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
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
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.
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.
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.
-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.
Quote from: "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.
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.
QuoteTeams 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.
Quote
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"
QuoteUnder 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.
QuoteIs 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.
Quote
A- a majority can circumvent the entire process
I consider this a good thing.
Quote
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.
Quote
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.
Quote
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. :/
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
I officially approve.
no, ie not approved
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.
not to be anal, but the rules are pretty clear about how to vote..
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!
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 . . .
Sly sax very sly- your
Quoteno?...
post has been deleted, how convienient. if there are records of when posts are edited arnt there records of their prievious contents?
Quote from: "Rye Coal"Sly sax very sly- your Quoteno?...
post has been deleted, how convienient. if there are records of when posts are edited arnt there records of thier prievious contents?
*grin*
No, actually, none at all. No records are kept of posts deleted, either.
-Ah! That's not entirely true. I -think- we keep records of what time posts are deleted and by what user, if you want I can look.
Anyway, I'm just going to drag some rules out for a quick dustoff. This one can go at the top. ;)
--
116. Whatever is not prohibited or regulated by a rule is permitted and unregulated, with the sole exception of changing the rules, which is permitted only when a rule or set of rules explicitly or implicitly permits it.
--
Next:
--
105. Every player is an eligible voter. An eligible voter has 24 hours from the submission of the final version of the proposal to vote by replying to the forum thread where the proposal is placed, clearly stating their vote. If this is not done within the 24 hour time period their vote is forfeited.
--
We have no evidence that a clear statement of a vote was posted by Char Rye Coal in this thread.
Quintopia, Leus' Butt Man, has not replied to this thread clearly stating his vote.
Both of these no votes are therefore impermissible under rule 105.
Therefore, under:
--
205. An adopted rule-change takes full effect at the moment of the completion of the vote that adopted it.
--
This rule is now in effect.
Incidentally - my turn is now ended. Char Coal's turn has begun.
sorry my friend but you requested judgement and the outcome of your vote is not final until the judge passes judgement.
by the way while it is still your turn- I'm invoking judgment regarding the legality of my posting quintopia's vote.
Actually, the outcome is final, theres nothing about a turn *ending* in the judge rule, only the holding off on the next player's turn.
sorry but my original post was before the deadline an cannot be dicounted unless the judge discounts it . the proposal is dead.
you have 24 hours to post your vote *in a clear fasion.* You completely failed to do so before the edit, and when you clarified, you did it in such a way that we now can't even debate whether it *was* clear. The proposal passes.
You edited your post after the deadline; we've got absolutely no record of what you posted before the deadline or if it even qualified as a vote.
some more difficutlies gentelmen. Rule 202: there are two phases that come after the voting phase. Phase 5: the Judge (in this case Quintopia) tallies the votes and enacts the legislation. Then the Judge (in this case still quintopia) calculates and posts your score. Untill ALL the phases of your turn are complete it is still your turn. I may choose to start my turn at any time after Rizantis's { Rezantis, the Count of Naysaying } voting phase has begun, but I am not required to start it until his score is posted.
Quote from: "Rye Coal"by the way while it is still your turn- I'm invoking judgment regarding the legality of my posting quintopia's vote.
My turn ended as soon as the rule went into force; which happened as soon as voting ended as according to rule 205. It's now your turn.
Quote from: "Rye Coal"some more difficutlies gentelmen. Rule 202: there are two phases that come after the voting phase. Phase 5: the Judge (in this case Quintopia) tallies the votes and enacts the legislation. Then the Judge (in this case still quintopia) calculates and posts your score. Untill ALL the phases of your turn are complete it is still your turn. I may choose to start my turn at any time after Rizantis's voting phase has begun, but I am not required to start it until his score is posted.
We currently have no judge. By your reasoning, we never even finished the first turn.
Incidentally, please refer to me by my title, I am Rezantis, the Count of Naysaying.
shall I quote Rule 212?
If players disagree about the legality of a move or the interpretation or application of a rule, then the player preceding the one moving is to be the Judge and decide the question. Disagreement for the purposes of this rule may be created by the insistence of any player. This process is called invoking Judgment.
...
Unless a Judge is overruled, one Judge settles all questions arising from the game until the next turn is begun, including questions as to his or her own legitimacy and jurisdiction as Judge.
Ah, right, you've called a point of order, therefore I am the Judge. My mistake.
Nonetheless that has no bearing on rule 202.
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.
alright i see how this is going to run - you deleted your request for judgement
Quote from: "Rye Coal"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.
Quote from: "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.
Quote from: "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 . . .
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.
Why exactly are we noting this? Nothing there is against the rules..
Quote from: "Rye Coal"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.
Quote from: "CasualSax"Quote from: "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.
Quote from: "Rye Coal"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.
by deleting it, so you have weasled your way around a very binding situation regarding the judgmenet of your proposal legality of enacting 212.
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.
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.
Quote from: "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.
Huh. I didn't think to check that, although it did seem more than suspicious, I agree.
No rules against that either, though.
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.
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.
Quote from: "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.
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.
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.
Quote from: "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.
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
QuoteActually, 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.
QuoteThis 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.
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.
Quote from: "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.
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)
QuoteOn 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