do CFJs no have implied votes?

Deferential votes only work on proposals so you know.

It isn’t even a problem. The rule said “The Oligarch” not “An Oligarch”. “The Oligarch who is Bucky” is just as likely as “Every Oligrach” for what it was actually referring to.

Clucky, I noticed you just illegally reverted a valid change to the gamestate, that had been reverted and unreverted previously.  At this point, Rule 3.2 says to create a CfJ rather than continuing a GNDT fight.

Even if you are interpreting “The Oligarch must spend 1 Power” as “An Oligarch must spend 1 Power”, that sentence is part of a bulleted list explicitly introduced as “The Despot [...] must expend Power to perform some actions, as follows:” It is a list that only applies to the Despot.

Kevan is correct; I’m also not sure that this CfJ explicitly had an effect.

Disagreeing with Kevan; seems to me that that was just an organizational thing. But I see that argument.

I’d support that argument if these were just isolated sentences, but the wording is “The Despot must spend Power to take the following actions: An Oligarch must spend 1 Power to vote.” - it’s just a meaningless action that the Despot can’t actually take, and as bulleted clause of “as follows” it’s no more a standalone than “It has been Vetoed or Self-Killed.” in 1.5.2.

is not illegal Bucky. No one as far as I know as disputed the “The Oligarch… is meaningless” claim. If you disagree, you could post a CfJ reverting my actions.

Plus the this doesn’t actually revert the gamestate back it its proper form. If that proposal retroactively took effect, it means Josh had to retroactively pay for his against vote. Meaning Josh’s against vote never happened and the proposal that shouldn’t have passed that we’re trying to avoid passing will still pass.

Clucky:
In the hypothetical world where the “The Oligarch must spend 1 Power” clause did anything at all, “Per your command” was illegally adminned and is thus still pending, so any subsequent proposals are also still pending.  This CfJ’s only effect is to make sure the list of pending proposals is the same as what the sidebar currently says.

In the hypothetical world where the “The Oligarch must spend 1 Power” clause did nothing, this CfJ simply affirms that what happened, happened, and has no effect.

The purpose of the CfJ is to render unambiguous whether the currently pending proposals can be legally adminned.

Yeah, this actually doesn’t have anything to do with that. Clucky, you should have posted a CfJ if you felt the actions were illegal, clearly Larrytheturtle disagreed. Oh well, I’ll post one just for clarity’s sake. As long as we avoid an edit war, I guess.

okay, I thought the time you gave was before Josh cast his vote on the Sedition proposal.

but if this passes, it would make affirm your statement that “votes on a proposal after the first DEF cost 1 Power each for everyone but the Despot”. I disagree that this was ever the case, so remain AGAINST.