307 (Final): Amendment of 212

[Rezantis]

To clarify:  At the time of that section of rule 202 being applicable, we had no judge.  Now we do, but I don't believe I'm allowed to make a retroactive decision, I will have to consult the rules.

[Rye Coal]

alright i see how this is going to run - you deleted your request for judgement

[Rezantis]

alright i see how this is going to run - you deleted your request for judgement

I did, having made it with the misconception that it was still my turn.  It was not, so I no longer had an issue to request judgement for.  Incidentally, no rule forbids what I did.

[CasualSax]

alright i see how this is going to run - you deleted your request for judgement

Nowhere does it say one can not retract a request for judgement; therefore its valid.

[Rye Coal]

Actually, Rye, now that I notice it, your post was last edited after the deadline . . .

Hmm . . . Rye's post with his vote was last changed -after- the voting deadline, we don't actually have a way to know what his vote was, or even if he'd voted, pre-deadline . . .

please note that this post has been edited three times and originally asked for a judgment on the legality of my vote since it had an edit time after the deadline.

[CasualSax]

Why exactly are we noting this?  Nothing there is against the rules..

[Rezantis]

please note that this post has been edited three times and originally asked for a judgment on the legality of my vote since it had an edit time after the deadline.

This is indeed noted for the record; it's irrelevant, however, since judgement was asked and I am the judge, as I would have been had I left that request intact.  I decided after having done so that requesting my own judgement was at the time unnecessary.  Again, I point out that no rules were broken in this retraction.

[Rye Coal]

alright i see how this is going to run - you deleted your request for judgement

Nowhere does it say one can not retract a request for judgement; therefore its valid.

If that was the true intention then the post should not have been edited to look like there had never actually been a post. Instead the request should have been retracted in an addtional post.

[Rezantis]

If that was the true intention then the post should not have been edited to look like there had never actually been a post. Instead the request should have been retracted in an addtional post.

I was well aware that you and others had already read the post at that point in time.  Your request is noted; it's probably a good thing to keep in mind for future legislation.

[Rye Coal]

by deleting it, so you have weasled your way around a very binding situation  regarding the judgmenet of your proposal legality of enacting 212.

[Rezantis]

It was posted under a misconception.  As I said, it makes little difference; you have invoked judgement and I am the judge, as I would have been had I left my request intact; voting already having ended at that time.

If you'd like me to pass judgement on my own validity as judge I shall do so, the rules permit me to do that.

[CasualSax]

While we're in the middle of pointing fingers about manipulation, Quintopia, go ahead and post - you're not fooling anyone about your internet being down.  Besides the fact that the forum says your on, it also says your last login time was Wed Mar 23, 2005 7:56 pm - which means you had your chance to post your vote.

[Rezantis]

While we're in the middle of pointing fingers about manipulation, Quintopia, go ahead and post - you're not fooling anyone about your internet being down.  Besides the fact that the forum says your on, it also says your last login time was Wed Mar 23, 2005 7:56 pm - which means you had your chance to post your vote.

Huh.  I didn't think to check that, although it did seem more than suspicious, I agree.

No rules against that either, though.

[Rezantis]

Anyway, I'm not passing judgement on this issue at all, I'm simply not allowed to under the rules.

It's also worth noting that, as judgement has been invoked, all current turns are frozen until a majority of players consent to continuation.

[quintopia]

Hello, I am back.  You are wrong about my internet, though.  My home internet connection stayed down well past my time for voting, and I managed to get on late last night.  I let my roommate use my computer here at school earliest last night, and since I left this site open, he may have accidentally reinstatiated my cookie.  (At least he didn't post anything under my name.)  It doesn't matter, though, whether I was online or not, the fact remains: I could not vote.