Eh; either Zack has won, in which case voting for the DoV expresses that, or he hasn’t, in which case I’m not sure that this CfJ is the right way to handle it.

for now but I’ll keep an eye on the arguments

If Zack hasn’t won, its on the pettiest of technicalities. I don’t see what’s wrong with just saying “okay actually he’s still won”.

Seems a lot easier than figuring out the proper way of unwinding the gamestate.

As usual, I’ll simply observe that you are only against technicalities when you’re not using them and leave it at that.

could say the same thing about you but here we are

Sure, I don’t feel the need to be particularly consistent.

Right now I’m not really “using” anything, though, for the record; Zack was my candidate and I was happy to see him win. But linear time exists and while the way it worked out is unfortunate I don’t think it can easily be swept away; we’ve had victories go down to millisecond timings before, after all.

Oh, also, the text doesn’t quite work, I think; either this CfJ creates an ongoing, persistent field in which the re-DoV timeout restriction no longer applies to Zack, in which case it doesn’t actually take effect:

“If the Admin enacting a Votable Matter reaches a step which cannot be applied immediately (e.g. “two days after this Votable Matter enacts, Tripper A gains 1 point”), that step is ignored for the purposes of enactment. Once a Votable Matter has been enacted, it can have no further direct effect on the gamestate.”

... Or, more worryingly, it can be interpreted as just repealing the re-DoV timeout clause from the ruleset, which I am definitely against.

I appreciate the attempt but as Josh said this will either have no effect on my ability to post a DOV, or unintentionally remove text from the ruleset.

no longer needed