Monday, May 10, 2010

Call for Judgment: Solution B

Times out and fails 8-10. Ienpw.

Adminned at 15 May 2010 08:30:20 UTC

If CFJ “Solution A” passed, this CFJ has no effect. Otherwise, do the below:
After “The Vote will count as the same as the Victorious Blognomicer’s Vote” (if such a phrase exists) add “If a Blognomicer votes DEFERENTIAL on his own proposal, and the Victorious Blognomicer votes against, the proposal counts as being self-killed.”
After “The Vote will count as the same as the Victorious Blognomicker’s Vote” (if such a phrase exists) add “If a Blognomicker votes DEFERENTIAL on his own proposal, and the Victorious Blognomicker votes against, the proposal counts as being self-killed.”

Same reasoning as A.

Comments

redtara: they/them

10-05-2010 04:42:17 UTC

against

Darknight: he/him

10-05-2010 04:46:08 UTC

Again I ask why is it doubled?

Qwazukee:

10-05-2010 04:46:50 UTC

against I don’t think the rule is ambiguous.

redtara: they/them

10-05-2010 04:48:25 UTC

DK: In case Vitamin K passes before this is adminned.
Qwaz: I clearly do.

Qwazukee:

10-05-2010 04:54:16 UTC

Also, The text would appear in the Rule twice like DK says.

redtara: they/them

10-05-2010 05:00:32 UTC

After “The Vote will count as the same as the Victorious Blognomicer’s Vote” (if such a phrase exists)

After “The Vote will count as the same as the Victorious Blognomicker’s Vote” (if such a phrase exists)

Only one of the two phrases will appear at a time. Therefore only one condition will be satisfied. Therefore, only one will be added.

Qwazukee:

10-05-2010 05:01:19 UTC

Lol 1 letter, always gets me. I still don’t like it. :p

Darknight: he/him

10-05-2010 05:03:46 UTC

against

dbdougla:

10-05-2010 05:09:33 UTC

for

Galdyn:

10-05-2010 07:55:06 UTC

against

Kevan: he/him

10-05-2010 08:04:44 UTC

for Would seem easier to just replace “The Blognomicker who proposed it has Voted AGAINST it.” with “The vote of the Blognomicker who proposed it is AGAINST.”, though.

scshunt:

10-05-2010 09:04:54 UTC

for

Kevan: he/him

10-05-2010 11:09:57 UTC

[Coppro] If you think that a DEFERENTIAL from the proposer should become a self-kill, you may as well vote against your proposal now, which is currently resting on your ambiguous DEF.

spikebrennan:

10-05-2010 11:22:58 UTC

for

Keba:

10-05-2010 13:17:01 UTC

This does not need a CjF, so imperial because I like the general idea.

Klisz:

10-05-2010 16:45:41 UTC

Keba, DEF has no affect on CfJs.

Klisz:

10-05-2010 16:45:57 UTC

for

Klisz:

10-05-2010 16:46:52 UTC

This is currently passing 5-4, by the way, since Alethioscript doesn’t quite work on CfJs.

Kevan: he/him

10-05-2010 16:55:53 UTC

[Darth] Alethioscript works fine for me, and DEFs became legal on CfJs when Spikebrennan’s overhaul of the voting system enacted.

Kevan: he/him

10-05-2010 16:58:11 UTC

Oh, my mistake, you can cast a DEF “only if the Votable Matter is a Proposal”. So yes, that’s an illegal vote, Keba.

Klisz:

10-05-2010 16:58:39 UTC

@Kevan: Ah, never mind then.

Klisz:

10-05-2010 16:59:32 UTC

Simultaneous post with Kevan.

Bucky:

10-05-2010 17:16:29 UTC

against .  We don’t need to add the new clause twice in the same spot.

Klisz:

10-05-2010 17:19:20 UTC

@Bucky: This only adds it once; it checks to see whether or not “Vitamin K” passed.

Rodney:

10-05-2010 17:47:44 UTC

for This is the most sensible version.

Keba:

10-05-2010 17:50:44 UTC

Ah, of course. This is - for some reason - a CfJ. My DEF was not a vote (I would not say it was illegal thoug). Well,  against then.

SeerPenguin:

10-05-2010 20:43:27 UTC

for

Jumblin McGrumblin:

10-05-2010 22:35:00 UTC

for

Anonyman:

10-05-2010 22:56:04 UTC

against
A selfkill should only be so if you actively vote against your own proposal (in my opinion, anyway).

spikebrennan:

11-05-2010 15:45:44 UTC

Kevan is correct (the second time around) about my voting overhaul proposal- a DEF vote was not permitted on a CfJ (nor on a DoV) before my overhaul, and I intentionally did _not_ change that.

keecz:

11-05-2010 18:52:41 UTC

against

Qwazukee:

11-05-2010 19:48:13 UTC

Currently failing 8-8.

ais523:

14-05-2010 18:28:29 UTC

against and you can’t S/K a CFJ, of course.

Igthorn:

15-05-2010 05:31:18 UTC

against