Friday, August 21, 2009

Declaration of Victory: I haven’t won but still

ILLEGAL, as he clearly doesn’t believe he’s achieved victory.

Ok, but who adminned this? - Qwaz
Agreed, by not placing your name on the administration you are, yourself, commiting an illegal act. - Amnistar
Indeed. This will turn into a long forum for admins! -Darth
It was me, sorry. I forgot my name. Although,, there’s nothing that says that a DoV needs the adminning admin’s name. That’s just for proposals -yuri_dragon_17
It’s just standard procedure in this case, yuri. No harm done. - Qwaz

Adminned at 22 Aug 2009 11:52:36 UTC

The purpose of this DoV is to make the proposal “To Be Precise” useless. Since I haven’t done this with the only purpose of delaying the game (but rather, as an advantageous strategic move that allows one of my rules to go on unrepealed) this should not be a bannable offence.

posted by arthexis at 21 Aug 2009 21:15:00 UTC Comments (14)

Comments

Bucky:

21-08-2009 21:45:07 UTC

against  and a vote for censure.  This DoV will not accomplish its stated purpose since the Monday morning maintenance can’t happen during Hiatus.

Wakukee:

21-08-2009 21:52:50 UTC

Also? A**hole tactic. That won’t even work. And I believe that the primary purpose IS to delay the game (so that the rule would not be repealed), so this IS bannable. I won’t try to ban you, but consider this a warning. against

Qwazukee:

21-08-2009 23:30:11 UTC

against Dude we added that to the Fair Play Rules for exactly this reason. Ask Kevin if this is something that would be under the blanket of ban-worthy.

Amnistar: he/him

22-08-2009 00:50:03 UTC

against Because, as you said, you didn’t win.

However, I think this is a valid strategy, should it work.  If the game is in haitus at the point of Monday maintenance, then when the game resumes, that time period will have passed, and we do not retroactively complete events that should happen during a haitus (such as prolonging proposals beyond the haitus time.

Amnistar: he/him

22-08-2009 00:50:34 UTC

Continued:

So this does, in fact, work.  It’s not actually delaying the game per se, it’s abusing a loophole in the game rules to continue to play it.

Clucky: he/him

22-08-2009 01:02:27 UTC

No, it is delaying the game plain and simple. It is abusing the core ruleset of blognomic and so should be frowned upon.

redtara: they/them

22-08-2009 01:10:59 UTC

against I agree with Wakukee, the purpose of this IS to delay the game. I also agree with Bucky. It doesn’t work.

redtara: they/them

22-08-2009 01:15:15 UTC

Hang on… this can be resolved in 8 hours… it doesn’t work at all…

Klisz:

22-08-2009 01:46:47 UTC

DANGIT QWAZ IT’S KEVAN NOT KEVIN!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!111!!11!one!!!!1!!!!!!!!!!!@!!!!!five billion seven thousand ninety-six!!!

( for  arth did a great job last time, and this dynasty is getting pretty boring.)

Klisz:

22-08-2009 01:47:25 UTC

CoV against  My previous vote was a joke.

ais523:

22-08-2009 01:58:25 UTC

against Doesn’t seem to be a win here. (Note: I’m idle, this doesn’t count.)

Darknight: he/him

22-08-2009 02:31:45 UTC

against Idk if its bannable but either way it’s a dick move

Darknight: he/him

22-08-2009 02:42:28 UTC

BTW, as Qwaz has voted on this it can be failed within 12hrs of its post time, there by making the whole f-ing thing moot. *is done grumbling over the matter*

Pavitra:

22-08-2009 04:29:55 UTC

against I don’t think that loopholes in community standards generally count.