spend 1 Capital and put down 40 or so icons? I appreciate the assistance, everyone.

I think Team NotRaichu can outspend Team Raichu, and appearing to accept the premise of the scam could count against you when it comes to later legislation.

Fair enough. I don’t think its valid, I just want to stall until the Point of Order passes.

Nevermind the stalling, it was pointed out to me that we can re-resolve if its Resolution runs contrary to the Point of Order.

1 PC.
 
 
 
 
 

40? Try 640.
                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                             

I’d appreciate it if this behaviour would end while I can still load this page in a reasonable time.

So by my reading, the recent amendment means that also posts the contain a voting icon count as 1, regardless of how much OC was spent, provided the initial cost of 1 PC was made. So this is currently at 5-5.

Apologies for the typos there; I’m on a phone. Aside: a mobile site for BN would be delightful.