We just, just fixed this.  Also, you’ve screwed up the wording I think.  If this is close to passing, I’ll be unidling to vote against it.

@Excalabur: What’s the wording flaw?

Bucky: flaw, not loophole.  It doesn’t delete ‘being vetoed’ from the reasons that the oldest pending proposal is failable.

Because it was a stupid “fix” in the first place. We can propose to delete the redundancy later.

It should be marked as Vetoed, not failed. By this wording, it would be put in the wrong category (basically, X sign instead of |X| sign). Small issue, but issue none the less. 

I don’t understand what is all this veto trend about, but I hated to read the previous “please veto me” posts :)

@Alzhaid: This makes it so that once something is vetoed, it can be failed automatically, as opposed to waiting for the queue.

@Wak: That’s how it’s been before, so whenever you’ve marked a proposal as Vetoed, you’ve been violating the ruleset…

For the benefit of new players, the “vetos fail immediately” clause has been proposed and revoked a couple of times in the game’s history - player seem fairly evenly split on its merits. The last time we got rid of it was with this proposal last month, the voting discussion covering some of the arguments for and against.

Currently 4-3.

Seems reasonable… consequently, I’m sure this will come back to bite me in the ass.

5-3…

Ok, I have just been taking a long stroll through the archives so I can’t remember but does the current ruleset provide for any way to overturn a veto? (I think it has in past rounds.)

No, it does not.

5-4…

tecslicer: nope.  Note that immediate-failing, as proposed here, makes veto-overturn-rules even harder to enact, since voting closes when the proposal is adminned.

The only recourse for egregious use of the veto is the Call for Judgment.

I don’t necessarily see what is wrong with it, but I don’t like how it feels.