307 (Final): Amendment of 212

[tinuviel]

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.

Actually, if you did indeed post your request for judgement after your turn had ended, and we are operating under the assumption that your turn has ended successfully and your legislation has passed...then by your own rule you cannot be Judge:
212 Amendment states that "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. "
Unfortunately, I missed all the drama, but it would appear that you invoked Judgement, and did not retract it officially.  
Besides which, according to the newly amended 212 and the scores currently posted, Leus would be Judge, as he has the highest score.

[Rezantis]

Nice catch.  However, there was no insistance; I requested, then realized that what I was asking for judgement on was irrelevant, and retracted my request as being pointless upon realizing my misinterpretation of the facts.  An official retraction is not required under the rules, nor was my request particularly official in the first place.

Actually, if you were correct, Quintopia would be the judge because the point scores are taken from the beginning of the circuit of turns.  However, were we to agree that Quintopia was the judge for this reason, my turn would evidently have been completed.  

This is nonetheless not entirely relevant, because having legally retracted my request before any action was taken, Rye Coal (with his judgement request and repeated insistences) has in fact promted the judgement by insisting.

[tinuviel]

Nice catch.  However, there was no insistance; I requested, then realized that what I was asking for judgement on was irrelevant, and retracted my request as being pointless upon realizing my misinterpretation of the facts.  An official retraction is not required under the rules, nor was my request particularly official in the first place.

It may not be required, but it would certainly contribute to friendliness and lack of misunderstanding.  People are less likely to think you're fucking with them if you explain yourself, rather than going back and making it appear that you had never invoked Judgement.  :D

Actually, if you were correct, Quintopia would be the judge because the point scores are taken from the beginning of the circuit of turns.  However, were we to agree that Quintopia was the judge for this reason, my turn would evidently have been completed.  

How does that make any sense?  Quintopia, Leus' Butt Man, has zero points.  

This is nonetheless not entirely relevant, because having legally retracted my request before any action was taken, Rye Coal (with his judgement request and repeated insistences) has in fact promted the judgement by insisting.

I'm still not certain that deleting your post constitutes a legal retraction, but as the rules say nothing whatsoever, that's merely my opinion.  Regardless of who, then, requested the Judgement, if your above logic is correct and I'm just missing something obvious, then Quintopia is still the Judge, so why are you two arguing over who is Judge?

*edit: Ok, so I reread your amendment, and so you're saying that at the beginning of this circuit of turns, everyone had the same point score, and quintopia finished his turn most recently, therefore he would be the Judge?  I see now, and still don't see why you two are debating this, then.  :P  We're going to need to start keeping track of scores at the beginning of each round, with this rule in place.
Note that I indicated my edit rather than scrapping my post, so as to decrease confusion.  Common courtesy, yay.

[Rezantis]

No, we're debating whose turn it is because if Char Coal was the one to request judgement on his turn, then I am in fact the judge.  And since Judge's can't make retroactive decisions, if it is Char Coal's turn and Leus' Butt Man Quintopia is the judge (which he is not), then he can't pass judgement affecting anything that happened on my turn.   Personally, I believe that I am the Judge and it is Char Coal's turn - my turn having completed; Quintopia, Leus' Butt Man, believes that he is the judge and it is still my turn.

Also, I probably should have posted again - I strongly recommend this get fixed in some future legislation.  Let this entire episode be a lesson to people who leave it to one-minute-before-time-to-submit-a-questionable-vote.  I do appreciate your editing your post to lessen the confusion, and since my point is made I will no longer be engaging in such hijinks in this thread. :)

On a side note, I do think this entire argument is performing the valuable service of pointing out flaws in our current system -and- the one I proposed; although I could potentially have solved this in a more even way through discussion I think that forcing us all to analyse these rules in such a way is far more beneficial and effective overall.

Furthermore, I would like to state that I am confident that the disagreement can still be settled amicably and fairly.

[tinuviel]

No, we're debating whose turn it is because if Char Coal was the one to request judgement on his turn, then I am in fact the judge.  And since Judge's can't make retroactive decisions, if it is Char Coal's turn and Leus' Butt Man Quintopia is the judge (which he is not), then he can't pass judgement affecting anything that happened on my turn.   Personally, I believe that I am the Judge and it is Char Coal's turn - my turn having completed; Quintopia, Leus' Butt Man, believes that he is the judge and it is still my turn.

Right, I see what you're saying and I agreed...until I read back through your amendment more closely, and found that nowhere does it say that "the point scores are taken from the beginning of the circuit of turns."  So I maintain that Leus is the rightful Judge here.  (Which is probably a good thing anyway, as he hasn't played a part in this disagreement)

On a side note, I do think this entire argument is performing the valuable service of pointing out flaws in our current system -and- the one I proposed; although I could potentially have solved this in a more even way through discussion I think that forcing us all to analyse these rules in such a way is far more beneficial and effective overall.

Furthermore, I would like to state that I am confident that the disagreement can still be settled amicably and fairly.

And I agree, and hope that we all have a better idea of where we need to concentrate our future legislation and debate.   :D