Monday, August 09, 2021

Call for Judgment: Miscount

Reaches quorum, 7-0. For real this time. Josh

Adminned at 09 Aug 2021 19:35:52 UTC

Uphold the failure of https://blognomic.com/archive/special_case_dont_force_players_to_use_slack, despite the incorrect vote count

Josh got confused by vote changing. Which then lead to lemon self-killing her proposal thinking ais’s failed, and also led to the queue getting resolved out of order (although some of that was already upheld for other reasons)

Fairest thing to do seems to just stamp what happened as okay and throw the ideas back up for vote again as CfJs to fix any proposal queue problems.

Comments

Kevan: City he/him

09-08-2021 14:13:35 UTC

I don’t think correcting and/or repealing the No Collaborations rule is CfJ urgent, when the rule is inactive.

Upholding the failure seems enough for now. I’d be happy to consider my vote CoV’d to AGAINST on it, if we’re in a hinterland where we aren’t sure if it should be passed or failed.

Clucky: he/him

09-08-2021 14:18:55 UTC

It seems fair play to me to not make ais reuse a proposal slot on an idea that he had already proposed and had a decent chance of passing

Kevan: City he/him

09-08-2021 14:25:23 UTC

I suppose. A second CfJ to repeal the rule seems like it’s coming out of nowhere, though?

ais523:

09-08-2021 14:26:46 UTC

Thanks for offering to refund my slot, but for core rules changes like this (especially ones that some players feel very strongly about), a votecount that close to 50:50 is going to be quite unsatisfying if we redo the proposal and it happens again (especially because the rule will likely need modifying anyway, given the apparent exodus to Discord from Slack). Additionally, my guess as to what would most likely have happened would be that the proposal would time out in a (marginally) failing state. So I’m happy to continue without the slot refunded.

I agree that we need to uphold the failure by CFJ, though. (My recent attempt to reduce the need for this sort of CFJ via a core rules change failed, due to legitimate concerns that people had about the side effects, but I think the intended effect was fairly popular, just not the implementation. I plan to try again if I can think of a good wording that avoids the side effects.)

Clucky: he/him

09-08-2021 14:26:59 UTC

Lemon made a proposal to repeal the rule. She then self killed it after it looked like ais’s proposal had failed

Josh: he/they

09-08-2021 14:28:36 UTC

Ugh sorry

Clucky: he/him

09-08-2021 14:50:04 UTC

I think the discussion involved shows there is certainly room for discussion there. I doubt we’re going to get an answer everyone is happy with, but at least we should discuss all the options to get the answer the most people are the most happy with

that being said, if ais is okay with it and everyone else would rather just uphold, I guess we can push that discussion back

Josh: he/they

09-08-2021 14:54:23 UTC

for Thank you and I am sorry again

Such a rookie mistake!

Kevan: City he/him

09-08-2021 14:55:57 UTC

for

Lulu: she/her

09-08-2021 15:22:38 UTC

for

ais523:

09-08-2021 16:08:28 UTC

for

Madrid:

09-08-2021 19:07:22 UTC

for

Janet: she/her

09-08-2021 19:32:30 UTC

for