This isn’t quite a call for judgement, but a preface to one.I hope for it to end with additional core rules being added. We have a rather interesting edge case here.
Once Card votes on the UN resolutions, they may or may not be popular, depending on a CfJ that will be made if the resolution is enacted. Pokes will apparently only enact the CfJ after the resolution is passed. Does he then have the right to reverse the proposal while it has a pending CfJ, or should it stay enacted until it fails? From the voting patterns we’ve seen so far, strategic voting could leave any CfJ dead in the water (not that I’m saying we would, but its an interesting case to consider). In this case admins could possibly be justified in an “edit war”, where proposals are enacted/unenacted and two branches of the game exist.
This is a bad thing. And it would probably violate “Fair Play”. But then who is guilty? does ejecting both admins solve anything? When is this state considered to have “started”? and is the proposal enacted or not?
I see a few ways out:
The proposal is enacted until the CfJ goes through, because to insist on the resolution of CfJ before passing is akin to intentionally delaying the game.
The proposal is not fully popular, and so is not enacted because its popularity is challenged.
In this specific situation:
We pass a CfJ that hands the issue over to a random roll.
We pass a meta-dynasty.
Somebody leaves their block and agrees that the call for judgement has merit.
Any thoughts? I’d prefer to solve both the general situation and the specific situation.