anyone who was a proxy didn’t count towards quorum? You didn’t address that? If you have a different interpretation I would be happy to hear it.

Doesn’t do anything. Calls for Judgement enact, not pass.

And a CfJ really isn’t necessary, at this point?

Either quorum was 1, and the CfJ enacting was legal, and I win; or it wasn’t, so it didn’t, and I didn’t. We can hash it out in the DoV comments, we don’t need a mess of Calls for Judgement.

Yes a CfJ is necessary.

If your DoV fails, you’ve still enacted your CfJ.

Like I said in the other post larry

1) “The proxy” clearly implies there is ever only one “Proxy”

2) There is nothing that granted Riachu the power to grant give people official positions. The rules clearly state “May be GRANTED an official position. Not may GRANT”

Furthermore, wherein did the original CfJ fulfill

“If two or more Scribes actively disagree as to the interpretation of the Ruleset, or if a Scribe feels that an aspect of the game needs urgent attention”?

The “lol I win” part of the CfJ did not address a conflict between two Scribes, and as not an aspect of the game demeaning urgent attention, so should not be permitted.

Sorry, read this first and didn’t notice the discussion on the dov.

Per 1. I can honestly read it both ways where if it was intended to be a single position and not. I don’t think the case for it being a single position is strong enough to undo Raichukfm’s action.

Per 2. This is the stronger point in my opinion. The question comes down to “if X can be done, does that imply that people have the power to do it”. I feel that it does but I fully understand if someone disagrees and we will just have to wait and see how people vote.

I’m going to repeat, this literally doesn’t do anything.

Calls for Judgement don’t pass, they enact.

eh if you want to post a CfJ when this passes arguing semantics, by all means continue to slow the game now

True this doesn’t do anything. I still want to comment my opinion. “a Scribe feels that an aspect of the game needs urgent attention” is vague enough almost anything can be CFJ worthy. It is what a scribe feels so we can’t really say he is wrong about what he feels.

it clearly goes against the spirit of the game

This is literally a game of semantics so I don’t think it is unfair for Raichu to say we should use a different CFJ and his is only 20 minutes older so he is hardly delaying the game.

p.s. I really need to stop posting before I check if any comments have happened since I started to type.

No, I just, posted a CfJ already to actually fix the problems that this one… doesn’t. (And, if we’re not allowed to argue semantics in a Nomic, I think I might have misunderstood the… premise.)

Also, what Larry said, and some things I expounded upon in the actual DoV. The “I arguably made everyone else not a Scribe” required urgent attention, and my CfJ undid that; whatever one has to say about the legality of resolving it, it was legal to make.

that part was fine

the “I win / repel this rule” wasn’t

actually, you could even argue the “repel this rule” was fine, given it was potentially abusable

but putting “I win” in a CfJ when prior to the CfJ there was no claim to victory is 100% against the spirit of the game in my book

Quorum was higher than 1 as that CfJ was allegedly resolved.

Okay. Uh. Vote FOR on the other one, and AGAINST on my DoV.

This doesn’t do anything.

For, like, the third time: There’s no passing of “Quorum is One” to revert; there’s a resolution, and an enactment, but no passing.

I don’t… get the point, here.

I’m not even telling you not to vote FOR on this one, just that doing so is useless. Because… it’s useless.

There’s another CfJ to vote on that will actually put gamestate back the way you think it works.

Getting this out of the way.