Monday, January 28, 2013

Story Post: TABLOID HEADLINE: Clucky Flip-Clops On Self-Kill Softies

In this post, Clucky said (AND I QUOTE):

We should penalize the self-killers

HOWEVER, a mere eight minutes later, he voted against this proposal, which sets out to penalise Honourable Members who change their vote - a category that includes by definition anybody self-killing their own proposal. That contradiction remains unexplained.

I anticipate that this will be challenged but I think it’s time to build up a corpus of case history on what constitutes acceptable levels of commitment dispute.

posted by Josh at 28 Jan 2013 21:14:37 UTC Comments (4)

Comments

Clucky: he/him

28-01-2013 22:22:51 UTC

Josh and Big Media might try to paint me as a flip-flopper, but I would like to point out that the proposal he mentioned only refer to the event where an Honorable members “changes their valid voting icon”. The vast majority of self-killers, true to their vial form, do not “change their valid voting *icon*”, but merely change their valid vote. So not only did the proposal fail to properly punish most self-killers, but it also punished non-self killers as well. The negatives did not overcome the small positive of punishing a small percentage of self-killers. The well reasoned readers will be aware of this and view this as nothing more than slander and yellow journalism at its lowest form.

RaichuKFM: she/her

28-01-2013 22:41:30 UTC

...Flip-Clops?

nqeron:

28-01-2013 22:45:12 UTC

I’m with Clucky on this.  It’s not a ‘change’ if the initial vote is only implicit.

Purplebeard:

29-01-2013 08:05:03 UTC

Just saying that we “should penalize” something is not a commitment to support any and all penalties for that act, up to the death penalty. Furthermore, the proposal in question affected more than just self-killers and the Honourable Member Clucky gave no indication that they specifically opposed that part.