307: (DRAFT) Amendment of 212

[Rezantis]

I propose amending rule 212.

The paragraph:

--
When Judgment has been invoked, the next player may not begin his or her turn without the consent of a majority of the other players.
--

Shall be changed to read:

--
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.
--

The reason for this is that with the overlapping turns we have, the next player will have already -begun- their turn by the time judgement gets called up . . . trouble could easily ensue here, with turns overtaking other turns (even more so than with extended debating time).  I'd prefer to avoid the confusion.

Second, I want to change the paragraph:
--
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.
--

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.  Anyone who becomes the judge in this manner will automatically lose twenty points.  Disagreement for the purposes of this rule may be created by the insistence of any player. This process is called invoking Judgment.
--

I want this in place for two reasons.

Firstly, (A) it'll make points more worth having than they currently are.  As it is, nobody really cares.

Second, (B) I don't like the idea of having the judge as always being the person preceding the person-whose-turn-it-is.  This strikes me as easily open to abuse.

Apologies for leaving this so late, but my original idea for a proposal keyed off Quint's, so I wanted to see if it was going to pass before putting down my own.  And work's been hellish today. :)

[tinuviel]

--
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.  Anyone who becomes the judge in this manner will automatically lose twenty points.  Disagreement for the purposes of this rule may be created by the insistence of any player. This process is called invoking Judgment.
--

I want this in place for two reasons.

Firstly, (A) it'll make points more worth having than they currently are.  As it is, nobody really cares.

Second, (B) I don't like the idea of having the judge as always being the person preceding the person-whose-turn-it-is.  This strikes me as easily open to abuse.

I don't like the method of choosing judges as it stands either, but I'm not sure I like your idea any much better...point count seems like an awfully arbitrary way of choosing a judge, especially since as of now, not everyone has yet completed a turn and had the chance to make points.
*edit: Ha, I remembered the other thing I'd thought of.  What about ties?  If multiple players have the same point count, who becomes Judge?

[Rye Coal]

On 212 amendment- No. One could invoke judgment at any time just to bring down the leader. We would simply swap one snaggle toothed abuse for another with real fangs.

Char Coal

[CasualSax]

I like the idea, but a 20 point penalty is..a lot?  A player might bring up judgement simply so that a certain player loses points, so another certain player will be judge next time..

EDIT:

If you add in the simple ability for a judge to "pass on judgement" to the next highest point total, that would fix the problem.

I also would like to see it changed so that it takes a 30% vote to invoke judgement.  A minority, but not just one person being anal.

[Rezantis]

Hmm.  Good points.

--
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.
--

OK.  This makes it a little more complicated . . .

It still gives both meaning to points (which is something I'd like to do; I think we need to make more use and pay more attention to the scores) - and encourages judges to make decisions that the remainder of the players will agree with.  And there's an extra safeguard in there for abuse - you'll need someone to second you if you want to use your points to become judge for a turn.

[Rezantis]

Has anyone actually got some input on this update?  I'd like to know what people have to say.

[Rezantis]

Another possibility for making points less arbitrary and biased towards those earlier in the turn tree is to use the state of the scoreboard -from the beginning of that particular circuit of turns-.  That way, everybody should have had the same opportunity to score points themselves.

[SuperusSophia]

The one problem i can see is in the future if one person is far in front of everyone else concerning points, then that person would be judge EVERY TIME, but this is something I only see MAYBE happening in the future, and that can be edited later.  Otherwise, it sounds good to me.

[Rezantis]

The one problem i can see is in the future if one person is far in front of everyone else concerning points, then that person would be judge EVERY TIME, but this is something I only see MAYBE happening in the future, and that can be edited later.  Otherwise, it sounds good to me.

Yup, that could happen . . . that's why I wanted a points penalty for judging in there.  If someone has a large bank of points, then yes, they will be able to abuse this some . . . but as it stands now, it is VERY open to abuse since people know exactly who the judge on any given turn is always going to be.  This makes it more dynamic.

-Personally, I think this would go well with a rule suggested previously (allowing points to be traded between players like currency), but that would be two rule changes at once, which I can't do.

An' oops, I said twenty-five.  I meant twenty.

--
   
PostPosted: 21 Mar 2005 16:29    Post subject:
Hmm. Good points.

--
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 within 24 hours of it being rendered.  If this penalty is applied, it is applied to their score when determining precedence for becoming a judge for the remainder of the turn.

--

I think I'm trying to work this around most of the points people are raising.  The idea of what I just added is fairly simple . . .

Say person A has 110 points at the start of the turn and person B has 95 points.  Person C insists that judgement be passed on a question, Person A becomes the judge and passes judgement, the majority disapproves, person A loses 20 points.  If judgement is called later in the turn, person B willl have priority.

This will hopefully further limit repeat abuses of the system.

EDIT: I don't like the idea of it requiring a vote to invoke judgement - but at least this way if somebody WANTS to be judge for some reason they need one other person to support them, since people can't request judgement and become judge themself.

[tinuviel]

Sigh.  I don't know.  This still seems unnecessarily complicated, and no less susceptible to abuse than the current system.

[Rezantis]

I don't claim it's not susceptible to abuse at all, but . . .

(A) I think the current system is annoyingly predictable and easily prone to abuse, this shakes that up a bit.

(B) This gives an incentive to -get points-, which is something else we're sorely lacking - (because, well, we all know that if someone's about to win on points we'll all pass a proposal to dock them a bunch).

(C) It gives judges a compelling reason to render verdicts that the rest of the players will be at least content with, not simply in their own interests - but it doesn't -force- them to a course.  

The complication is a side effect of trying to please too many people at once.  It's also somewhat unavoidable as we try to write loopholes out of our rules. :p  

In all honesty, these are three points that needed addressing and the game will be changed for the better because of it.  There are very few good ways I can think of to put a judge into power and the current system is, in my eyes, completely unsatisfactory.

This way, at least: all players will have had an equal opportunity to gather points - and logically, the players who are the most skilled at maneuvering themselves will end up with the most points.  As it stands, if one wants to wreck havoc with the game one merely needs to raise a point of order in the turn after theirs . . .

I don't like the vulnerability of this system.  If you have better suggestions, I really am all ears. This is the best I could come up with while still maintaining the spirit of the game.

[quintopia]

I don't like it.  I'd really like to see a judge who remained in office for several turns or turn cycles, like in char coal's proposal.  It more effectively addresses the problem of corrupt judges, as this can still be abused just as easily as the current system.  Friends can cause problems when another of their friends happens to be the point leader.  Plus, judges shouldn't have to be penalized for making judgements.  There are better ways.

[CasualSax]

I don't see it as penalizing - I see it as spending.

[Rezantis]

I won't support the idea of an elected official whose reign lasts several turns, not at the moment; I believe that's FAR more inducive to friends causing trouble.

-Especially- when we don't really have any checks on their power.  :)

That said, I'm going to post this up as is . . . I'd like an idea of just how popular/unpopular the proposal is.

[tinuviel]

I don't like it.  I'd really like to see a judge who remained in office for several turns or turn cycles, like in char coal's proposal.  It more effectively addresses the problem of corrupt judges, as this can still be abused just as easily as the current system.  Friends can cause problems when another of their friends happens to be the point leader.  Plus, judges shouldn't have to be penalized for making judgements.  There are better ways.

My thoughts exactly.  This way, a group of people could easily manipulate scoring, especially while we're under unanimous vote.  And I do see the point deduction as penalizing, since you have no choice in the matter.  If you could say, "hey I want to be judge now, here's my 20 points," that would be spending.  The new version is somewhat better in its wording, but even so, it could cause the judge to pander to the majority feeling so as not to lose points.  Which defeats the purpose of judging.  

I won't support the idea of an elected official whose reign lasts several turns, not at the moment; I believe that's FAR more inducive to friends causing trouble.

Possibly, but then there's the fact that they would have to be elected by the majority, or whatever margin is decided upon, and not just their group of friends.  And who says checks can't be written in?  I don't like the idea of a Judge being wholly controlled by the people, it defeats the purpose, but there should obviously be some limitations to provide for the event that a Judge is clearly abusing their power for a selfish purpose.  I think Charr Coal's proposed proposal is closer to achieving this end so far.