Obviously.

(Again, Clucky’s doesn’t work, because Calls for Judgement don’t pass; only Proposals do.)

way too unnecessarily wordy and so way too afraid RaichuKFM has another scam up his sleeve.

If my CfJ passes or is enacted or whatever you want to semantically call it, I’ll revert Raichu’s original CfJ.

If Raichu still feels his CfJ was legally enacted at that point then we can go from there.

I swear this is not a scam. Pinky promise! To the best of my knowledge, this is a completely legitimate and comprehensive manner of setting gamestate to the way you argue it was,

I’m going to argue semantics and the letter of the rules, yes, it’s a nomic; but I’m not scamming you with an actually broken version of a CfJ to undo this. That would just be, dumb.

REVERT THE PASSING DOESN’T MEAN ANYTHING AND YOU CAN’T JUST UNDO THINGS YOU DON’T LIKE.

Eep. Larry, you okay there? If anyone’s legitimately upset (about this, and not something else, a la Kevan), I think a break is in order.

Also, wait, did you change your mind about my scam’s Dynastic feasability? If so, why? If not, er, wrong button there, I think.

wrong button. Also, I’m fine. It was for emphasis not anger.

Right. Which is why Raichu shouldn’t have undone my re-opening of his illegally passed CfJ…

Which in my opinion is why you shouldn’t have undone the passing of his cfj in the first place. You have stated your opinion and he has stated his and you both just have to wait to see what everyone feels.

Also I have carefully read this and there isn’t a scam in this.

The way it should work, at least in theory, is that

a) Person A does a move

b) Person B thinks this move is illegal, and reverts it. They assume good faith that person A just made a mistake and don’t want to slow the game down

c) If Person A believes their move was legal, they then can use a CfJ to resolve the conflict

It should go to CfJ at point B if you can’t assume in good faith that it was a mistake, or can imagine it will be contested.

I’m pretty sure it was abundantly clear that we outright disagreed, not that I’d made a mistake. So uh. Yeah.

This is a petty and irrelevant argument in any case, and I don’t think reverting illegal actions without CfJ is actually permitted by the rules? I skimmed them for the mentions of illegality and found no relevant provisions. So the whole thing past my resolution was illegal, and my resolution itself was potentially illegal; the latter revisions don’t matter, at all, and so we can safely ignore them; this is to decide whether or not my original resolution was legal, or illegal.

This is the exact reason I asked that we didn’t take this to a mess of CfJs.

@RaichuKFM: If you wanted to clean up the potential scam in good faith, you should not have tried to achieve victory with it.

@Everyone else: Why didn’t you listen to me when I said the Official Positions rule was terrible for including Proxy? Every time I say that about a proposal and it passes X-1, it blows up in our face.

( )

Per Bucky’s second point on my DoV.

Also, I admit to attempting to win over attempting to fix the hole.

However, it doesn’t seem that there’s a hole.

I also don’t regret any of my actions other than, well, being wrong about the rules.

Anyways, time to clean this mess up.

Reading it closer, I’m still opposed to this primarily on grounds that I don’t think this does stuff CfJ’s should be doing, such as failing legally created DoV’s early. The CfJ is not a “proposal with slightly different rules”.

Clucky, you’ve killed me.

I’ve died of laughter.

Please just vote FOR already.

If you feel that way, why don’t you propose something that better defines what cfjs are allowed to do because as is they basically are proposals with different rules?

(Also, I feel like that last line was a tad rude of me, so I’d like to apologize.)

Uh, first two lines, of that last comment. My mind is frazzled today.

@Larrytheturtle: CfJs need unrestricted access to gamestate because they need to be able to revert any illegal action, including marking a Failed DoV Pending in a questionably-legal manner.

i didn’t stay I agreed with him, just that if he feels they are being used in a wrong way then he should propose something to clarify how he thinks it should work.

Yeah. I’d suggest making a Fair Play rule about CfJ abuse, rather than actually limiting their scope, if one is to do something, though I don’t think anything actually needs to be done.

I’m also considering a proposal to replace “urgent attention” with “urgent clarification” to help point out CfJ’s are there for clarification and dispute resolution, not passing new stuff

*say I agreed

No, I think that would be too limiting.

They’re a tool for a lot of things; not just fixing illegal actions; they’re the one check on a mad emperor, for instance.

Kinda random but what do people think of something where a proposal that alters core rules can’t be vetoed. I always have thought that should be a thing but it never came up so I haven’t done anything.

No, I think that needs to be vetoable, in case it would otherwise pass and break a Core rule.

yeah it certainly needs to be vetoable

Can someone else vote for on this?

Otherwise we have to hate several more hours for the DoV to time out before the game can start again.

Let’s clear this out, shall we?