Saturday, April 24, 2010

Call for Judgment: Illegal DoV readminning

Passes with 9 for and 1 against—Wakukee

Adminned at 25 Apr 2010 11:49:35 UTC

If the gamestate is not already such that my recent DoV passed, change the gamestate such that its resolution caused it to pass.

Change the admin field of my recent DoV to show it as passed.

Wakukee unilaterally changed the header of my DoV to mark it as failed. This is slightly strange; DoVs are “resolved”, which causes them to be passed or failed; in other words, Ienpw III’s resolution caused the DoV to pass or fail platonically, regardless of how the admin field is changed after that. The resolution caused it to pass 6-5 (DEFERENTIAL has no meaning on a DoV, because the rules for DoV commenting are different from the rules on proposal voting; this is a historical accident - voting used to be illegal in a hiatus, so DoVs needed different rules to make voting on the impossible), so it has in fact passed, and despite the header being changed I could legally start a new dynasty Right Now. However, it’s probably better to fix the (arguably illegal) change to the header immediately, to avoid misleading people.



24-04-2010 22:34:14 UTC

The DOV did not pass.
The votes came out to 5 for, 5 against, 1 def, which does not count by the DoV voting rules. DEF was the last voting icon Roujo used, making it his vote and canceling out his for. See Kevan’s post HERE for that in better-stated terms.

Note that I am idle, so this vote does not count.


24-04-2010 22:38:03 UTC

“DoVs are “resolved”, which causes them to be passed or failed” <—I am saying that it was resolved incorrectly. The proper resolution puts it at a 5-5 vote, or failure. So it is not simply passed because Ienpw said that was.

Thus, this CFJ passing would mean that the DoV passed. And This CFJ failing would mean that it failed, just to clarify.


24-04-2010 22:43:16 UTC

ALright, unidled now.  against


24-04-2010 22:47:34 UTC

for , per the comments made at the post I linked to earlier and IRC conversation.

Josh: he/they

24-04-2010 22:48:04 UTC



24-04-2010 22:50:25 UTC


Kevan: City he/him

24-04-2010 22:51:21 UTC

against Just because this would overrule any other problems we spotted with the DoV prior to this CfJ passing.

redtara: they/them

24-04-2010 23:02:52 UTC



24-04-2010 23:06:22 UTC

for @Kevan: I have no problem with simply rereverting Wak’s revert, but he insisted I CFJed on the matter.


25-04-2010 00:03:21 UTC


Darknight: he/him

25-04-2010 00:34:46 UTC

for Just to get this over with and move on


25-04-2010 11:33:24 UTC



25-04-2010 12:06:26 UTC