Saturday, May 23, 2009

Call for Judgment: Mis-misvoting

Passes 12-0. TAE and Tuxhedoh are the only ones who need to be reverted, which I’ll do now. - Qwazukee

Adminned at 26 May 2009 18:35:50 UTC

Actually two problems here, but one’s already been challenged and reverted in the GNDT so I might as well CfJ it:-

  • The Misvote rule says that you can only correct Misvotes “if at least 72 hours have elapsed since the last time a Contestant became Out”. No contestants have yet become Outsiders, but Qwazukee feels he can start correcting Misvotes because “Infinity is longer than 72 hours”. This would require that a Contestant became Out at the beginning of time, which was not the case.
  • He also seems to think he can change multiple Votes at once, despite misvote-correcting being a daily action (which even has example text of “therefore, each Contestant may only change one other Contestant’s Vote per day”).

Action to be taken: set TAE, Tuxhedoh and Yuri’s votes to blank (unless, in each case, that Contestant has changed their own Vote since this CfJ was made).



05-23-2009 10:53:25 UTC

In fact, I’ve blanked Tuxedoh and Yuri’s votes, as Qwazukee’s change to them seems fairly obviously illegal here.

Ienpw III:

05-23-2009 11:31:10 UTC



05-23-2009 12:14:32 UTC

FALSE. I could take the Daily Action 3 times because I rolled the “Hyper” value twice while picking Fruit. This allows me to use a daily action 2 more times than I normally could.

Now, please consider the intention of the “Misvoting” Rule. Clearly, this Rule was designed to eliminate empty Votes. With fewer Votes in play, it could take much longer for anyone to be Voted out, thus making the Misvoting Rule rather moot. Now to me, either interpretation of the Rule seems viable:

1. I can change the Votes because it has been infinitely long since anyone has been Voted Out.

2. I cannot change the Votes because nobody has been Voted Out yet.

However, I believe that the intention of the Misvoting Rule was to allow me to change such Votes in order to move the game along in a speedy manner. Thus, I am against this CfJ.


05-23-2009 12:21:01 UTC

Can I re-re-re-institute my version of the Votes for Tux and yuri? I’m never sure how many times the CfJ mechanic allows you to flip-flop on the same issue before the CfJ resolves it. . . .


05-23-2009 12:24:54 UTC

Sorry, I didn’t pick up on the “hyper” reference in the GNDT comment. Fair enough on that, then; I’ve reverted my changes.


05-23-2009 13:43:52 UTC

imperial Abstention… for now.


05-23-2009 15:23:10 UTC

for  on the first count only


05-23-2009 15:59:32 UTC

This CfJ (and its specific correction) is effectively only on the first count; if changing votes is illegal, then they were all illegal.


05-23-2009 16:05:05 UTC

Note that had Qwazukee’s interpretation of the rules been correct, I would have caused the same Contestants to misvote for different other Candidates.


05-23-2009 16:30:15 UTC

for I understand the intention of the rule. Unfortunately, I think no time has elapsed since the last contestant was voted out. That trigger condition has not happened, so you can’t count any elapsed time.


05-23-2009 19:36:24 UTC

for On the first count only per Bucky/Kevan/smith.


05-23-2009 19:52:03 UTC

for Seems to be the consensus here; three of the same daily action in a day is possible under the current ruleset, but nobody has been voted out yet so votes can’t be changed (sorry, that was a mistake in my proposal, but it’s what the rule says). Voting the consensus vote to speed up the CFJ.


05-23-2009 20:40:07 UTC



05-23-2009 23:46:07 UTC

CoV for  for speed.


05-24-2009 00:09:11 UTC



05-24-2009 00:59:31 UTC

Note to enacting admin: Yuri has changed eir vote since the CfJ was made.


05-24-2009 02:43:50 UTC



05-25-2009 01:21:22 UTC

for On the first point, disregarding the second one


05-25-2009 19:28:56 UTC

for 1’st point only. Sorry, Qwaz.


05-25-2009 22:04:42 UTC

@Kevan: You forgot the explicit author for, this is a CFJ.


05-26-2009 15:29:51 UTC



05-26-2009 21:10:27 UTC

Hasn’t this reached quorum?  I count 12 votes in favor.