Huh.  So you can.  Interesting, especially because after it fails there’s a chance that you might not be able to.

As I said, I don’t believe you achieved victory, but it is steeped in so much uncertainty that I won’t vote against this.

Once again,  because I don’t think the gamestate became Polarized when you claimed, and as a result either the Sequester page is not accurate or the gamestate is not Polarized.

I don’t understand that objection - I must have missed it in the cluttered last page, sorry. How would the Sequester page be inaccurate?

I’m still confused how that was that was two separate edits done at the same time as Clucky said it was on the last DOV. Just because it was affecting two different parts of the ruleset does not make it two seperate edits.

Hm, just a thought on these successive DoVs: the clause “When a DoV is failed, if it has a number of AGAINST Votes that exceed Quorum, the MN who posted it cannot make another DoV until after 120 hours (5 days) have passed since the time their DoV was failed.” seems to not work when an NM creates a second DoV before a first DoV gets failed.

Yeah, which is silly and should be changed so that the same person can not post a second DOV while the first is still pending but it isn’t a huge deal.

Also, until such a time as someone explains my previous question to me

Because public opinion changed I now eat my words. Hey, I’m a politician, aren’t I?

@Josh - The Sequester page is inaccurate if at least one extension was illegal and we were therefore Polarized for the last edit.

The gamestate is not Polarized if the “gamestate becomes Polarised at (TIME X)” never triggered due to the fact that TIME X went directly from after the present to before the present due to your edit.

However, on close examination, it looks like:
*All updates to the Polarization Time were legal EXCEPT your last one.
*Therefore the gamestate did become Polarized, but not until after your edit.

So .

Larry - yes, Josh only made one edit. But I think it is reasonable to assume that he was really performing two edits, one (illegally) removing the text that wasn’t support to be there and his other standard daily edit. Even if you want to claim it was all in one edit, I think you could also argue that part of an action being illegal doesn’t make the whole action illegal and so only the illegal parts should be reversed.

Well, obviously, after this is done, we should have a proposal adding a definition of the word “edit” to the core set ;-)

Maybe a definition of Keyword” too?

I still don’t know for sure if we’re polarized. :-/ 

Deferential votes don’t work on DOVs just so you know. It’s use is defined in rule 1.5 which is for Proposals.

For what it’s worth, I’m not sure about one edit action containing two notional edits, but I do agree with Clucky that one part of an action being illegal doesn’t render the whole action illegal - if I was reverting a similar action by another player I would remove the illegal element and leave the legal remainder untouched.

Are DoV’s always as fuzzy as this? 

No - some (most, probably) arise from the rules making provision for victory to be achieved, and then someone unambiguously achieving the necessary provisions, like in any other game. Some (like this one) arise from exploiting or scamming the rules, however, and those are often fraught.

BN is usually a bit more scam-averse than other Nomics, for some reason, so victory edge-calls are comparatively rare. Personally I find that achieving a straight victory is a bit of a snooze.

I normally wouldn’t think that an action being partially illegal makes it all illegal, but I took the edit as one action. Hopefully that explains my position. Also, aren’t Deferentials not useful on DoV’s?

Ah, sorry for the deferential votes, then. I may have misunderstood the clause “for the purposes of other rules unless otherwise specified” from 1.5.1.

I’m still a bit unsettled that this whole scheme is based on my mistake with my first attempt to use the wiki to make ONE edit to ONE rule. Especially since it was a result of my trying to make that ONE edit as clear as possible (obviously a standard subsequent edits to the Sequester didn’t need ;-) But, if that’s how it goes, then that’s how it goes. Lesson learned.

As to my attempt to differ, since the Speaker has voted   so shall I.