Rule 114 instructs us that the adoption of rule changes must never become completely impermissible. This is an immutable rule.
Rule 203 (a mutable rule) states "A rule-change is adopted if and only if the vote is unanimous among the eligible voters. If this rule is not amended by the end of the second complete circuit of turns, it automatically changes to require only a simple majority."
It has become clear that unanimity is impossible to reach among this group at this time. The one time it was ever reached, several turns and over one month ago, it was only accomplished by removing several players from the player rolls in clear contravention of rule 105/305, which states "Every player is an eligible voter. Every eligible voter must participate in every vote on rule-changes." This action is all the more egregious in that the question at hand was the transmutation of 105 itself. Because it is incumbent upon all judges to abide by all rules now in effect (Rule 101, Rule 212), the current judge cannot in good conscience countenance similar malfeasance.
The rules automatically cycle to "majority rules" in a minimum of 24 turns, which at our current rate of completion will take us approximately 36 weeks.
In our current context, several players have indicated certain desires that clearly contravene each other's on the question of time limits, on the question of unanimity, and on the definition of a player. There is also reason to believe that sock puppets, trolls, and other persons not playing good faith may be deliberately torpedoing proposals that would otherwise have unanimous support for their own purposes and for their own amusement.
To clarify matters, I personally guarantee here and now I will vote no on every proposal that comes before me until such a time as proposals can be passed by some means other than unanimous consent.
Such a state of affairs has made the passage of rule changes entirely impermissible in practice, if not in principle. This is untenable, and entirely contrary to the spirit of a game played by taking turns changing the rules. This is also, as a practical matter, a crisis of sustainability -- I and others strongly believe there will not be a game in 36 weeks if the matter of unanimity is not somehow dealt with expeditiously.
I therefore ask -- insisting upon my disagreement with the current state of affairs, in accordance with Rule 212 -- whether Rule 114 demands the that Rule 203 be declared entirely void, in accordance with the hierarchy established by Rule 110.
JUDGMENT
I reluctantly take up the mantle of judge to decide this question. I find that I cannot avoid doing so, as rule 212 only states that "the player preceding the one moving is to be the Judge and decide the question," the only exception to which is that "no player is to be Judge during his or her own turn or during the turn of a team-mate." As it is not my turn and jay is not my team-mate, I must conclude that I am placed in the unenviable position of settling my own invocation.
I find my argument to be sound. Rule changes away from unanimity have indeed been blocked by the irreconcilable disagreements of a small number of players, and my promise to vote no on every proposal for the next 24 turns / 36 weeks -- regarding which I am confident we can take me at my word -- creates a situation in which no rule changes will be able to passed for nearly a year. This is clearly in contravention to the spirit of 114, and, I believe, the very letter of 114.
Therefore I find that rule 203 as it currently stands would indeed seem to conflict with rule 114.
However, I cannot rule that 203 is void. Such a ruling would again place us in a situation in which rule-changes are completely impermissible, insofar as 203 is currently our only mechanism for passing proposals. Therefore 114 simultaneously demands that 203 be both voided and maintained.
This brings us dangerously close to a rules paradox, but there is a solution.
Rule 203 posits that at the end of the second circuit of turns, play shall switch to majority rules. Therefore it is not in any way contrary to the *spirit* of 203 that voting be done on a majoritarian basis: quite the contrary. The problem is merely the time it takes to reach the end of the second circuit in mail and computer games. This important structural differences between in-person and by-mail/by-computer games is explicitly noted in rules 201 and 202; we can only attribute it to a momentary failing of the founders' attention that they failed to adjust 203 accordingly for the Internet age as well.
Therefore, in order to reconcile the obvious contradiction between 114 and 203 in such as a way as to make further play possible, in accordance with game custom and the spirit of Nomic, I can only hold that for the remainder of my term as judge, and until overturned by law or later Judge, proposals shall be able to be passed on the basis of a simple majority.
It is so ordered.
:bangs gavel
Motion to overrule.
The rules of the game as they stand now do not prevent the adoption of rule changes. It is the players themselves that are causing the impasse. Furthermore, I think this ruling directly violates rule 212, since judgment must be made "in accordance with the rules then in effect." 203 pretty clearly states that we must have unanimity right now, and no judgment can overturn that.
There is a procedure in place to overrule a Judge. It requires unanimity among all 13 players.
At which time crazy flatluigi becomes the judge again.
Aha. So this was the magic trick?
Hahaha. Right. :)
Everything except the threat of crazy flatluigi becoming the judge again. That part was just lucky. I was mostly just counting on jay's sense of self-interest and the wisdom of the majority of players on the need to pass some sort of sensible majority-rules legislation before the game fizzles out and dies.
We'll see if I was right about that last part.
And to think there were haters among us who questioned game-custom and game-spirit. It is the game spirit and the strength of will of our fine judges that has saved us once again. ALL HAIL JUDGE GERRYBLOG! he has pulled us back from the brink of the abyss.
I vote not to overrule this magnificent judgement.
Impermissible and impossible and not synonyms. Something can be permissible, but still impossible. If the meaning of words can be changed as desired, then the rules have no absolutely no meaning at all. If the rules have no meaning, there are no rules. If there aren't any rules, then we aren't really playing a game. I'm here to play a game.
I vote to overrule. If the vote to overrule fails, I propose that we continue the game, ignoring this illogical judgement that clearly contradicts the rules. If the players don't want to continue this game while ignoring this judgement, then I propose a new game, with a few changes to the rules before the start of play. I see no reason to continue this game if the judge can declare whatever they desire, even when it clearly clashes with the rules.
The unanimity requirement renders rule changers impermissible in practice, if not in theory, especially when you have a player who promises to vote no on everything for 36 weeks. In my opinion you're splitting some pretty fine hairs, ssg.
In any event, this is my judgment in accordance with my most careful reading of the rules. There is a procedure in place to overrule me, but it seems to have failed. I have long said that we need to amend the rules to a majority vote, amend the rules so judicial overrides are possible, and amend the rules so that judges cannot invoke their own questions, and I am confident that by the end of turn 312 these protections will be in place so that judges in the future cannot stray from either the will of the people or the rule of law.
Which, I would insist, I have not done.
And please note that if we allow my ruling to stand and go forward passing 311, this sort of thing cannot happen again without the consent of 2/3 of the players.
You have forgotten this key ruling from a past turn? Let me refresh your memory, ssg:
(emphasis added)
In my opinion you're splitting some pretty fine hairs, ssg.
In my opinion, you are just making things up.
You still need consent of the majority of players to move on to the next turn. If you don't get that consent, either you have to back down or we stall and start a new game with a better starting rule set. Either outcome is fine by me, but following your judgement is not.
So you want to sit here for 9 months while people take turns abusing unanimity for stupid reasons?
AAA, I have strong respect for the rules of this game and for my fellow players. I have no respect at all for judges who make things up. If those judges had some respect for the rules and for their fellow players, we wouldn't have these sorts of problems.
We should not make ourselves subservient to the will of a rotating cast of dictators. In doing so we deny ourselves our rights as players of this game. We deny our playerhood and become like so many sheep, running this way and that at the whim of our sometimes malevolent, sometimes benevolent dictators.
I urge all players to withhold their consent to move on. Use the power that you have to force the judge who would destroy the meaning of the very rules we play by to his knees. He cannot run roughshod over the players of this game unless we let him!
gerryblog, I again see your wisdom. Despite all of my ongoing objections, I am voting "yes" in this illegal poll in order to counter those who would end our game by withholding consent.
ssg, I'd be the last dictator, because next turn we'd have everything we've been trying to get for weeks now, including sensible rule passage and sensible judicial override. The principle you're defending is self-defeating -- the rules are exactly what allow me and every other rotating dictator to do this, and it's exactly what I'm trying to end with this unusual ruling.
Not so, gerryblog. The rules clearly do not allow you to do what you have done. If we aren't following the rules, then there is nothing to prevent future judges from doing as they desired.
I'd much rather begin a new game with different rules than continue a sham game where the rules have no meaning, should those become the only choices remaining.
I have identified and corrected a contradiction in the rule in accordance with my position as judge. A motion to overrule has been fielded and failed.
What will prevent future judges from fucking with the game is a 2/3 judicial override alongside insuperable player definition, which we will have once 311 passes in accordance with my ruling.
You are creating the very enemy you fear. As AAA would ask: what are your crimes?
For the record, I am bound by Contract on the parent nomic not to attempt to win this game until the third round. In the spirit of this, I refuse to accept a win in the event 311 is invalidated and the game declared unplayable before my turn.
I'm on the fence. I'm thinking, though, the non-unanimous judicial override is so fundamentally necessary to preventing the judicial abuse recently observed, that I'm willing to put up with a small amount of hand-waving monkey business to get that.
After thinking about it, I would almost prefer an even smaller override threshold. Really, that's the only thing preventing a minority interest from getting railroaded by a rogue judge.
Example: even with a 2/3 override, say a judge ruled that voting time limits were 24 hours. Many might object (and shelleycat would be livid), but 2/3? Not a certainty.
ctmf, I tried for a simple majority on 310, but I was asked to kick it up to 2/3, and jay followed suit.
And I appreciate your wisdom re: "the non-unanimous judicial override is so fundamentally necessary to preventing the judicial abuse recently observed, that I'm willing to put up with a small amount of hand-waving monkey business to get that." People, listen to ctmf.
"bound by Contract on the parent nomic not to attempt to win this game"
That doesn't disqualify you from winning by accident.
Besides, why would a Wookiee, an eight-foot tall Wookiee, want to live on Endor, with a bunch of two-foot tall Ewoks? That does not make sense! Vote for making sense. Vote to move on.
That doesn't disqualify you from winning by accident.
It's not within my power to keep every other player from withdrawing, for instance. My obligations to the contract extend only as far as the parent nomic's authority over me, and that package does not (yet) include supernatural abilities.
ctmf, why should we assume that future judges will follow the rules? Any future judge could easily change the meaning of words so that overruling was impossible, if we are going to accept that judges can change the meanings of words as gerryblog has done. If we accept this judgement, we legitimize rogue judges.
It would be a pretty hollow victory, though. I am not even going to bring up jay's lack of a shining star of gold.
Aye, the Parent has not seen fit to entrust us with such dangerous powers. Yet.
ssg, no, we destroy the possibility rogue judges by creating a reachable override.
ctmf, why should we assume that future judges will follow the rules? Any future judge could easily change the meaning of words
Not without a judgment, that could then be overruled.
But what is to prevent the judge from ruling that the next turn is begun immediately and thus preventing the players from voting to overrule? We have seen that certain players are happy to interpret the rules so that consent is not required to being the next turn.
Or what prevents a judge from ruling that everyone else is no longer a player?
ssg: jay's rule is insuperable re: player definition, so the judge could be ignored without even an override.
As for consent, a majority of players asserting their objections would suffice to undo the judge's ruling.
The only protection we need is the ability to override actual decisions, which we have as soon as 311 passes.
But what is to prevent the judge from ruling that the next turn is begun immediately
Then that would be a judgment, subject to overruling. Also, it would illegally skip the consent to move on.
Even the most liberal reading of the consent to move on is "move on, but if a majority object, the turn is reverted back to that point"
If 2/3 would overrule, then at least a majority object to moving on.
Or what prevents a judge from ruling that everyone else is no longer a player?
We have already seen from the example of flatluigi that the most insane crap will be glossed over and play will continue.
But we won't gloss over this crap?
But we won't gloss over this crap?
I'm the next judge and I kinda like where this is headed, so you won't get much help till 313. Blame it on the alphabet.
I'm late for a movie and have to run out but I just need to say that if you're actually making this judgment in good faith then you are pretty fucking stupid.
Also it seems like someone should consult a dictionary, as rule-changes are clearly not "impermissible." (Oh my God this is so dumb.)
I vote to overrule. (Yes, I am aware that at least one player has voted against overruling.)
It occurred to me even as I was reading the invocation--before I got to the judgment itself, let alone ssg's comment--that the argument was incorrect because impossible and impermissible were not synonyms. The distinction hardly seems "hairsplitting" to me.
I vote to overrule.
Maybe next turn, after jay's rule passes, that will have more than symbolic meaning.
Actually, ctmf, if you want to argue that this judgement is valid in some bizzaro universe, you'll have to accept that 2/3 or players could overrule this judgement in that same bizzaro universe. Assuming 2/3 of players wish to do so, they have simply to vote against moving on and wait until 311 passes. At that point, only 2/3 of the players will be required to overrule this judgement.
That wouldn't be bizarre at all. That's exactly what the rules say happens.
Ironically, you would be able to override gerryblog's judgment, only because of gerryblog's judgment. At which time you would no longer have the power to override judgments in a similar manner.
Think about that a bit before you do it - you might just get what you wanted.
yes, ctmf, yes yes.
I really don't, at all, understand the principle that is being defended here. If it's bad that judges can run amuck over the rules, let's go ahead and pass the legislation that prevents that. It's called 311, and it wouldn't have passed unanimously because 1 votes against things everybody likes on principle, flatluigi voted against it because he was pissed that his attempt to destroy the game through excessive judging failed, and Chuck because he was pissed that he wasn't allowed to vote on 310 so flatluigi could be stopped.
These are petty, stupid reasons.
If you win this fight and I get overruled, 311 fails and you have no capacity to overrule judges, no definition of what a player is, and no capacity to pass laws. For 9 months.
You are cutting off your nose to spite your face. This ruling is a one-time-only patch to fix what's ruining this game. It's all the things you want, made legal, at no cost.
No cost except our very souls!!
Only because someone has promised to vote against all proposals as long as a unanimous voting requirement is in place. Hint: it's not 1, flatluigi, or me.
What was that about "petty, stupid reasons?"
Well, I'll probably have to reevaluate my promise in light of 311's success of failure. Perhaps it was a promise made in haste. I'm a big enough man to admit when I'm wrong.
You are cutting off your nose to spite your face.
As far as I'm concerned, it is you who are cutting of your nose to spite your face. Trying to prevent judges from ruling against the rules by ruling against the rules is not a good long term strategy. Do you really believe other judges won't take advantage of this?
It's all the things you want, made legal, at no cost.
The cost is that we all have to admit that the rules are meaningless and that we are willing to ignore them when it suits our purposes. We have to admit that we aren't really playing Nomic.
Again, I'd be happy to start the game again with a more reasonable set of rules, but I'm not willing to pretend that this judgement makes sense.
Well, I'll probably have to reevaluate my promise in light of 311's success of failure. Perhaps it was a promise made in haste.
Doesn't that significantly weaken the argument of your judgement?
I'm a big enough man to admit when I'm wrong.
Don't stop there.
The cost is that we all have to admit that the rules are meaningless
hyperbole. The rules are as meaningful as they've ever been (or not been).
start the game again with a more reasonable set of rules
Who's going to decide on those rules? May as well be playing the game, for all the bickering that will generate with no decision-making framework.
Doesn't this raise questions about one of the key assumptions the judge made here?
ssg, the disaster has already happened: the judging in this game has been out of control for, literally, weeks. 311 is the corrective for this, and the only way we can possibly get it through is this last, triumphant burst of out-of-control judging. We've already seen that the legislative process can't do it, not with players voting things down randomly and pointlessly.
One 311 is through, we have everything we need to prevent out-of-control judging from here on out.
I really don't understand what you think is going to happen in turn 311, 312, 313 as a result of this. After all, this is a game with no precedent where the rules change every turn. What we'll have from here on out is 2/3 overruling of judges and ironclad player definition -- that more or less makes judicial malfeasance impossible, and there's always 312 to elaborate on it if we need to.
It's all the things you want, made legal, at no cost.
The cost is that we all have to admit that the rules are meaningless and that we are willing to ignore them when it suits our purposes. We have to admit that we aren't really playing Nomic.
Part of the game is bending the rules and seeing how far you can go within them. That's exactly what is happening here. It's more than half the fun.
And yes, insofar as it's just a game and we should all really just relax, yes, the rules are meaningless. This is a quick and dirty way to get us where we all agree -- including you, you voted for 311 -- we need to be.
As for this: 'd be happy to start the game again with a more reasonable set of rules..
This group has been trying to pass majority-rules voting for two months now. How do you think it's going to be trying to manufacture "a more reasonable set of rules" from scratch? We're inches away from having a functional game, and it's you who is trying to hold us back.
Who's going to decide on those rules? May as well be playing the game, for all the bickering that will generate with no decision-making framework.
I'd rather have an open discussion than have the rules dictated to us by the judge.
In any case, I'm also happy to continue playing the game, as long as the other players are willing to respect the rules.
Part of the game is bending the rules and seeing how far you can go within them. That's exactly what is happening here. It's more than half the fun.
Bending: fun, breaking: not fun.
ssg, by Monday my ruling will have been overturned by the will of the people. I'll have dictated nothing except simple majority-rules voting for the weekend necessary to get 311 passed. Small price to pay.
Bending: fun, breaking: not fun.
Eye of the beholder.
I for one am enjoying this immensely. It's all good, and it's all lots of fun.
Aaron, may I just say that my insanity stems directly from your irreverence for the spirit of the game. I also want to say that playing this way is hella fun.