Tuesday, December 06, 2005

Call for Judgment: Everything illegal

timed out without reaching quorum

Adminned at 10 Dec 2005 12:29:29 UTC

All proposals in this dynasty has been illegally enacted or failed because the first two proposals of this dyansty which all other proposals are based upon were illegally enacted.

Most proposals in this dyansty have been illegal, including the first two proposals of this dynasty, because they were enacted or failed before 12 hours passed.

A vote of FOR on this CFJ means that we revert the ruleset to what it was when this dynasty began and pretend that no proposals passed durring this dyansty (which they didn’t)  a vote of AGAINST means do nothing

I know its not the most favorable choice, but if we dont play by the rules, why play at all?

If this passes, this dynasty should, but doesn’t have to be, renamed “Second try of the Second Dynasty of Excalabur” or “Second Dynasty of Excalabur take two”

Comments

Quazie:

06-12-2005 02:47:09 UTC

explicit for

smith:

06-12-2005 03:06:35 UTC

for stunned

Rodney:

06-12-2005 03:07:05 UTC

for Alas, ‘tis nesscisary. But we can repropose everything, and things will go back to normal.

Rodney:

06-12-2005 03:10:34 UTC

Come to think of it, the logical consiquence of having crazy rules and paradoxes was that soon we’ed have to fix them eventually.

Quazie:

06-12-2005 03:19:02 UTC

we can certainly do it all again, but this is a law we all broke, and that’s not what was ment to happen.

The Lone Amigo:

06-12-2005 03:41:39 UTC

A bit of a waste of time, perhaps. imperial

Quazie:

06-12-2005 03:45:44 UTC

you can’t be diferential on a CFJ

The Lone Amigo:

06-12-2005 03:46:54 UTC

against

Cayvie:

06-12-2005 05:46:57 UTC

against  if we all miss something, it obviously doesn’t matter.  and anyway, the proposals were legally made, and i doubt that people’s votes on them would have changed, and the order would not have changed, so blah.  the game would be the same as it is now if they had been legally enacted.

why not leave things the way they are?

Cayvie:

06-12-2005 05:52:35 UTC

and besides, little rule breaks get through all the time, simply because they don’t matter at all.

i think the total loss of momentum this dynasty would have if we reset it would be a much, much worse thing for the game than ignoring minor rule violations that don’t have negative game effects.

TrumanCapote:

06-12-2005 06:07:26 UTC

for  for  for

Quazie:

06-12-2005 06:09:08 UTC

well if this doesn’t pass a lot of things are still illegal that its importnat

TrumanCapote:

06-12-2005 06:28:50 UTC

Yeah.  They are illegal and without this CFJ appropriate action can still be taken.

Cayvie:

06-12-2005 06:51:40 UTC

ugh.

Moonwryn:

06-12-2005 07:55:06 UTC

against the rule of law be damned, pragmatism to the rescue!

Excalabur:

06-12-2005 10:18:40 UTC

The other point is that at least a few of those proposals had votes from /everybody/.

Also, this doesn’t let me re-do the ascension address, which I’d want to do.  against

ChronosPhaenon:

06-12-2005 11:59:41 UTC

against

Elias IX:

06-12-2005 12:21:23 UTC

against Boo. The practicality of this is nonexistent, even if it is the right thing to do.

Quazie:

06-12-2005 14:59:41 UTC

okies, so this wasn’t liked, but the past 5ish proposals would all have been made illegal by the sandbox before they would have been able to be enacted.

Excalabur:

06-12-2005 15:47:32 UTC

I would treat the sandbox rule as upon posting, not continuing.

Hix:

06-12-2005 16:54:22 UTC

for

Purplebeard:

06-12-2005 19:22:52 UTC

against

Angry Grasshopper:

07-12-2005 03:45:38 UTC

Salamander:

08-12-2005 05:47:34 UTC

for

Salamander:

08-12-2005 05:48:09 UTC

imperial I should do more reading before casting judgement :-/

Excalabur:

08-12-2005 15:55:29 UTC

You can’t vote deferential on a CfJ.

Rodney:

08-12-2005 19:04:39 UTC

against CoV. We need to kill this.

Seventy-Fifth Trombone:

09-12-2005 07:25:56 UTC

against