Tuesday, November 29, 2005

Call for Judgment: While we’re at it…

Failed due to the enactment of Call for Judgment: Quick Fix. Failed by smith.

Adminned at 02 Dec 2005 14:56:46 UTC

...We may as well define how actions should be taken to prevent further problems.

Should this CFJ pass, add the following entry to the glossary: test

Actions that involve changing GDNT values must be taken by updating the GNDT, along with anything else required. Actions that involve changing pages in the Wiki must be taken by updating the Wiki, along with anything else required.

A action is considered taken after all required updates and costs for that action are finished or payed. If any costs and updates for an action aren’t fininshed or payed, then the action is not considered taken. If, while updating, the action would become illegal to take, then that action is considered illegal and all parital updates must be reversed.




29-11-2005 21:30:54 UTC

against  This should be done by proposal.


29-11-2005 21:38:19 UTC

for  Eh, but I guess i agree with it.

Kevan: City he/him

30-11-2005 10:33:15 UTC

Isn’t this all a bit meaninglessly tautological?


30-11-2005 11:47:42 UTC

yeah, that’s what i thought.  I’m tempted to vote FOR just to get it off the queue, though.



30-11-2005 12:29:15 UTC

against Propose it and I will vote for. As it stands, it will only hold the prossessing of the DoV…


30-11-2005 15:59:28 UTC

Yep.  Espeically given that CfJs take four days to fail.  we should really change that.


30-11-2005 17:13:41 UTC

Actually, DoVs don’t require the lack of CFJs to pass last time I checked. They need the lack of CFJs to fail.


30-11-2005 19:35:30 UTC



30-11-2005 21:39:19 UTC

(A pending CfJ which seems as though it will take the full 4 days to time-out does not necessarily prevent the DoV from failing—The current Archon may decide its legality)


01-12-2005 05:01:33 UTC

imperial It does seem like a lot of extra fat for the glossary.

The Lone Amigo:

01-12-2005 06:06:44 UTC



01-12-2005 07:23:44 UTC

You can’t vote IMP on a CfJ, either, folks.


01-12-2005 13:55:44 UTC

for ok, it could condensed later


01-12-2005 17:52:23 UTC

wow, that win paragraph is very contradictory and thus not working with the archon being able to have more power than the rules and if there is no clear distinction they can bypass cfjs and taht not… hmm… not the way things should be working


01-12-2005 19:24:46 UTC

against I suppose I should get this off the Queue…

Angry Grasshopper:

01-12-2005 19:36:20 UTC

Clearing the queue. If you propose it later I will consider it on its merits.

Angry Grasshopper:

01-12-2005 19:41:31 UTC


Since we’re waiting for either a quorum of FOR votes or four days.

Angry Grasshopper:

01-12-2005 19:43:30 UTC

Flipping coins.


01-12-2005 20:08:39 UTC

against  cov back