Thursday, July 21, 2016

Call for Judgment: Recount

Passes 5-0. Does nothing as illegal action was already reverted—Clucky

Adminned at 21 Jul 2016 04:44:55 UTC

Revert the enactment of the proposal “Light up the Scoreboard”.

The proposal “Light up the Scoreboard” was enacted while the votes for it were 4-2.

To be clear, the following scribes posted comments on the proposal:

Larrytheturtle: Did not vote.

Bucky: Voted imperial, changed to against.

Clucky: Voted imperial, changed to against, changed to for.

GenericPerson: Voted imperial.

RaichuKFM: Voted against.

Brendan: Voted for. As the Editor, imperial votes are treated as for.

Adding in my vote as the author of the proposal, that leaves us at 4 for and 2 against. As Quorum is 5 and the proposal is less than 48 hours old, unless I missed something, the proposal should not have been enacted.

Comments

RaichuKFM:

07-21-2016 01:43:59 UTC

for  arrow Good catch.

I think what happened was Clucky counted either his Imperial or Bucky’s imperial as a for, even though they were undone later; I can’t blame him, since when I briefly checked it afterwards to see the new comments, I must have made the same mistake.

Bucky:

07-21-2016 02:16:36 UTC

for

Note that it isn’t “open for voting” currently and will therefore time out later than normal.

Larrytheturtle:

07-21-2016 02:17:22 UTC

for

Clucky:

07-21-2016 04:17:07 UTC

yeah I just didn’t realize bucky changed votes

but
against cause you don’t need a proposal to do this

Clucky:

07-21-2016 04:21:49 UTC

actually I think I double counted myself. Either way, its already been done

RaichuKFM:

07-21-2016 04:27:26 UTC

Instead of just, fiat editing the ruleset,

Which you can’t do, we’ve been over this,

You could have voted for this CfJ and passed it because there’s 4 votes FOR already and quorum is 5. But no, you have to pointlessly vote against, do an illegal action, and make a mess.

Clucky:

07-21-2016 04:29:09 UTC

I reverted an illegal action, because it was illegal. we’ve been over this.

Clucky:

07-21-2016 04:29:40 UTC

If you feel my reverting of an illegal action was illegal, feel free to post a CfJ about it

RaichuKFM:

07-21-2016 04:40:39 UTC

Clucky, I’m sorry, did I miss something, or didn’t we already agree that you can’t edit the Ruleset except in the manner the Ruleset explicitly allows,

And the Ruleset does not explicitly allow for undoing edits that were done to it illegally?

There was already a CfJ about this! I’m getting sick of you doing whatever the heck you want and expecting it’s always the job of whoever disagrees with you to actually do a CfJ.

You did a thing, that was at best only controversially legal, by undoing that illegal thing, when you could have just voted FOR and enacted this and completely unambiguously legally fixed it!

If you’d just vote for now we can pass this immediately and no matter which one of us is right things would be exactly the same and we wouldn’t have to actually mess with the gamestate while figuring out who’s right, when, CLEARLY, we’re really really bad at actually reaching the same conclusion as the other from prior CfJs, since we’ve both said we’ve been over this and think that things were settled in completely different manners!

Clucky:

07-21-2016 04:44:30 UTC

there was lots of you arguing your point in a CfJ but there was never, as far as I’m aware, a CfJ saying that the DECADE LONG TRADITION of people reverting illegal actions in blognomic is illegal.

that being said, I forgot the rule change that lets CfJ’s get an auto FOR vote so the whole “fail this so it doesn’t pass after the proposal passes legally” isn’t a problem and all just vote for and no-op this proposal

RaichuKFM:

07-21-2016 04:46:23 UTC

Thank you.