Monday, May 16, 2011

Expanded DoV discussion

(This is for non-voting comments on the DoV if it’s threatening to run out of room)

Bucky says vote against on the DoV.  Also, any admin can confirm that yes, it’s Yoda who keeps trying to edit this.  Please take this argument to the actual comments or else I will make threats.

Comments

Ely:

05-16-2011 19:49:00 UTC

against Since Bucky said it.
Now it reached quorum.
QUICK change your votes!
Sigh, democracy…

Josh:

05-16-2011 20:01:53 UTC

Why? There’s still no good reason to vote against the DoV that hasn’t been answered somewhere in the thread.

It’s a legit win, much more robust than plenty we’ve waved through in the past.

Bucky:

05-16-2011 20:03:46 UTC

Aside from Yoda not having enough money to do all that stuff you mean?

Just because we’ve ‘waved through’ bad DoVs before doesn’t mean we should have, or that it’s right to do so now.

Josh:

05-16-2011 20:13:06 UTC

Yeah, that’s based on the shareholder meeting / proposal scam, which has been answered elsewhere in the thread. I honestly don’t believe that ais’ interpretation of the rules there is incorrect; it rests on an ambiguity, but the fact that proposals are “enacted” while shareholder meetings are “approved” means that the resolution process for them is clearly separable. The shareholder meeting met the qualifications to be approved, and did so in a post that was a proposal.

You’re right, we have waved through bad DoVs before, but this isn’t one. It’s based on an actually pretty solid scam.

Ely:

05-16-2011 20:59:54 UTC

the point is, does “by proposal” mean “Because of the enactement of a proposal” or “Because of a gamestate change that started by a Proposal Post”?
The first one for me.

Bucky:

05-16-2011 21:04:35 UTC

It explicitly says by Proposal as a means (as opposed to as an instrument).

Roujo:

05-16-2011 21:04:55 UTC

That’s my interpretation too.

Josh:

05-16-2011 21:19:30 UTC

Actually it’s the other way round, it says that it has to be approved if it is changed by “any means other than a proposal”.

For me, at least, this is significant as it’s the difference between proving a positive and a negative. If you look at the scam that was carried out and test it against the exception statement that the rule currently carries (‘was the Business Plan “changed by any means other than by Proposal”?’) then the answer is, for me, a clear no - the means was a proposal that was also a shareholder meeting, and indivisibly so.

If we were testing it against the positive recast of the sentence (‘was the business plan “changed by a proposal”?) then perhaps it would change the emphasis?

In any case, I think I understand your objection now, although I still don’t agree with it.