Wahhh!! Chuck keeps removing mention of my SHINING STAR OF GOLD from the player page. Judge gerryblog, make Chuck stop it!!!
It effects the current turn in that I will consent to move on if and only if:
1) The player page is locked based on my most recent revision, and only changed thereafter by the specific and lawful ruling of a judge;
2) The judge rules that the side agreement regarding my gold star is a part of the game, its conditions are within the scope of the rules, and its provisions subject to the arbitration of judges;
3) The judge rules that my SHINING STAR OF GOLD makes me unique, super-cool, and primus inter pares.
How do you rule, judge gerryblog?
This is surely a win-win. There is nobody here who would see these as unreasonable requests.
JUDGMENT
This court deeply regrets the appearance of impropriety suggested by a promise to consent to move on if and only if certain conditions are met. Of course such offers have no bearing on the work of this court, which is at all times objective and impartial in accordance with the rights and responsibilities of this sacred office. Rest assured, such promises were entirely ignored.
The questions at hand revolve around the status of the "side deal" made by AAA to receive a gold star in exchange for certain behavioral modifications.
Because the rules do not speak of side deals, they are governed by Rule 116:
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.
The side deal specifically states that it is not a rule proposal, and I agree with its assessment: it is not. Rather it is the first in what may come to be a large special category of quasi-rules called "side deals." This particular side deal was entered into with the entire group by a wide margin (8-4-2), and therefore I can only rule that the contract was entered in not merely with the specific players voting on that question but with the entire MeFiNo community as a whole.
The "List of Players" likewise is not an official part of the game; it is merely a reference tool. It too is not regulated by the rules, and has no official status within them, as the rules do not demand it nor describe it -- rather, the "List of Players," like other aspects of the Drupal/blogshares framework that make our game possible, is not regulated by the rules but governed by the same loose sense of communal will and general acclimation.
Rule 212 empowers me to rule on this question thusly: 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. "When the rules are silent" surely describes the condition of side-deals, Drupal/blogshare structures, and the other sorts of game considerations encompassed by Rule 116, by definition, and so therefore the Judge is empowered -- indeed, is the sole person empowered -- to govern these categories when conflicts arise.
Therefore I rule that Plantiff's motion (2) holds true: the side agreement regarding his Gold Star is part of the game (by Rule 116); that its conditions are within the scope of the rules [though are not regulated by the rules] (by Rule 116); and its provisions subject to the arbitration of judges (mandated by the "when the rules are silent" clause in Rule 212).
Turning to Plantiff's motion 1, I indeed rule that the player page must temporarily be locked, given Chuck's intransigence in accepting the terms of Aaron's side deal. The side deal, as established above, was a permitted and unregulated contract entered into with the MeFiNo community at large; its terms must be therefore be respected.
I hereby order the page locked with Aaron's most recent revision, with the Gold Star language at the top retained.
Regarding Plantiff's motion 3, this is somewhat outside the scope of normal MeFiNo jurisprudence, but I find that the unique, super-cool, and primus inter pares nature of those bearing Gold Stars is entirely self-evident.
This court upholds all of Plantiff's motions.
: bangs gavel
I think gerryblog should be the judge all the time.
There are indeed times I think gerryblog will be judge the whole rest of the game.
I don't know how to lock a page from editing. I tried it once, and couldn't figure it out. That may be beyond the scope of possibility.
Given this ruling, I think Chuck would be violating the TOS of his account if he keeps up his vandalism.
Gerry is growing on me. Like a tumor that I want to kiss, but cannot due to geographical distance from my mouth. Sorry for being rude to you before, Gerry! It was late and I was just cranky!
And 1, I feel as if we are in an incredibly mutually beneficial symbiotic relationship. It feels so good. I promise to eat your cancer when you turn black, my sweet sweet integer.
Interesting to note that once the player list gets locked, no new players can be added... right?
On a related note, the Aaron A Aaronson account that has been voting on various things here lately seems not to be identical to the Aaron A. Aaronson that has been listed on that player list for quite some time. The length, contents, and checksum of those two names are all different.
jay is obligated to ban the SubWolf account for voting in a poll.
From here, this looks like an identical ToS violation. I'll pause for objections from other players.
Well, jumping back to 301, the same account has been participating all this time. I'm not sure we have any cause to ban AAA in favor of AA.A -- it seems more likely that this is merely a clerical error, or perhaps deliberate sabotage.
In my capacity as judge, I've changed the List to reflect the proper name and now order it locked again to my most recent revision. Though I admire jay's gumption and gung-ho attitude.
I, for one, applaud gerryblog's ruling. My only quibble is that he only ordered the player list locked temporarily, meaning that at some point in the future the page will once again be unlocked and open to general editing, whether that be my removal of AAA's special listing (relatively innocuous), or some far more nefarious edits by other, less scrupulous players.
Wow, we all agree. One big happy family!
That would certainly be a reasonable interpretation if I edited the player list without a judge's ruling after the list is locked, in violation of this judgment. Note invoker's motion #1, granted by the judge: "The player page is locked based on my most recent revision, and only changed thereafter by the specific and lawful ruling of a judge."
Chuck, I see what you're saying, but we don't think it's technically feasible to actually lock the page. So for now my order has the force of a technical barrier -- don't edit the page anymore.
Given this ruling, I think Chuck would be violating the TOS of his account if he keeps up his vandalism. I think so too.