No implied author-fors on CfJs.

This also determines the fate of Yoda’s two “nothing to lose” proposals.

This ^may^ also determine the fate…

Wording seems excessively convoluted to me. Also, not sure it would entirely cover Yoda’s proposals if the overlord vetoed them after the fact.

i think it would be cleaner to instead add a dynastic rule saying a henchman may not vote against his own proposal if it’s been vetoed.

if i’m correct though, aaronwinborn, that solution wouldn’t solve the problem, which is that the ruleset doesnt state what to do when a proposal is self killed, THEN vetoed

Correct, the CfJ closes a discrepancy between which has precedent over the other, s/k or veto.  But I don’t think that the part that amends the core rules is entirely necessary. 

We might consider adding it to the glossary instead of the core rules.

And I may well be missing something here (?) but is this gap not closed up by the proposal ‘Déjà-vu all over again’? Precedence/order won’t matter since s/k and veto will do the same thing (as long as it passes). I think that’s the better solution anyway….

I think the precedence of S/K and VETO should be explained explicitly in the core rules, because this would be a non dynastic issue as it can come up again on the next one.

This just clarifies a rule in the core rules; therefore, it should go in the glossary.

This would be a nice supplement to “Deja vu all over again”, though.

aaronwinborn: Proposals don’t fail until an admin fails them. This makes it so that a proposal is considered vetoed if the Overlord votes to veto it regardless of any other votes on it and the order in which they were placed. I don’t see what’s convoluted about it, but you’re welcome to fix that by proposal if this passes. If a proposal is vetoed after being self-killed, then the Overlord will necessarily have voted VETO, fulfilling the requirements of both amendments.

Yoda: Deferential votes aren’t valid on a CfJ. The core rules amendment isn’t necessary to fixing the immediate problem, no, but if it existed now, the current wording of “Evil Schemes wouldn’t be a problem. It would work just as well in the Glossary. I put it where it made the most sense to me.

dogfish: No, “Déjà-vu all over again” doesn’t close the gap. A self-killed evil proposal does nothing under “Déjà-vu all over again”. A vetoed evil proposal reduces it’s author’s GL to 0. An evil proposal that is self-killed and then vetoed before an admin fails it still falls into the gap between failing “without being vetoed” and failing “because the Overlord vetoed it”.

Everyone: If you’re wondering why I put ‘’‘triple single quotes’‘’ around “Overlord” in the core rule amendment, it’s because that’s the wikicode for bolding, and “Overlord” is always bolded in the core rules.

ok COV