Wednesday, December 09, 2009

Call for Judgment: We have an issue Wak

Antiquorumed, 8-1 -Darth

Adminned at 10 Dec 2009 01:46:00 UTC

When a DoV is failed, if it has a number of AGAINST votes that exceed Quorum, the Apprentice who posted it cannot make another DoV until after 120 hours (5 days) have passed since the time their DoV was failed.

Wak, your first DoV was made 3 days ago. It failed, therefor the second DoV could not have been made.

If this CfJ pass, Retroactively fail Wak’s second DoV.

I doubt anyone is really gonna care now but I figured I’d point this out. Srry if this seems mean Wak but I’m just following the ruleset.

Comments

Clucky:

12-09-2009 22:39:51 UTC

At what point does it become acceptable to fix past wrongs? Can I go into the histories and find Elias actually never won dynasty 33 and so we should strike his dynasty for the history books?

Also from a technical wording, failing a DoV doesn’t change Wak’s emperor status. Wak can post his AA before this passes… then what happens?

Klisz:

12-09-2009 23:07:40 UTC

against

1) per Clucky

2) it should be marked as Illegal, not Failed.

3) it doesn’t really matter anyway.

Ienpw III:

12-09-2009 23:10:37 UTC

Let’s just handwave this away in typical BN fashion.

Excalabur:

12-09-2009 23:31:52 UTC

Too late.  Good point, tho.  When the heck did that get added to the rules? :P

Excalabur:

12-09-2009 23:37:04 UTC

against

Excalabur:

12-09-2009 23:37:05 UTC

against

Qwazukee:

12-09-2009 23:53:41 UTC

for Absolutely not. For the purposes of Blognomic, Wak’s DOV never existed and any admin could go mark it as illegal right now. It’s hardly too late: it’s been like a day and the new Dynasty hasn’t even started.

tecslicer:

12-09-2009 23:58:17 UTC

for

Kevan:

12-09-2009 23:59:01 UTC

Retroactively failing the DoV would change Wak’s Emperor status. And I’m not sure how late is too late (I’d guess a couple of days at most; I’ve been in Nomics where any mistake unnoticed for 48 hours can’t be challenged), but it seems fair enough to put it to the vote.

Given that Wakukee’s first DoV was an optimistic “this DoV most likely will not pass, but it’s worth a try” lunge, it does seem the sort of thing that the DoV limit was meant to discourage.

Darknight:

12-10-2009 00:22:44 UTC

@DC: Prob right that it should be illegal but fail was the first word I thought of.

@Kev: I agree that we should set up a time frame where mistakes can be challenged before being set in stone.

I’m not trying to stir up trouble. Just trying to follow the rules.

Ienpw III:

12-10-2009 00:31:44 UTC

against If BN hadn’t had six poor or worse dynasties in a row, I’d probably vote for.

Qwazukee:

12-10-2009 00:42:01 UTC

I don’t see the logical connection?

Apathetic Lizardman:

12-10-2009 00:42:03 UTC

against Per Clucky.

Also, if this passes, we have spent a lot of time just sitting around doing absolutely nothing. If the old dynasty is going to restart to it’s old grindy state, I am just going to idle and come back when a new dynasty starts.

Also, I think it’s unfair (even though it was done illegally, but considering no one caught it until now) to strip an emperor of their victory this late into the victory process. It just seemed like one of those things that everyone overlooked. It still would have worked; the plan would have just had to wait for a few more days.

Darknight:

12-10-2009 00:43:52 UTC

against Fair enough AL. Moving on.

Qwazukee:

12-10-2009 00:47:39 UTC

It’s feels like everything gets overlooked or ignored these days. The rules have no sanctity anymore.

Someone else should be able to win real quick anyway using a method similar to Wak’s. Or some other way. It just seems like that rule shouldn’t be overlooked.

Darknight:

12-10-2009 00:50:45 UTC

well the thing is, if I let this go (though it looks like it’d fail even if i change my vote) I could win. But I can tell that would be really mean of me. It was an honest mistake on waks part. Unless someone else can think of something I’m gonna give it to Wak.

Apathetic Lizardman:

12-10-2009 00:52:19 UTC

I guess you are right Qwazukee. It’s just that what if you had won and were about to post an AA? Would you really be so willing to give up your upcoming dynasty? Also, it wouldn’t be very pleasurable, not to mention very disappointing just to see someone swoop in and steal your Dynasty.

Darknight:

12-10-2009 00:54:01 UTC

Hence why I rethought this and effectively SK’d it.

Wakukee:

12-10-2009 01:09:52 UTC

WRONG!!!

I looked at this. At the time the DoV was failed, it had exactly quorum, no more no less. As a result, it was legal to create the DoV.


against

Darknight:

12-10-2009 01:12:05 UTC

Wak, the time between the two was just abit over 2 days. the rule is that if a DoV fails in anyway, ya have to wait five days. In any event ya still have it lol.

Darknight:

12-10-2009 01:13:22 UTC

Oh wait… OOOOH, sneaky indeed lol. One little word changes all of this lol. Wow, we all need to reread the core rules I guess.

Qwazukee:

12-10-2009 01:24:00 UTC

against CoV

*sigh* this is what happens when I stop paying attention to the game and just listen to what y’all say. I really shouldn’t be so trusting, lol.

Klisz:

12-10-2009 01:37:29 UTC

You know, it’s pretty clear that, at least subconsciously, Darknight made this CfJ because if Wak couldn’t declare victory, than NOI would probably cast PROUST and DK himself would win.

spikebrennan:

12-10-2009 01:44:11 UTC

against

Darknight:

12-10-2009 01:47:27 UTC

@DC: =P ya think I didn’t see that after the fact? To be honest, I had this come to mind about 5hrs ago while out shopping. Only got around to posting when I did after shoveling the driveway.