The legality and illegality of the proposals’ passing is precicely the issue at stake.
Primarily, I vote against knowing the loophole you’re using, namely the idea that the enacting admin is the one to form the list of treasure, which was definately NOT what was intended with the proposal.

What, no precedent for undoing illegal actions? I thought we’d done that ever since my first game in the First Dynasty of Simon.

I’m a stickler for the letter of the law so , AG was wrong to un-admin the proposals w/o a CfJ.  There isn’t anything in the ruleset which allow em to do that.

That said, it looks like Bucky was wrong to admin the proposals in the first place so I’ll raise a CfJ on that point.

Actually, I can’t tell whether Bucky’s admin of the proposals was wrong or not (because I don’t know how to find out what time he did it) so I’m not going to be the one to raise the CfJ.

Thelonius, since you express a firm desire to adhere to the letter of the law, I might point out to you that our rule for issuing a Call for Judgment requires either “an active disagreement as to the interpretation of the Ruleset” or “an aspect of the game needs urgent attention”. Bucky and I clearly do not disagree about the illegal status of his enactment—he admitted that it was illegal play to me in person, in front of at least two other members in #nomic. I did not see anything urgent about what has been otherwise the mundane act of reverting an illegal play—illegal plays have been reset in this manner for the entire time that I have been an active participant in this game, which is somewhat less than two years. Following the letter of the law, there was no reason for me to make a CfJ.

More tellingly, our precedent is not to make a Call for Judgment to undo every error, but only those errors that are contentious in nature. As an example of this, several illegal plays were made in the GNDT during this game, most which were eventually corrected by other players without any CfJ being made by either party. The correct thing for Bucky to do in this instance is to raise a CfJ, since he objects to the fact that I undid his illegal enactment (and that is an a point of active disagreement), but if we need to raise a CfJ to undo every illegal act as the logical extension of the argument which you furnished entails, this game would be unplayable.

AG,

Firstly, the length of time I’ve been part of this nomic is measured in weeks not years.  Therefore, I concede that I lack the history.  This means that my comments are based on my best interpretation of the ruleset without regard to history.

To address some of your points.

“Following the letter of the law, there was no reason for me to make a CfJ.”

Maybe.  But that doesn’t change the fact that I don’t see anything in the ruleset that allows you to revert his errant admining.

Personally, I would have said that the admining of two proposals that should not have been admin’d falls under “an aspect of the game needs urgent attention” and therefore, you would have been perfectly within the rules to make a CfJ.  But, even if you don’t think the rules allowed you to CfJ, I don’t think they allowed you to revert the admin.

“More tellingly, our precedent is not to make a Call for Judgment to undo every error, but only those errors that are contentious in nature.  As an example of this, several illegal plays were made in the GNDT during this game, most which were eventually corrected by other players without any CfJ being made by either party.”

The reason that illegal GNDT plays can be corrected without CfJ is because rule 1.7 explicitly allows it.

All updates to the GNDT are logged - if a Monk feels that an alteration goes against the Rules (as they were at the time of the alteration), e may simply undo the effects of that alteration. If such an undoing is disputed, a Call for Judgment shall be raised.

However, 1.7 does not allow for a similar method of sorting out admin disputes.

Fundamentally, this CfJ is a disagreement that you think the ruleset allows you to revert bad admin changes whereas Bucky thinks you can’t.  So far, you’ve failed to point me to anything in the ruleset that allows you to make that changes that you did so I still vote .

Ah, that is a fine point about the GNDT. I concede your point—no other handy examples come to mind.

<hr>

Do you consider Bucky’s remedy (to pass the proposals) to be equitable, in light of the fact that he told me about the scam at least a full hour before it could have legally passed?

I don’t see a reason for us to waste our time on a CfJ to handle a seemingly trivial matter.

On the other hand, AG did kind of ruin Bucky’s scam (or at the very least alerted us of one), if I understand this correctly.

for now (and yes, I know that this vote does nothing)

before I forget

Why don’t you just re-Propose them and make life easier for all of us?

Unlike Thelonious, my time here is measured in *days*.  Still, proper procedure needs to be followed in these situations, if not just because silent correctings fail to alert other players in quite the same way as a blaring and game-halting Call for Justice.  This should be a *democratic* game, and situations like this should get the opinions of as many active players as possible.

“The Ruleset and Gamestate can only be altered in manners specified by the Ruleset.”  That’s from the very first Law in the Ruleset.  This is the Rule from which the precedent of reverting illegal actions comes.  Bucky’s illegal changing of the proposals’ status did not actually change the Gamestate, since nothing in the Rules permitted em to make those changes.  Thus, even though Bucky had marked them as passed, they were still Pending.  AG was perfectly within eir rights to self-kill eir own Pending Proposals.

I believe that it is the duty of every player (admin staff or no, but particularly of admin staff) to make sure that important game documents (e.g. Proposals in the blog, entries in the GNDT) accurately reflect the current Gamestate.  If there is an error, any player may correct it or point it out.  CfJ’s are only required for such an action if there is disagreement.  Remember that, in most cases, it is the rules that determine what the Gamestate is, not the documents; and that undoing an error in the documents does not change the Gamestate.

Hix makes good points.

The gamestate is an abstract thing.  The blog/GNDT/etc. simply represents the gamestate, but does not embody it. 

Thus, AG was simply reverting an error in the blog, not a change to the gamestate.  Moreover, e, following eir moral compass as an admin, was doing so in good faith. 

Hix’s point carries my vote.  I do think this debate points to a disturbing trend this dynasty is taking.