Wednesday, January 28, 2009

Proposal: [JOKE] This has degenerated to name-calling

Arth vetoed this. He never admins vetoed proposals. -Darth

Adminned at 28 Jan 2009 19:04:50 UTC

If more than half of all comments containing counted votes also contain the name of one Member of the Staff, change that Member of the Staff’s name to “Rogue Admin”.



01-28-2009 04:16:31 UTC

for  Gnauga!


01-28-2009 04:18:33 UTC

for Amnistar, arthexis, Clucky, comex, Darknight, Darth Cliche, Gnauga, jmrdex, Kevan, Oze, Qwazukee, Rodlen, SingularByte, Sparrow, teucer, The Cube, Wakukee, Wooden Squid, Yoda, zuff


01-28-2009 04:19:40 UTC

Sparrow, you do realize it says ONE Member of the Staff, right?


01-28-2009 04:25:38 UTC

for Kevan


01-28-2009 04:28:27 UTC

Kevan is in teh leed.


01-28-2009 04:29:17 UTC

No he’s not, he’s tied with Gnauga.


01-28-2009 04:31:21 UTC

CoV for  Kevan, just because it would be funny to see the “Sixth Dynasty of Rogue Admin”.


01-28-2009 04:31:36 UTC

Actually, the one member of the staff who has been mentioned the most with counted votes is Kevan, as I count one member of the staff as a specific member of the staff mentioned the most by counted votes, as appears to be intended.


01-28-2009 04:32:35 UTC

@Darth Cliche: It’s ambiguous. I see the following two interpretations:

(1) Any person mentioned in more than half of the votes…

(2) If more than than half of the votes are accompanied by just one name, anyone mentioned in that way…

But I think you may have meant something like:

If more than half of all comments containing counted votes also contain the name of one Member of the Staff, change the name of the Member of the Staff mentioned most often to “Rogue Admin”.



01-28-2009 04:35:56 UTC

(1) is what I intended.


01-28-2009 04:37:27 UTC

(1) is what I thought, too.


01-28-2009 04:37:31 UTC

Oh, wait, no, (2).


01-28-2009 04:38:42 UTC

Posted at the same time as Sparrow.


01-28-2009 04:38:56 UTC

I think 1 is most likely to be what the proposal actually says, and the only one that is possible.


01-28-2009 04:39:18 UTC

for Kevan

May as well go with the crowd. =)


01-28-2009 04:39:38 UTC

Actually, aren’t 1 and 2 the same?


01-28-2009 04:40:53 UTC

imperial meh


01-28-2009 04:42:32 UTC

No, 1 is safe, 2 is not.


01-28-2009 04:46:04 UTC

I don’t see any difference…


01-28-2009 04:46:59 UTC

The difference is that (1) allows as many people as you like to be mentioned in a vote, and (2) does not.

Both are worded in a way that implies many people may have their name changed. But technically, since (2) says more than half, and only one can be mentioned per vote, in the end it will be a single person.


01-28-2009 04:47:10 UTC

2 makes lots of Rogue Admins, 1 makes 1 rogue admin.


01-28-2009 04:48:22 UTC

2 just depends on more than half of the votes having a name by them, not the same name.


01-28-2009 04:50:00 UTC

oh, right. But I think both are unsafe. 1 and 2


01-28-2009 04:55:45 UTC

So the interpretations I see are:

(1B) Any person can mention as many names with their vote as they like. All mentioned in more than half the votes change their name.

(2B) If more than half the votes have a single name by them, all members mentioned by anyone who included a single name with their vote change their name.


01-28-2009 05:15:46 UTC

I wonder what does Kevan think about this.


01-28-2009 05:40:20 UTC

against I say just veto this, since it’s just a joke anyways.


01-28-2009 05:41:05 UTC

It would just cause more problems than it’s worth if it happened to pass by some weird happenstance.


01-28-2009 05:44:43 UTC



01-28-2009 11:23:03 UTC

against Kevan.


01-28-2009 14:33:43 UTC

against Changing Kev’s name would involve way top much changing of history after the fact . . . think Ministry of Truth.


01-28-2009 14:45:58 UTC

Hmm? Player names are part of the gamestate (Rule 1.2), and the rule specifically mentions being able to change them by proposal. It wouldn’t be retroactive, or anything. (And I could propose to change it back.)


01-28-2009 16:25:46 UTC

for Kevan


01-28-2009 17:28:19 UTC

If I win, I will veto  this into the veto -y pit from which it came.


01-29-2009 01:53:45 UTC

Ok, whatever.
Bang it’s dead veto