BlogNomic: The First Dynasty of Desertfrog

not necessarily because it fits the theme, but because I lold.

.  This appears to reward deleting dynastic history pages.

per Bucky

Citizen Bucky raises an excellent point. As hilarious as this form is, and as useful as it would be if it had the intended consequences, it is much too dangerous for mere clones.

oops…
 

Lol. But   per Bucky and the broken Engrish may introduce loopholes.

Dynastic history having been gamestate! So is not to be for deleting please.

I’m pretty sure that the dynastic histories are not gamestate, as there are no rules regulating them.

I haven’t procedurally vetoed this, so if it turns out that they are, I can reverse this to my former vote up until it makes the long climb up the queue.

Wow, I didn’t even realise it was possible to revert a veto. Why don’t those work the same way as selfkills?

maybe for this very situation?

Dynastic history pages were gamestate a long time ago; however, any history pages more recent than that would be Spam according to this form.

[lilomar] You can’t revert a veto in any meaningful sense - “Proposals the High-Programmer has Voted to VETO are considered vetoed.” and “vetoed” proposals can never be passed.

Nice sentiment, but there are at least 1900 spam pages in the wiki at the moment.

Many non-gamestate pages are useful.

Though as Kev pointed out, we do need to try to clean those out sometime down the road

Kevan: Do

If a Citizen uses more than one Voting Icon in comments on a Votable Matter, their Vote is the last voting icon they use.

and

If the High-Programmer casts a Vote of DEFERENTIAL on a Proposal, it serves the purpose of cancelling any previous Vote on that Proposal that was cast by the High-Programmer.

not hold in the case of VETOs for some reason? If not, why is it specified that

If a Citizen Votes against their own Proposal, that Vote may not be changed.

but there is no similar clause for VETOs?

[Kevan] Did you forget to vote?

at least per Bucky and Kevan. Additionally, reading the form is not fun. :)

Your vote is now DEFERENTIAL, but the proposal remains “considered vetoed”. You have voted to veto the proposal, even if you later changed that vote. (Which is why we have all the faff about comments on EVCs rather than “votes”.)

Maybe we should tack a veto clause on for clarity, since it’s the same issue; a self-kill or a veto is taken as a sign that there’s no need to continue voting on it.

Um, I didn’t vote DEFERENTIAL, I haven’t actually changed the VETO vote.