Thursday, July 13, 2017

Story Post: Magic Backlash:

Timed out 3-1. Enacted by card.
Cuddlebeam undergoes Extreme Seizures again.

Adminned at 16 Jul 2017 17:42:22 UTC

Cuddlebeam promised to not vote aside from vetoing or making a voteable matter come to quorum.

However Cuddlebeam made a proposal after that promise.

Given that “if the author of a Votable Matter has not used a valid voting icon in a comment to the post, then the author’s Vote is FOR.” https://wiki.blognomic.com/index.php?title=Ruleset#Votes
Cuddlebeam has voted by making that new proposal, breaking their promise.

posted by card at 13 Jul 2017 15:21:00 UTC Comments (5)

Comments

Madrid:

13-07-2017 15:55:20 UTC

Hah! Not quite, lowly sinner. Observe holy truth:

Once a Proposal is created, my vote will always be FOR - but there has no been no action to vote performed myself at any time.

(This feels like Ace Attourney lol. I really like how Scorning makes it so there are real stakes here)

orkboi:

13-07-2017 16:24:28 UTC

I’ve got to agree with yon Seraph on this one.

pokes:

13-07-2017 21:57:09 UTC

against - a vote exists, but Cuddlebeam didn’t have to perform a voting action to make it exist.

Kevan: he/him

14-07-2017 08:01:02 UTC

A “vote” is both a noun and a verb in the ruleset, both a thing that you cast, and the act of casting it. Some clauses also suggest that voting is a passive state which reflects the fact of ownership of a vote (“The number of Pactmakers who are not voting AGAINST it is less than Quorum”) even if the player never left a voting comment for it.

Cuddlebeam’s wording was “I promise to not vote”. But the ruleset considers them to be voting FOR their own proposal here.

for

Cpt_Koen:

14-07-2017 12:55:34 UTC

for If Cuddlebeam’s defense argument held, then we’d need a very serious Call for Judgement about pretty much every Proposal that was passed or failed in the last ten years.