“When someone X’s, they must also Y” doesn’t mean to me that if someone X’ed and then didn’t Y that X didn’t happen, and I don’t want to legitimize that interpretation with a FOR.

Note that the ruleset has “If a proposal somehow ends up being pending for more than 7 days, it is ignored for the purpose of calculating the oldest pending proposal” to stop anything dragging too far, although this is less than a week.

Because “pseudo-adminning” and “pseudo-votes” are far too vague, and can apply to proposals which haven’t been made yet. (I could make a “Kevan wins” proposal higher up the queue which explicitly defines “pseudo-valid-votes” as being something or other and notes that “Kevan may pseudo-enact this at any time”.)

Also this should really change the “must also” rule to stop it happening again. If an admin forgets to do this, we can forgive it; if they abuse it by lying about exact vote tallies (in a dynasty where that matters), we can unadmin them.

Giving it another go then