Status:
A-OK
- Time: 10:45:26 PM 10-Aug-2008
Navigation
Active Players
- SubWolf
Active forum topics
Recent comments
- Players, we need you!
3 days 15 hours ago - JOIN
3 weeks 3 days ago - JOIN
3 weeks 6 days ago - JOIN
4 weeks 3 hours ago - This passed before
4 weeks 9 hours ago - Makes sense.
4 weeks 1 day ago - We only had 2 active players
4 weeks 1 day ago - Well, besides the fact that
4 weeks 1 day ago - Agreed. Some of us were
4 weeks 1 day ago - I'm so surprised at this
4 weeks 1 day ago
Contracts
- 06/29/2008 - 11:20
- 05/18/2008 - 01:41
- 05/26/2008 - 21:50
- 05/23/2008 - 19:07
- 05/14/2008 - 16:27
- 05/16/2008 - 00:11
- 05/14/2008 - 13:59
User login
Who's online
There are currently 0 users and 0 guests online.
Who's new
- BitterOldPunk
- SubWolf
- gerryblog
- vernondalhart
- Meatbomb
Syndicate
Sorry, screwed up the voting options in the other one.
Spork 52 Voting Spork
The voting option designated "Spork" shall be understood as a vote for whichever option currently has the most votes at any given moment. Non-voting players shall be understood to have implicitly voted "Spork."
At the moment I closed the vote, it has two explicit votes for abstain and one explicit vote for no. At that moment, all players that hadn't yet voted had voted "Spork," thereby causing the bill to fail 0-1-6.
--
I'll add that I don't think this is really something that should even be up for a vote, as jay's decision to reopen a failed vote was itself illegal. The process is clearly on my side, and I hope you'll all do the right thing and return to me my king.
That is not an early close provision, that is a provision to judge the number of votes after a close.
The pac-man proposal did not receive enough yes or no votes per Spork 1 for an early successful close. Some of us had not yet voted.
Otherwise proposals will run the 48 hours defined in Spork 1.
There is no provision to fail or close a proposal in less than 48 hours.
I truly believe the rules are on my side.
It doesn't say "after a close." It says "at any given time." The only rule is that the implicit Spork votes can't count towards quorum.
Once quorum was reached, it had three explicit votes and four implicit votes, causing it to fail.
That's what the rules say -- maybe not what we intended them to say, but that's what they say. We've used this to early-close failures before.
I think it's pretty uncool that you're cheating me out of my king like this. Don't be a hater, bros.
There is no "quorum of three" because Spork 1 does not call for a quorum of 3, it calls for three people to explicitly vote Yes or No.
And the wrap-around language was in the Chess Rules before the moves were made, and still are.
If at least half the players vote within 48 hours of a Proposal's posting...
That's the the condition listed. The "Yes or No" thing is in a different clause.
Look, I'm obviously going to lose on this because of the tyranny of the majority, but it's pretty lame. You can't reopen a failed bill just to screw somebody, even if that person is totally awesome at Spork Chess.
We closed Good Housekeeping early using the Spork failure clause.
If at least half the players vote within 48 hours of a Proposal's posting, and more players vote or revote Yes than vote No before such expiration, then the Proposal shall be considered approved and its text shall be executed.
This is an early Pass option. It does not mention what happens if there are more No than Yes votes before 48 hours.
Implicit votes of "Spork" shall not count for purposes of establishing a quorum of three votes as required by Spork 1.
This confirms Spork votes have no place in this conversation. It mentions a sometimes-invalid "quorum of three" but only in the context of making sure Sporks don't matter.
I don't recall if Good Housekeeping was guaranteed to fail.
It was. I remember it like it was yesterday!
If I don't get my way I'm swearing revenge on the forces of jay for all time. SubWolf, I will win this game for you.
I do have you on the tyranny angle, since the 3 of us could have voted in a new wrap-around rule without your help. I mentioned otherthread I'm fixing that later.
But I do consider this a clean kill.
PS: jay, can you open up a new official document, JUDGMENTS? This and the previous judgments go on there. Remember, y'all, Judgments now have the force of Sporks, so your desire to unlawfully cheat me out of my beloved king should be considered carefully.
Official Documents can only be created by the rules.
This one was -- we just whiffed on it because we never had Judgments before. Check your Spork 5.
Done and in the sidebar.
I only look at the rules when I'm doing something shady.
SubWolf: Vote "yes" on this or I'll kill your king.
You have 12 hours.
Also, jay, if you change your vote on this I'll change my vote in the "overrule jay" thread.
PS: What happens if it's a tie? I guess we need another judgment then? This could get sticky.
SubWolf is still under contract for Hellbound gerryblog Must Not Win Chess Round 2, and I've just posted a bounty on your remaining pieces.
I submit there's no provision for an early close on an RFJ, Dave's is still open, and the last proposal didn't pass because it was illegally proposed.
This RFJ must remain open 48 hours as well unless withdrawn.
I accept the judgment of this cheating, cheating court on both judgments. Proposals may be open again.