Monday, August 24, 2009

Proposal: Call for Judgment: G-Man to Go

Vetoed by Operation: Veto Everything. - Qwazukee

Adminned at 24 Aug 2009 05:26:34 UTC

If it does not already exist, create a Rule titled “G-Man” with the following text:

For the purposes of Dynastic Rules which do not explicitly state otherwise, the “X” is not considered a “Z”.

Replace “X” with the second Keyword in Rule 3.3 Keywords and replace “Z” with the third Keyword in Rule 3.3 Keywords.

Seeing if I can legally create a Proposal that is also a CfJ. This will need to be passed if all Dynastic Rules are repealed, anyway.

Had to use the long language because we don’t know what the keywords will be yet. But Proposing this now will speed up the next Dynasty.

posted by Qwazukee at 24 Aug 2009 04:43:00 UTC Comments (21)

Comments

Qwazukee:

24-08-2009 04:47:55 UTC

for for the CfJ side.

arthexis: he/him

24-08-2009 04:51:19 UTC

against WTF

Klisz:

24-08-2009 04:52:18 UTC

for  For both the proposal and the CfJ.

Excalabur:

24-08-2009 05:01:52 UTC

Illegal.  There is no language that permits this in the ruleset. 

against

Qwazukee:

24-08-2009 05:02:47 UTC

False. There is language permitting both CfJs and Proposals.

Klisz:

24-08-2009 05:05:01 UTC

There is no significant advantage to CfJ Proposals, however.

Qwazukee:

24-08-2009 05:06:48 UTC

Posts are allowed to be multiple things, otherwise Proposals couldn’t also have other Gamestate capacities (for example, helping along Good Deeds in this Dynasty).

Plus, the language “A Declaration of Victory may not also be any other type of Official Post” would be entirely redundant if posts weren’t allowed to be in multiple categories.

Qwazukee:

24-08-2009 05:08:02 UTC

There is a slight advantage, in that this could be enacted as soon as it reaches Quorum, without having to wait for the queue.

Darknight: he/him

24-08-2009 05:12:39 UTC

against

redtara: they/them

24-08-2009 05:15:22 UTC

against But not because of the multi-category thing.

Qwazukee:

24-08-2009 05:16:17 UTC

Then why? I worded it as carefully as I could.

Rodlen:

24-08-2009 05:17:03 UTC

against Meh.  We don’t need duplicate rules.

Rodlen:

24-08-2009 05:17:15 UTC

Groundhog Man and G-Man.

Rodlen:

24-08-2009 05:18:48 UTC

There used to be a significant advantage to CfJ Proposals, when Call for Judgment could still be used as an author.  Infinite proposals…

Qwazukee:

24-08-2009 05:19:45 UTC

. . . do you honestly think that Groundhog-Man won’t be repealed by the time this passes? Tell you what, if that’s the case, then I’ll veto it. But that won’t be the case.

Excalabur:

24-08-2009 05:53:06 UTC

The game has changed.  Apparently we were sloppy when we rewrote the rules for the setup here, because they don’t seem to have changed since. 

This is stupid.  against

ais523:

24-08-2009 05:59:00 UTC

against A much bigger problem: Qwaz locked the previous proposal-CFJ; you can’t veto a CFJ, so the CFJ side is probably still going, and will pass because nobody can vote AGAINST it.

redtara: they/them

24-08-2009 06:35:16 UTC

Or FOR it.
So it’ll fail.

redtara: they/them

24-08-2009 06:35:39 UTC

Oh, I see.

Qwazukee:

24-08-2009 11:54:44 UTC

I am annoyed that ppl did not read the Ruleset about this.

“When Phil votes to VETO a Proposal, any Admin may fail that Proposal from that moment on, even if it is not the oldest Pending proposal.”

“Unfailed CfJs continue until. . .”

“A Failed CfJ has no further effect.”

There is nothing that says the CfJ side continues after the post is Vetoed. If it is Vetoed, then the post failed. Since it is a Proposal, no matter what else my last Proposal was, it could still be vetoed. Sheesh.

I won’t veto this yet so you guys can comment. Please think about how the game is not broken and how you don’t want to strangle Qwazukee in any way.

Qwazukee:

24-08-2009 12:18:23 UTC

nvm, I’ma veto it all so we can get the new Dynasty under way.

Operation: Veto everything.  veto