Monday, February 18, 2013

Coup d’état

Reinterpreted by Point of Order. Passed 25-7. -RaichuKFM

Adminned at 25 Feb 2013 09:13:13 UTC

Now that that scandal was overthrown, I think its proof we need stability. Someone should take charge, and I nominate myself. However, this is a democracy; it is up to all of you whether or not I assume leadership. Thank you for your time.

Old Adminning: Timed out after 6 hours since the last vote; failed 5-5. Josh

Comments

RaichuKFM:

02-18-2013 17:53:41 UTC

for  for  for  for  for  for  for  for  for  for  for Supporting for 11.

Josh:

02-18-2013 18:34:42 UTC

Raichu - Political Cpaital only counts on proposals. Sorry. “However, any Political Capital attached to an EVC is added to the counts FOR and AGAINST for the purposes of determining whether or not the <u>proposal</u> has passed or failed.”

Let it not be said that I don’t build in safeguards.

against

Josh:

02-18-2013 18:35:02 UTC

Ah, what, no underline? Sheesh.

RaichuKFM:

02-18-2013 18:38:26 UTC

No, no, this is a Coup. Read the rules on Coup’s: “Any Honourable Member other than the Speaker may Support or Oppose this attempt by spending 1 Political Capital and posting a FOR or AGAINST voting icon, respectively, in a comment to the Coup (voting icons in comments to Coups for which no Political Capital was spent will be ignored for the purposes of this rule)” You HAVE to spend Capital for it to work, so you have the invalid vote, not me.

Josh:

02-18-2013 18:41:58 UTC

Oh, sure, but the extra political capital does nothing. It’s only counted towards FOR and AGAINST for proposals.

Thanks for spotting I I forgot to spend PC; will correct that now.

Josh:

02-18-2013 18:44:25 UTC

against Correcting my vote.

RaichuKFM:

02-18-2013 18:44:37 UTC

Forgot to post this bit: “An Honourable Member may Support and/or Oppose a Coup more than once.” So I didn’t do anything wrong.

Josh:

02-18-2013 18:49:50 UTC

Huh, that’s a really sloppily worded rule. On balance, I’m pretty sure it’s saying that Honourable Members can change their votes, not that they can vote multiple times - it says that we can vote more than once, but not that every vote so cast counts, and so the clauses in rule 1.5 (“A Votable Matter is a post which Honourable Members may cast Votes on, such as a Proposal, a Call for Judgement or a Declaration of Victory. Each Honourable Member may cast one Vote on a Votable Matter by making a comment to the Official Post that comprises that Votable Matter using a voting icon of FOR, AGAINST, or DEFERENTIAL.”) would seem to take precedence.

That’s just my interpretation, though, and no doubt I’ll have the opportunity to assert it more fully at the DoV stage.

RaichuKFM:

02-18-2013 19:03:37 UTC

Exhibit A: Any Honourable Member other than the Speaker may Support or Oppose this attempt by spending 1 Political Capital and posting a FOR or AGAINST voting icon, respectively, in a comment to the Coup (voting icons in comments to Coups for which no Political Capital was spent will be ignored for the purposes of this rule). An Honourable Member may Support and/or Oppose a Coup more than once.

Exhibit B: A Coup may be resolved [...] If, at that time, the Coup has more FOR icons in its comments than AGAINST icons, it succeeds and the Usurper has achieved victory.

I think this supports my idea of multiple votes. You said that it means they can change their votes, not that every vote counts, but the Rule itself counts every (paid for) icon, not every EVC. As such, changing your EVC would just mean you made two votes, as this isn’t IN ANY WAY using one’s last valid vote. As such, it does say every vote made counts, and I believe your argument is incorrect.

Josh:

02-18-2013 19:06:57 UTC

I see your argument, I just don’t think it holds. A coup is a votable matter; 1.5 says “A Honourable Member’s Vote on a Votable Matter is the last valid voting icon that they have used in any comment on that Votable Matter.” For my money, 2.15 doesn’t do enough to contradict that.

But as I say, this isn’t the point in the process for that argument.

RaichuKFM:

02-18-2013 19:10:33 UTC

I suppose it isn’t, but I would like to clarify: I think you’re right on the voting, but I don’t think this is voting. You don’t vote For or Against; you Support or Oppose. Even if we call this as a Votable Matter, it doesn’t use votes in its resolution. Oh well.

Larrytheturtle:

02-18-2013 19:31:17 UTC

for  for  for  for  for  for  for  for  for  for  for Supporting it for eleven

Henri:

02-18-2013 23:59:50 UTC

for

nqeron:

02-19-2013 02:58:51 UTC

I’m actually with Raichu on this.

scshunt:

02-19-2013 15:49:56 UTC

I’ll chime in if some points of order are made about this, or a DoV is made. Until then, glhf.

scshunt:

02-19-2013 15:52:31 UTC

Oh, and I’ll (attempt to) resolve it as specified by the request of any non-Admin, since the rules state that a non-Admin can resolve it even though they can’t actually do it.

Klisz:

02-19-2013 18:08:38 UTC

for

Skju:

02-20-2013 14:36:22 UTC

against  against  against

What do you plan to do as new world leader?

RaichuKFM:

02-20-2013 14:38:49 UTC

Why, I plan to stabilize the country and then reinstate the democracy, of course.

Josh:

02-20-2013 15:26:40 UTC

Political capital spent: 1.

against  against  against  against  against  against  against  against  against  against  against  against  against  against  against  against  against  against  against  against  against  against  against  against  against  against  against  against  against  against

RaichuKFM:

02-20-2013 15:27:44 UTC

The current system is broken; we NEED this revolution to fix it. Support me, and you will help reach a government that works, and represents the people, not the biases of those who can pay politicians off. This is a necessary course of action. If you support me you aren’t giving a madman power; you’re helping to fix this government.

RaichuKFM:

02-20-2013 15:28:44 UTC

Tricky tricky, but the Ruleset says that only those paid for count, so you can shave off 29 of those.

Josh:

02-20-2013 15:36:28 UTC

I don’t think it does, actually. It says the the comments must be paid for but doesn’t explicitly say that the icons must.

RaichuKFM:

02-20-2013 15:39:05 UTC

Hmm. You did only Oppose it once, but it tallies up icons, not Supports vs. Oppositions. So, its halfway.

Klisz:

02-20-2013 18:23:52 UTC

“(voting icons in comments to Coups for which no Political Capital was spent will be ignored for the purposes of this rule)”.

RaichuKFM:

02-20-2013 18:27:42 UTC

I suppose its what we define as the subject: voting icons or comments. I can see it taken either way, really.

Josh:

02-20-2013 18:35:30 UTC

I think that if it didn’t mean the comments it wouldn’t have included it in the sentence- “voting icons in Coups for which no Political Capital was spent will be ignored for the purposes of this rule” would be much clearer, so the greater specificity strongly implies that the reference is to the comment.

Larrytheturtle:

02-20-2013 18:39:04 UTC

The rule reads any Voting Icon that isn’t paid for is considered invalid. Not any comment that isn’t paid for. That’s the way I read the rule anyway. I feel that “in comments to coups” and “for which no political capital was spent” both describe the “voting icons” in the context of this sentence.

RaichuKFM:

02-20-2013 18:43:33 UTC

Perhaps a Point of Order is in Order?

Larrytheturtle:

02-20-2013 18:45:07 UTC

Probably. I’ll do it if no one else wants to.

Josh:

02-20-2013 18:46:06 UTC

Doubtless this will go on to a second-order resolution either way.

RaichuKFM:

02-20-2013 18:49:30 UTC

Hey, Klisz, as insurance could you spend 1 Capital and put down 40 or so icons? I appreciate the assistance, everyone.

Josh:

02-20-2013 18:51:30 UTC

I think Team NotRaichu can outspend Team Raichu, and appearing to accept the premise of the scam could count against you when it comes to later legislation.

RaichuKFM:

02-20-2013 18:52:45 UTC

Fair enough. I don’t think its valid, I just want to stall until the Point of Order passes.

RaichuKFM:

02-20-2013 19:35:16 UTC

Nevermind the stalling, it was pointed out to me that we can re-resolve if its Resolution runs contrary to the Point of Order.

Purplebeard:

02-20-2013 21:09:36 UTC

against

omd:

02-21-2013 02:47:41 UTC

1 PC.
against  against against against against against against against against against against
against  against against against against against against against against against against
against  against against against against against against against against against against
against  against against against against against against against against against against
against  against against against against against against against against against against

Klisz:

02-21-2013 06:03:58 UTC

40? Try 640.
for  for  for  for  for  for  for  for  for  for  for  for  for  for  for  for  for  for  for  for  for  for  for  for  for  for  for  for  for  for  for  for  for  for  for  for  for  for  for  for  for  for  for  for  for  for  for  for  for  for  for  for  for  for  for  for  for  for  for  for  for  for  for  for  for  for  for  for  for  for  for  for  for  for  for  for  for  for  for  for  for  for  for  for  for  for  for  for  for  for  for  for  for  for  for  for  for  for  for  for  for  for  for  for  for  for  for  for  for  for  for  for  for  for  for  for  for  for  for  for  for  for  for  for  for  for  for  for  for  for  for  for  for  for  for  for  for  for  for  for  for  for  for  for  for  for  for  for  for  for  for  for  for  for  for  for  for  for  for  for  for  for  for  for  for  for  for  for  for  for  for  for  for  for  for  for  for  for  for  for  for  for  for  for  for  for  for  for  for  for  for  for  for  for  for  for  for  for  for  for  for  for  for  for  for  for  for  for  for  for  for  for  for  for  for  for  for  for  for  for  for  for  for  for  for  for  for  for  for  for  for  for  for  for  for  for  for  for  for  for  for  for  for  for  for  for  for  for  for  for  for  for  for  for  for  for  for  for  for  for  for  for  for  for  for  for  for  for  for  for  for  for  for  for  for  for  for  for  for  for  for  for  for  for  for  for  for  for  for  for  for  for  for  for  for  for  for  for  for  for  for  for  for  for  for  for  for  for  for  for  for  for  for  for  for  for  for  for  for  for  for  for  for  for  for  for  for  for  for  for  for  for  for  for  for  for  for  for  for  for  for  for  for  for  for  for  for  for  for  for  for  for  for  for  for  for  for  for  for  for  for  for  for  for  for  for  for  for  for  for  for  for  for  for  for  for  for  for  for  for  for  for  for  for  for  for  for  for  for  for  for  for  for  for  for  for  for  for  for  for  for  for  for  for  for  for  for  for  for  for  for  for  for  for  for  for  for  for  for  for  for  for  for  for  for  for  for  for  for  for  for  for  for  for  for  for  for  for  for  for  for  for  for  for  for  for  for  for  for  for  for  for  for  for  for  for  for  for  for  for  for  for  for  for  for  for  for  for  for  for  for  for  for  for  for  for  for  for  for  for  for  for  for  for  for  for  for  for  for  for  for  for  for  for  for  for  for  for  for  for  for  for  for  for  for  for  for  for  for  for  for  for  for  for  for  for  for  for  for  for  for  for  for  for  for  for  for  for  for  for  for  for  for  for  for  for  for  for  for  for  for  for  for  for  for  for  for  for  for  for  for  for  for  for  for  for  for  for  for  for  for  for  for  for  for  for  for  for  for  for  for  for  for  for  for  for  for  for  for  for  for  for  for  for  for  for  for  for  for  for  for  for  for  for  for  for  for  for  for  for  for  for  for  for  for  for  for  for  for  for  for  for  for  for  for  for  for  for  for  for  for  for  for  for  for  for  for  for  for  for  for  for  for  for  for  for  for  for  for  for

Purplebeard:

02-21-2013 08:40:46 UTC

I’d appreciate it if this behaviour would end while I can still load this page in a reasonable time.

Josh:

02-21-2013 10:56:43 UTC

So by my reading, the recent amendment means that also posts the contain a voting icon count as 1, regardless of how much OC was spent, provided the initial cost of 1 PC was made. So this is currently at 5-5.

Josh:

02-21-2013 11:13:34 UTC

Apologies for the typos there; I’m on a phone. Aside: a mobile site for BN would be delightful.