Are non-players even allowed to update the sidebar? If not, admins would be effectively prevented from effecting their own name changes, as their names would be removed from the sidebar the instant they enacted the proposal.

Upholding illegal, future official posts made while this is pending is possibly not a good idea.

Clucky’s vote has edit-locked it, so we have the choice of either sternly staring at redtara while this enacts or failing it and trying again.

@redtara Arguably “Idle admins can resolve Votable Matters as if they were not idle” would cover it.

@Josh the third option - vote for my new CfJ :)

I’m not sure “This means that redtara has not been a player since that change took place” follows. It would have done under the old version of the idle-sidebar rule (where idleness was explicitly and unwisely defined by what the sidebar said), but we fixed that, it’s just another piece of gamestate now, no different to a number in a wiki table. If the rule was “players on Floor 2 may not post proposals” and Redtara was erroneously listed as being on Floor 2 when legally they were on Floor 3, we wouldn’t need to uphold anything, we’d just fix the error in the table, wouldn’t we?

no pls if this cfj does not pass and the other one does im screwed

To the point, Kevan, Josh pointed out on discord that the rules state “For gamestate which is tracked in a specific place (such as a wiki page), any alteration of that gamestate as a result of a Citizen’s action is (and can only be) applied by editing that data in that place”.

Although I notice now that this applies only to ALTERATIONS. My status as a citizen was not being altered, it was my name - I would interpret this as meaning that my actions were legal, but my name change was not, until Josh updated the sidebar.

@redtara In that case I’d still argue that this CfJ is needed, if only to confirm that the player called Ienpw masquerading as an unknown entity called redtara is actually who we all thought they were.

But, look, this is a magic rock to fend off tigers: it becomes foxed when we say it’s fixed, so I think we should just pass this on the basis that it makes a potential maybe-maybe-not problem go away. (Kevan, I think that your objection is not correct per the section quoted by redtara, and also present in the comment field on the post.)

Yeah this CfJ has no effect if we’re wrong and is a good fix if we’re right. But the real fix is to update the rools.

I- *rules.

It’s not worst case zero effect, though, this CfJ also upholds any, say, illegally posted and enacted DoVs that Redtara might make while it’s pending.

I think fair play would deal with that, but also: no it doesn’t!

It upholds “votes and official posts in this dynasty as having been legally carried out by a non-idle Citizen” - which is to say, the casting of votes and the posting of posts - it doesn’t blanket-uphold the illegal enactment of anything. Enactment would be an action, and that is only upheld by this if it “would otherwise have been legal if carried out themselves as a non-idle Citizen”.

It would point to an illegally enacted DoV or CfJ and say “this was legally carried out by a non-idle citizen”. What does it mean to “carry out” a CfJ?

...to post one? “Call” is the verb in “Call for Judgement,” right?

In what possible world would “Uphold all of redtara’s votes and official posts” include their enactments?

How about this, if I do that then you can all vote to ban me in good conscience.

[Josh] Seems as or more likely to refer to resolving one, to me: “carry out” is has no special ruleset definition, and in plain English means “perform or complete”.

But I still can’t see how this is different from a hypothetical “players on Floor 2 may not post proposals”, where Redtara was incorrectly listed as being on Floor 2 when they were on Floor 3 all along. We’d update their Floor number, but wouldn’t need to uphold their actions while their Floor was inaccurate - their Floor was 3 all along and they could make proposals all along, the Floor was just tracked incorrectly (and here, they were non-idle all along, this was just tracked incorrectly).

for the record, i fully agree with kevan that this is an unnecessary fix (i’m just voting bc its better safe than sorry), but i don’t think this is scammable in the way kevan is saying

I’m agnostic about whether or not this is required - I’d accept that there’s a tension between the game as it’s played and the text as written, and that applying a strict word-of-the-rule interpretation would be detrimental elsewhere - but the argument about wording on the question of whether this is abusable is wild to me. I think it would only work if posting and resolving a post were concatenatable actions in sense, but I personally can’t find my way to it.

I think uphold if legal is passable.
Consider the worst case of redtara posting a DoV, then illegally admin it
In which case since the posting of the DoV was legal but the admin isn’t, the posting of the DoV will be preserved but I don’t think the players would pass that.

[Josh] It’s just how we decide to interpret plain English, isn’t it, rather than whether actions are concatenatable?

“Bob grew a third arm, so we carried out a CfJ to remove one of his arms.”

  “So he has two arms now?”

“Oh, no, the CfJ failed.”

We clearly disagree on the plain English reading, Kevan.

I simply don’t see how “an official post” having been “legal carried out” could possibly include its enactment, which is an entirely separate action.

This appears to be an irreconcilable difference of opinion but if you are sincerely concerned about this then I suggest that you change your vote when this is approaching quorum, to reduce the window in which redtara could make use of any opportunity.

CoV, let’s see what happens.