“the gamestate becomes Polarised at 9am on November 3rd 2013”

Moving the trigger time backwards doesn’t actually cause this to trigger.

Interesting argument. I’m not sure that I agree - I think it causes the trigger to occur retroactively, as the ruleset in its present form governs the entire gamestate, past, present and future, and effectively suggesting that a past event supercedes a plain English reading of the ruleset requires a very powerful invisible gamestate.

Okay.  What I think actually happened is that (since a +6hours action was illegal) the gamestate actually became polarized at 9am on November 3rd, which was before your final edit to the Sequester.

Support for the above: If I had edited the Sequester to change the polarization time to immediately and illegally changed the polarization time to the current time, it would not have caused the game to become Polarized.

That’s the one interpretation that’s completely impossible, as it’s not Larrytheturtle’s illegal action that causes the sequester time to move back - it’s my reversion of it (specifically, the act of removing something from the sequester page). In other words, the Polarisation time couldn’t move back *until* my final edit to the Sequester.

Regardless of the legality of the changes and their effects on the deadline, you failed to account for rule 3.3.5 by not explicitly stating that “Josh” refers to an MN.

Incorrect.

“In Rule 2.1 of the Ruleset, “No MN” is a Keyword for the MN known as “Josh”“

I know that BlogNomic is averse to rule scam victories, and that scrutiny is the order of the day on DoVs, but this is starting to feel a little desperate.

Ah, apologies, I’d misread that.

So, when was Larry’s double edit? Sequester page history isn’t showing it to me. As such, I’d have to call Josh’s last edit illegal for removing the phrase “any rule” in the “Example Sequester Rule”. On the retroactive argument, I’d have to go with Josh. Benefit of the doubt preventing an AGAINST.

Oh, why did I neglect the flavor text. Turtlemoon edited twice, not Larrytheturtle.

Turtlemoon’s second edit added the phrase “in the Sequester”; Josh removed the phrase “any Rule”, which Turtlemoon added in his legal edit. (Actually “any rule but”) Unless I’m missing something, Josh removing this was illegal, regardless of whether my edit technically added “in the Sequester” or not.

Also, that Turtlemoon clause still exists but was split by other phrases. It was never partially removed, and even if somehow you could remove the first edit you did so incorrectly. (Sorry for four posts in a row.)

Damnit, quite right. I did revert the wrong edit.

I’ll offer this as a counter-argument, though: the Sequester rule says that “The Sequester page of the wiki may be edited once per day by each MN”. As Turtlemoon (sorry Larry, too many turtles) edited twice, I think that it can correctly be argued that the second edit actually makes both edits illegal. There is no causative basis in the ruleset to assume that the second edit is the illegal one; it is the one that caused the illegality, but from the ruleset’s perspective it simply caused an illegal gamestate. Resolving that illegal gamestate is agnostic as to which of the edits is removed.

To your later points, in order for this to work I don’t have to have fully resolved the issue of the illegal edit; I simply have to have removed some content that was illegal under the terms of the Sequester rule.

On that basis the DoV stands.
(Not that it matters, but it should be mentioned that on that basis I achieve victory the moment this DoV is resolved anyway - unless the resolving admin hijacks my scam, which would be *mildly* annoying.)

Actually, regardless of how the log recorded it (and I don’t think the log was used as a measuring device in the Rules) I only made one edit at that time. It was just sloppily done. Notice that by the time my fumbling was done, I only moved the clock one increment in the Sequester Rule. (Though I was a bit sloppy there too ;-).

Just saying. In case it matters.

Hmm. That is a good point. The way I see it, however, is that the second edit was an illegal action and should have been reverted immediately, which I did, but I don’t know if it actually counted. I think this comes down to whether or not Josh’s edit was illegal, which depends on whether or not my edit counted as reverting the Turtlemoon one. Assuming that did count as two edits; I’m actually completely unsure on that. Anyone else’s input on this?

Looked again. Not seeing specific definition or measurement of “edit.” So, went with “it said this when I started and that when I finished” as a working understanding of an edit.

Obviously, I can’t defend the legality of it, since y’all can certainly argue tidiness and grace as requirements for a complete action of any kind. Still, I would argue that “illegality” requires consideration of the complete act - not half of it. When it was done, the rule changed meaning in one sense, and the Sequester Rule changed state by only one increment in one direction.

Any other MN’s subsequent action took place after my completed “edit” and shouldn’t be reliant on what happened halfway through my action.

Just my opinion.

Sorry to natter on, but I actually saw Josh’s last edit of the Sequester as two edits, since he edited two different rules. The fact that it was only one edit when measured by the log doesn’t necessarily make it one edit.

‘Nuff said by me :-)

Raichu and Turtlemoon’s objection appears to be the same one - whether the wiki’s log can be considered to be a fair and reliable assessment of what constitutes an edit. In both cases, we’re being asked to trust the mental state and intent of the authors over the objective information carried in the mechanical logs.

I’d argue that they’re equally invalid. The wiki’s logs may not be endowed with ruleset status but they are by a clear distance the only objective measure of wiki interaction we have.

Though, in my case, we could simply compare before and after. That seemed, to me, more reliable than the the log, since the log failed to catch Josh’s double edit ;-)

What double edit? I only did one.

(Nb the stipulation on only one edit targets the page, not the rules.)

My opinion is this: Turtlemoon’s second edit was illegal.  Josh’s removal of part of Turtlemoon’s first edit was also illegal.  (An edit made to the Sequester page by an MN may add content but never remove it, unless it violates a clause of this rule or the change is an effect of the passage of a Voteable Matter.)  This is because when Turtlemoon posted it, it was legal, and it’s illogical to make it illegal because of something that happened after it.
However.  Turtlemoon delayed the time of Polarization after his second edit, which was illegal - implying that the delay was associated with his second edit.  Thus, the time of Polarization would be 9am (at 9am Nov. 3), and the gamestate Polarized when Josh made his edit.
Therefore, Josh’s entire edit was illegal by 2.2-3.

“That’s the one interpretation that’s completely impossible, as it’s not Larrytheturtle’s illegal action that causes the sequester time to move back”

I am claiming that the sequester time never moved forwards in the first place, despite his edit to the ruleset indicating that it did.

Ooh, wait, I’m wrong about the order of Turtlemoon’s actions.  Then only the removal part was illegal, but I still vote AGAINST.

Yeah, josh shouldn’t have been able to move up the sequester time, but I think he might still win given once the hiatus ends we’ll certainly be sequestered. Anyone unknotted the sequester page enough to tell?

yeah as far as I can tell, Josh will achieve victory once we de-haitus. Although the clause that kills all the other sequester rules doesn’t apply, “josh wins” outscopes “no one can win” Larry could idle josh but he could just unidle. Bucky’s proposal enacting powers don’t let him speed up the time needed. I don’t see anything else that can stop him. So it would be a race, and we don’t want to encourage people to have be on all the time just to win a race. So lets just speed things up…

@Clucky: As far as I can tell, at 9am, we Polarized and then immediately unpolarized (Sequester 1.2 white text).  So later Sequester changes were effective, but we are still not Polarized so they don’t do anything.

So, just so I know, we are in hiatus, but not polarized?

Actually, Larry can’t idle Josh - He has to idle AND unidle someone, and it has to be my choice.  No, we wouldn’t have unpolarized by the S1.2 white text, as it explicitly states it never ceases to be Polarized.

Couldn’t you argue that if “josh has achieved victory” is gamestate even for a second, removing it does not reverse the win?

On an unimportant note by rule 3.3.5 I can neither idle or unidle anyone.

I can’t help but feel that “the MN known as” in sequester rule 1.13 is just an explanatory clause and not a part of the phrase “No MN” is a keyword for. I see it this way since the parentheses define the boundary of the keyword. If they don’t then why couldn’t I choose to cut it however I want, for instance “No MN” could be a keyword for “the MN known as “Josh” and “can win”“. The point being that Josh isn’t stated as referring to an MN in rule 2.1. I don’t actually think this will hold up but just wanted to see what people had to say about it.

I would say that they keyword section of the glossary establishes that keywords don’t have to replace text on a like-for-like basis - they can replace words with concepts quite happily.

If the removal was illegal, wouldn’t that make Josh’s entire edit illegal?

Which would mean the clause that lets him win isn’t actually in the Sequester?

No, it was really two separate edits done at the same time

No, I’m fairly certain that that was one edit, and if part of it was illegal the entire edit was illegal and so nothing says that Josh wins. That said I’d rather just have this over with, so while I won’t vote for I’m abstaining on the other one.