307 (Final): Amendment of 212

[Rezantis]

Rule 212 shall be amended to read:

--

212. If players disagree about the legality of a move or the interpretation or application of a rule, then the person with the most points scored will be considered the judge; a person chosen may pass on their judgement and hand the question down to the person with the next highest amount, and so on. If two or more players have the same number of points, the judge will be the player who -most recently- completed their turn. Disagreement for the purposes of this rule may be created by the insistence of any player. This process is called invoking Judgment.

The player who actually prompts the judgement by insisting that judgement be called (if multiple players call for a judge, the first one to request the judgement shall be considered the person who prompted it), that person cannot become the judge in this way.

A player who passes judgement in such a way will lose twenty-five points -unless- at least half of the remaining eligible voters state their approval of the judge's decision.

The Judge's Judgment may be overruled only by a unanimous vote of the other players taken before the next turn is begun. If a Judge's Judgment is overruled, then the player preceding the Judge in the playing order becomes the new Judge for the question, and so on, except that no player is to be Judge during his or her own turn or during the turn of a team-mate.

Unless a Judge is overruled, one Judge settles all questions arising from the game until the current turn has ended, including questions as to his or her own legitimacy and jurisdiction as Judge.

When Judgement has been invoked, all turns are frozen in the phase that they are currently in until a simple majority of players consent to them continuing. All 'frozen' turns barring the one that instigated the judgement must resume play at the same time.

New Judges are not bound by the decisions of old Judges. New Judges may, however, settle only those questions on which the players currently disagree and that affect the completion of the turn in which Judgment was invoked. All decisions by Judges shall be in accordance with all the rules then in effect; but when the rules are silent, inconsistent, or unclear on the point at issue, then the Judge shall consider game-custom and the spirit of the game before applying other standards.

--

Indulge my curiousity about where you all stand, since I didn't get everyone's opinion in the draft thread. :p

[Rye Coal]

Functionality issues:

How does a  player invoke judgment?  What is the  procedure?  What ensures that the invoked protest will actually be judged? A player may invoke judgment yet as constructed no one actually has to step up to judge. A  simple majority vote, of eligible voters, would get the game going again and the entire process would be for nothing! This bypass could be easily executed by the very majority that created the questionable legislation in the first place.

Teams are not a part of the game. They have not be defined in any way - if you would like to clearly define them then fine but since that does not pertain to the anything in rule 212 it must be done in another proposal. The teams safe guard is not a bad idea but in its current vague state it is not acceptable.

Once a judge is over ruled does is the judgment over or is it passed to another judge to judge?

Under current phrasing there is nothing to stop repeated invocations of the same dispute either to stall the game or to overturn a previous judge's ruling.

Is there an appropriate time frame for a judge's acceptance to judge and their ruling? As it stands once invoked the game is frozen until a judge steps up and passes judgment - which could be stretched out as long as the judge desires.

--

The difference between this system and the current system:

- The selection process has been changed
- Rulings have been placed under the direct influence of a majority power.

--

The vulnerabilities of this system:

A- a majority can circumvent the entire process
B- Interpretation of the rules may vary from turn to turn
C- a judge will only accept the position for one of three reasons:

1. The judge has a vested interest in the interpretation of the dispute     (personal gain out weighed by possible 25 pt penalty).
2. The judge is in the majority, which will approve their ruling
3. The judge will be compensated for their decision, thus circumventing the 25-point penalty.

D- The system can be used to stall the game indefinitely


My personal ideas are on the subject are already posted in the game dicussion forum.


Char Coal

[CasualSax]

While it does have flaws, I'm in favor of a majority being able to circumvent it....and its much better than the current system, in that it doesn't require unanimous vote to over-rule the judgement.

[Carthrat]

I actually prefer a unanimous vote required to circumvent judgement, mainly because a simply majority is *not* that hard to get if there's only a little doubt, and I'd rather propel the game forward than trapping it in one place. I approve.

[CasualSax]

It doesn't have to be a simple majority - 2/3rds is fine.  Currently it takes two people to mess with the system:  a judge, the person to request judgement (this could be the judge..), and a person to shoot down an over-ruling.

As long as they don't mind risking the points.

[Rezantis]

-I'm going to warn you people of this, because I'm nice, but . . .

Twenty-four hour limit on voting, guys, and so far only one person has voted.

I approve.

Two, now.

[Rezantis]

Functionality issues:

How does a  player invoke judgment?  What is the  procedure?  What ensures that the invoked protest will actually be judged? A player may invoke judgment yet as constructed no one actually has to step up to judge. A  simple majority vote, of eligible voters, would get the game going again and the entire process would be for nothing! This bypass could be easily executed by the very majority that created the questionable legislation in the first place.

Someone just needs to insist that it be so.

And no, you can't repeatedly invoke judgement; check the rule more closely.  If someone becomes judge they're the judge until that turn ends.  Moreover, you can't call judgement on a point that's already been judged because judges can't overturn the decisions of previous judgements.

Teams are not a part of the game. They have not be defined in any way - if you would like to clearly define them then fine but since that does not pertain to the anything in rule 212 it must be done in another proposal. The teams safe guard is not a bad idea but in its current vague state it is not acceptable.

I added nothing about teams.  That part was already in rule 212, that was not the part of the rule I was proposing to change.

Once a judge is over ruled does is the judgment over or is it passed to another judge to judge?

That's explained in the rule.  "If a Judge's Judgment is overruled, then the player preceding the Judge in the playing order becomes the new Judge for the question"

Under current phrasing there is nothing to stop repeated invocations of the same dispute either to stall the game or to overturn a previous judge's ruling.

Wrong.

Is there an appropriate time frame for a judge's acceptance to judge and their ruling? As it stands once invoked the game is frozen until a judge steps up and passes judgment - which could be stretched out as long as the judge desires.

No, there is not, nor was there already - but a unanimous vote of all the players could overrule the judge's judgement before he ever takes it and move the position of judge to another person.

A- a majority can circumvent the entire process

I consider this a good thing.

B- Interpretation of the rules may vary from turn to turn

Given that the interpretation of the rules changes from player to player, I don't particularly like the idea of having someone else's interpretation forced down my throat for a long period of time.

C- a judge will only accept the position for one of three reasons:

1. The judge has a vested interest in the interpretation of the dispute     (personal gain out weighed by possible 25 pt penalty).
2. The judge is in the majority, which will approve their ruling
3. The judge will be compensated for their decision, thus circumventing the 25-point penalty.

Generally, yes.  Personally, I'd rather the judge serve the rule of the majority; but if he sees an unpopular ruling that he wishes to make anyway, -he may do it-.  He just has to spend points to go against the will of the many.

D- The system can be used to stall the game indefinitely

I disagree, as explained above.

I honestly think, Char Coal, that you misunderstood a great deal of my proposal. :/

[SuperusSophia]

I actually like the rule as stands, and is probably the best thing we are going to get as far as a fair judge.

I approve

[CasualSax]

I officially approve.

[Rye Coal]

no, ie not approved

[Rye Coal]

Quintopia contacted me by phone and has requested that I indicate his vote is no, as his internet is down and has been so all week.

[CasualSax]

not to be anal, but the rules are pretty clear about how to vote..

[Rezantis]

Yeah.  It's a clear violation of the rules, there's not even any doubt there.  Check the rules on how to vote again.

Anyway, measure fails 4-1. :)

EDIT:  Hold that.  The no vote is questionable.  We're not sure if the measure passed or not; stay tuned!

[Rezantis]

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 . . .

[Rye Coal]

Sly sax very sly- your

no?...

post has been deleted, how convienient. if there are records of when posts are edited arnt there records of their prievious contents?