The wording on this is a bit convoluted.

What he said. Holding off on voting until I understand for sure what this does. :p

This is standard wording to recover from a historical game-breaking slipup, and has been used time and again in Agora and B. Basically, it changes the gamestate to the non-broken state it would be in had the proposal been correct in the first place, rather than leaving it in the current potentially broken state (with “quorum” undefined); it won’t overturn, say, lilomar’s DoV, though, as that passes merely based on votes, not definitions.

still waiting until my dov is resolved, but inclined towards being in favor of.

, because who knows what historical changes this might cause?

  until after lilomar’s DoV is resolved.

pending further analysis

looks dangerous.

I’m not sure about ais’ assertion that this CfJ would not undo the DoV, as the CfJ allows for a interpretation based on a hypothetical. It’s asking the enacting admin to change the gamestate to what it would be if that string didn’t exist; if the string didn’t exist then neither would the DoV. It seems to me that this CfJ doesn’t so much undo the DoV as retcon it out of existence, as a literal interpretation of the CfJ seems to permit the enacting admin to go on a deleting spree.

per Josh.

I would prefer something along the lines of “If the Gamestate is not currently recorded correctly in the ruleset, change Gamestate to match the ruleset as of the posting of this CfJ.”

  to speed things up

CoV so it can be adminned quickly; it seems unlikely to parse.