Saturday, April 24, 2010

Call for Judgment: If that follows, then this must also:

Fails with 11 against and no for.—Wakukee

Adminned at 25 Apr 2010 11:50:40 UTC

This proposal is now a proposal. Every proposal made since then has been enacted illegally. Revert them and any actions based on them.



24-04-2010 18:25:49 UTC


redtara: they/them

24-04-2010 18:26:29 UTC

against One time scam.


24-04-2010 18:31:54 UTC

against Err, no? You can legally enact the oldest pending proposal (given that it has enough votes, etc); at the time proposals since were enacted, there wasn’t an older pending proposal, so it was legal. Just because it would be illegal to enact those proposals now doesn’t mean it was illegal at the time they were enacted.


24-04-2010 18:32:16 UTC


Josh: he/they

24-04-2010 18:43:53 UTC

@ais - Your DoV relies on proposals being legit in a non-temporally-linear fashion. If it’s proposal to make a post into a proposal then instantly time it out, then how is this any less legal?

I don’t really want it to pass, which is why I’m not voting for it, but it’s not much less legitimate than your DoV.


24-04-2010 18:46:17 UTC

@Josh: because changing a post to a proposal doesn’t retroactively make it have been a proposal for ever, thus it didn’t hold up the queue before the change. It needs to have been open for voting in some other fashion for 48 hours already to pull off a similar scam.

Josh: he/they

24-04-2010 18:51:55 UTC

changing a post to a proposal doesn’t retroactively make it have been a proposal for ever

Precisely. Clucky’s unidle post has been “open for voting” in the same way that the dance post had been; anybody could have voted on it, after all, it was right there. The principle of “potential openness,” just waiting for the designation of the proposal category - as established by your DoV - is actually pretty cross-applicable.


24-04-2010 19:13:12 UTC



24-04-2010 20:05:55 UTC

against Josh, even though you don’t agree with ais’ win (I don’t either), there is no reason to try and prove a point like this, just change the rules to 100% block the loophole (Even though it should have been quite obvious that what he did was cheating) and move on.

Darknight: he/him

24-04-2010 21:51:22 UTC



24-04-2010 22:46:56 UTC

against Doesn’t work that way. Didn’t work that way in the first place.


24-04-2010 22:48:11 UTC


Kevan: City he/him

24-04-2010 23:02:30 UTC

against Per Qwazukee, I hope we’re treating ais523’s DoV as a blip that happened to get the votes it needed, rather than a concrete precedent that the game term “open for voting” isn’t protected by “supersedes normal English usage”.


24-04-2010 23:55:47 UTC