Rule 311 states that "rule, no game decision shall require more than a two-thirds majority of players in agreement (rounded up) to take effect, including the adoption of rule changes and judicial overrides."
Rule 203 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."
311 was not proposed as an amendment to 203 yet clearly amends it. I invoke judgement on the following quesiton, and only the following question "This being the case there are two possibilities either a: 311 amends 203 and hence all votes following the adoption must be adopted by a 2/3rds majority, and hence there will be no automatic switch to majority voting after the second complete circuit of turns, or b:311 failed to amend 203 and is invalid. Is a the case or b?"
tallus, I ask you this, and only this: are you a moron, or a drunkard?
The judge needs a little bit of space to breathe and think without you packing her into such a tight little corner.
Judgement: Neither of these two possibilities are correct. You are welcome to invoke again with an answerable question on this issue.
Commentary: 203 and 311 are clearly in conflict. 311 has not amended 203, as 203 remains written as it always has been. 311 changes the effect of 203, but it does not amend 203 itself. Fortunately, 211 covers conflict between rules. The numerical method for determining precedence does not apply in this case:
211: If at least one of the rules in conflict explicitly says of itself that it defers to another rule (or type of rule) or takes precedence over another rule (or type of rule), then such provisions shall supersede the numerical method for determining precedence.
311: This rule shall take precedence over all mutable rules.
Thus, 311 takes precedence over 203 - a 2/3 majority is required to pass proposals.
Hypothetically, once the second circuit of turns is completed, 203 is automatically changed to require only a simple majority. At that point, there is no longer any conflict with 311. Clearly, the following is satisfied by the simple majority requirement of 203:
311: no game decision shall require more than a two-thirds majority of players in agreement (rounded up) to take effect, including the adoption of rule changes
Therefore, at that point, proposals will only require simple majority to pass.
AAA: I have no problem at all with tallus' invocation. I'm still perfectly capable of thinking, though this wig does have a bit of a distractingly odd smell. It makes me wonder what sort of things my predecessors have been up to with it.
Wait a second. I don't think I should be wearing this wig yet, despite what the "Current State" tells us. shelleycat, you may have some excitement yet.
202. One turn consists of two parts in this order: (1) proposing one rule-change and having it voted on, and (2) [...] adding the number of points on its face to one's score.
I've completed steps 1 and 2, so my turn is complete. tallus has yet to propose a rule-change, so 316 has yet to begin.
313. then the player preceding the one moving is to be the Judge
No one is moving, so perhaps we don't have a judge at all. However, further along 313 reads:
one Judge settles all questions arising from the game until the next turn is begun
So it seems we do have a judge until the next turn begins (and for that we now require consent or a 24 hour wait).
shelleycat, we await your judgement.
ssg, I respectfully disagree. Your turn is over, you took your points. If any player is moving, it's tallus, and the wording of 313 suggests that some player is always moving.
You were the judge, and your judgment was valid, I think.
I don't see how we could possibly consider tallus to be moving by the definition of a turn given in 202. No proposal has been made or discussed. 313 also tells us that the judge's tenure lasts until the next turn is begun. The next turn is not yet begun, thus I am not the judge.
Well, you're the judge of that, one way or another. We'll wait for shelleycat.
ssg's turn was over and points taken, I'm no longer judge. At the very least you can hold the invocation until the next turn starts but you can't go backwards.
this wig does have a bit of a distractingly odd smell. It makes me wonder what sort of things my predecessors have been up to with it.
My cat was sleeping in it.
If it helps any, I pass judgement that ssg's judgement posted earlier in this thread was 100% accurate and reflects my own feeling on this matter. So now you're covered whoever's turn it is. FWIW, this is actually true.
shelleycat, I think the important point, according to 313, is when the next turn starts and not when the previous turn ends. I don't think tallus' turn has begun, so your cat can go back to sleep in the wig.
tallus, do you want to invoke again or should we go ahead with a consent poll to allow your turn to begin?
Shelleycat has ruled that she is not the judge. Either suck it up and accept that you have ruled and that you are the judge, ssg, or call the game and declare tallus the winner. Those are the only two options I present, which one do you choose?
The third option is to accept my judgement that ssg's judgement is correct and shall stand.
I don't think anyone has invoked on the issue of who is the judge, AAA. Unless I'm mistaken, shelleycat has judged that her judgement is the same as my non-judgement and so everything is hunky dory, though we will need consent to being tallus' turn.
being = begin
I invoked the question in the hopes that we can skip the 24 hour wait.
ssg completed the actions required by rule 202, so that turn is over. That makes ssg the 'previous player' and the current player tallus. We are at the beginning of tallus' turn, with no actions yet performed.
I dispute the current sidebar text. This invocation was ruled by ssg and is closed. Because he wrongly later claimed he is not the judge has no bearing.
That's a good point! No one is currently invoking the question of whether ssg is the judge, so his thoughts on that are irrelevant.
Not so, gerryblog and AAA. If I was the judge, then my withdrawal of judgement would be valid. If I wasn't the judge, then I would never have judged anything. You can't have your cake and eat it too.
In any case, I think the best way forward at this point is either for tallus to withdraw this invocation or for two more players to consent to move on. tallus, is there any reason that you can't withdraw this invocation and begin your turn by opening discussion on your proposal? If you want to re-invoke once your turn has begun, you are welcome to.
If I was the judge, then my withdrawal of judgement would be valid. If I wasn't the judge, then I would never have judged anything.
Judges can only rule on matters on which players currently disagree, which was the very specific question tallus raised. You ruled on this, fulfilling your duty as judge.
You then thought better of it, concluding you weren't the judge—but that wasn't an issue anyone disagreed on, so your withdrawal had no more force than anyone else's comment.
It gets better: if you invoke the question, shelleycat decides who the judge is by the recent amendment of 313.
This is why I'm glad I withdraw my invocation.
re: consent -- between the people who explicitly voted and the people who pointedly didn't vote because they wanted to make the point it wasn't necessary, we're clearly set on consent. We're just waiting for tallus.
I fail to see how 5 people consenting to move on is a majority. You can't just count anyone you want to.
I can't open the discussion with my proposal, since the form of proposal I have been intending to put would is dependent on the outcome of the invocation. Thats why I called the invocation rather than just opening the discussion as I first intended to, if it didn't affect the proposal there would have been no need to call theinvocation first.
I fail to see how 5 people consenting to move on is a majority.
Soon they'll have implicitly abstained.
ssg, there are a bunch of people who won't consent to move on because they think we already have. It's silly to count them as people objecting to move on; they're objecting to the necessity of the poll itself.
tallus, can you start the discussion so the rest of us can judge whether the invocation is really necessary, or if there might be some other way around the snag? In any event, you have ssg's answer to your question, which is either already in effect (the majority view) or else will be in effect the second you open the discussion forum (ssg's view).
I can't open the discussion with my proposal, since the form of proposal I have been intending to put would is dependent on the outcome of the invocation.
I want to point out the distinction between being unwilling to play and unable to play.
This invocation has been judged; specifically, the current legal judge shelleycat ruled that ssg's reasoning was valid. That should be enough information to craft 316, I assume.
To ensure this is settled, I will invoke judgment on whether tallus is a player if the next proposal discussion thread isn't posted after the consent to move on times out. There's no way this is going to turn in to a win by paradox.
I am very curious about 316's intentions - let the cat out of the bag, tallus!
Soon they'll have implicitly abstained.
Actually, I don't think that's true. The 24h period is after judgement is delivered and I don't think there has been any delivery of judgement here.
shelleycat said you were right, that's enough judgment for me.
I can't believe it, but jay is making perfect sense here.
TALLUS: stop doing that thing in the bathroom, post your proposal.
tallus: I think it is pretty clear how both shelleycat and I would judge the issue, so I'm not sure what is holding you back. If you invoke again once your turn has begun with the same question, I'll just copy and paste my original response. If you'd withdraw this invocation and start the discussion on 316, we can move on with the game.
*crickets chirping*
seriously, wasn't jay going to invoke something?