Monday, November 11, 2013

Call for Judgment: Gamestate Rectification

4-4, open for more than 48 hours, so fails.—Clucky

Adminned at 13 Nov 2013 11:05:56 UTC

The proposal “Per your command” fixed a problem where votes on a proposal after the first DEF cost 1 Power each for everyone but the Despot, instead of the Despot as intended.  However, it was adminned when it apparently hit quorum, despite most of the votes being invalid due to not having their Power cost paid.

We should take the minimally invasive approach to fix this and declare retroactively that the proposal “Per your command” took effect on 09 Nov 2013 at 20:08:00 UTC , the time indicated in the Admin box, despite not having a Quorum of For votes, and has not actually been blocking the proposal queue since then.



11-11-2013 03:02:04 UTC



11-11-2013 03:03:36 UTC



11-11-2013 03:04:18 UTC

for do CFJs no have implied votes?


11-11-2013 03:05:58 UTC

Deferential votes only work on proposals so you know.


11-11-2013 04:04:43 UTC

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.


11-11-2013 04:57:51 UTC

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.


11-11-2013 08:47:08 UTC

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.



11-11-2013 09:52:22 UTC

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


11-11-2013 13:35:19 UTC

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


11-11-2013 14:07:32 UTC

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.


11-11-2013 17:08:56 UTC

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.



11-11-2013 17:21:58 UTC

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.


11-11-2013 19:08:41 UTC

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.


11-11-2013 19:37:10 UTC



11-11-2013 19:39:17 UTC



11-11-2013 20:08:56 UTC

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.


11-11-2013 20:41:02 UTC