Hmm, there is a space in the screenshot name which isn’t in the username, though.

BlogNomic usernames can’t contain spaces.

But I think it reveals another gap which should be closed. I made a Proposal about it.

as it does not actually contain the name “Nadnavillus”. It contains a space. And as has been pointed out, BlogNomic usernames can’t contain spaces. So its impossible for it to contain the BlogNomic username

I’m famous!

Leaning mildly against per Clucky (if I crop a photo of the sign of my local BANJO SHACK, I’m not sure I could be said to have found Josh’s username), but more against per “where the found instance cannot be from a screen” now having enacted.

I would change my vote, but “where the found instance cannot be from a screen” was not enacted at the time of the upgrade request, so I feel like we’re bound to honor the request with the rules in place at the time of the request, rather than retroactively applying enacted rules in the time span between the request and its closing.

Up to you. When you cast your vote the ruleset said you “should vote FOR” based on your belief, and the ruleset is now silent on how you should vote, because this Request either doesn’t specify a valid Upgrade Benchmark, or implicitly specifies the “cannot be from a screen” one that it doesn’t meet. I guess no rule actually compels us to ever vote AGAINST these posts.

Not sure what will happen if this enacts - Josh will either get an Upgrade point with no Benchmark attached to it (so can claim the “not from a screen” one as well later on), or one with the “not from a screen” Benchmark implicitly attached even though this didn’t meet it.

Hmm, you do have a point. The Upgrade Request is supposed to contain “a single Upgrade Benchmark that it purports to meet”, and at this point, there is no Upgrade Benchmark that matches what this request claims. I forgot that the claimed Upgrade Benchmark is part of the gamestate attached to the request.

CoV