Wednesday, October 07, 2009

Call for Judgment: Clean Sweep Done Right

Failed by “Clean Sweep Done Right Done Right Done Right” -Darth

Adminned at 07 Oct 2009 15:31:38 UTC

Fail all Proposals and CFJs made on or prior to 07 Oct 2009 19:08:01.

The prior CFJ doesn’t technically work because you need a “Leader” to “veto” them.

Comments

Klisz:

10-07-2009 20:22:08 UTC

for  for  for  for

ais523:

10-07-2009 20:25:45 UTC

against You missed “pending”. This would fail every proposal ever, and I’m not sure what the effects of that would be…

ais523:

10-07-2009 20:26:00 UTC

Oh, and it would also fail itself.

spikebrennan:

10-07-2009 20:28:35 UTC

The time stamp was the time of “We have no leader for the traditional clearout”, so it would have no effect on any proposal made after that earlier CFJ.

Klisz:

10-07-2009 20:28:58 UTC

AAAAA!  against  CoV

Klisz:

10-07-2009 20:29:28 UTC

This would revert BN’s ruleset to the initial one…

ais523:

10-07-2009 20:29:40 UTC

Well, OK. Still, though, accidentally wiping out all that history and resetting us to the original ruleset would be a really B-Nomic-like way to start a dynasty.

Bucky:

10-07-2009 20:30:23 UTC

against .

It wouldn’t undo the gamestate effects of previously enacted proposals, just cause them to be failed.

ais523:

10-07-2009 20:30:29 UTC

(my last comment was @spikebrennan)

spikebrennan:

10-07-2009 20:31:13 UTC

To address your “pending” issue, I think that it’s actually irrelevant semantics.  My reading of the core rules is that a “proposal” only exists up until the point that it passes or fails (or is vetoed); if it passes, it becomes gamestate (and ceases to be a “Proposal” as such); if it fails or is vetoed, it is a nullity (and also ceases to be a “Proposal” as such).  So “Proposal” means exactly the same thing as “pending Proposal”.  Am I not correct?

spikebrennan:

10-07-2009 20:41:43 UTC

against
since there’s a risk that this is a really bad idea

Darknight:

10-07-2009 21:27:32 UTC

against