Wednesday, May 21, 2008

Call for Judgment: Hold The Trigger Fingers, Revisited

reached a quorum, final vote 1-7—Yoda
Thanks, jay, for your never-ending support (even when I didn’t even believe in myself).

Adminned at 22 May 2008 07:55:06 UTC

The proposal “No, mr. Dynasty. I expect you to die.” was not enacted properly.  According to the time stamps, the proposal was enacted just over 8 hours after it was proposed.  Rule 1.5 Enactment states that a proposal may be enacted if “it has a number of FOR votes that exceed or equal Quorum, has been open for voting for at least 12 hours, and has not been vetoed or self-killed” (emphasis mine).

The proposal ”[Evil] Gifts From the Public Treasury” was enacted properly; therefore, I should be the new Emperor.

If the DoV “I have returned” passes, this CfJ does nothing.  If the DoV “I have returned” fails and this CfJ passes, Yoda has achieved victory.

posted by Yoda at 21 May 2008 20:25:01 UTC Comments (15)

Comments

jay:

21-05-2008 20:43:03 UTC

for

Rodlen:

21-05-2008 20:54:28 UTC

against Your proposal happened to not make you win through flawed rules.

Rodlen:

21-05-2008 20:55:06 UTC

Italics are only counted as not meaning anything in the ruleset. Not in proposals.

Yoda:

21-05-2008 21:06:46 UTC

But it doesn’t matter anyway because the “I have achieved victory in the current dynasty” clause was not in italics.

Rodlen:

21-05-2008 21:09:37 UTC

Yes, but it was preceded by a “if the following two things occur” clause.  Ha.

Rodlen:

21-05-2008 21:12:52 UTC

And, though my win was through an illegally enacted proposal, I was voted into power in the DOV.

Yoda:

21-05-2008 21:41:33 UTC

for explicit author for

Kevan: he/him

21-05-2008 22:33:36 UTC

Not sure what Yoda’s trying to claim here. Are you saying that italicised text in proposals should be ignored? Or are you saying that we can pick out interesting sentence fragments and treat them as if connected clauses didn’t exist?

Glossary 3.1 doesn’t back up the first argument, and the second seems a rather over-creative way to interpret the ruleset. (Can I pick out “The oldest pending Proposal may be failed by any Admin” or “bar the perpetrator from rejoining”?)

Rodlen:

21-05-2008 22:55:48 UTC

My win: illegally enacted proposal, legal DoV.  The DoV votes could have had to do with my eating food today, and it would still have the same effect.

Yoda’s try: proposal was a “this will happen if the following two things happen” one, keeping him from winning through there, but all that matters is the current mess of proposals, CfJs, and a DoV.

Amnistar: he/him

21-05-2008 23:34:13 UTC

against

While Rodlen enacted the proposal a bit ahead of time, the following proposals were valid.

Unless you came into the game mere hours after the DoV passed, there’s not really a point.

Ornithopter:

21-05-2008 23:51:47 UTC

against

arthexis: he/him

22-05-2008 00:12:54 UTC

against I think Rodlen won, not because his proposal passed, but simple because de DoV did, justified or not.

Darknight: he/him

22-05-2008 01:41:11 UTC

against

Purplebeard:

22-05-2008 08:51:16 UTC

against Rodlen’s DOV passed and, as Kevan stated, you never won anyhow since the italics rule doesn’t apply to proposals.
(seriously, how many times do I have to repeat this?)

Yoda:

22-05-2008 14:53:16 UTC

against COV since new dynasty is in full swing