I ask judge shelleycat four questions:
1) Is tallus playing, and therefor a player?
More than 48 hours ago tallus last posted, "I can't open the discussion with my proposal..."
The possible verdicts:
1. Tallus is a player and will win by paradox.
2. Tallus is a player and has an indefinite amount of time to post a proposal.
3. Tallus is a player and has a reasonable amount of time to post a proposal. [3b. How long?]
4. Tallus is not playing and is not a player.
2) 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?"
3) Can players remove other players from the list of players without a judgement authorizing them to do so?
4) Are Chuck and volkspider players?
Shelleycat, don't let the players push you around. They can ask questions, but it is not up to them to provide you a limited menu of possible choices that you are forced to select from.
Judges may settle only those questions on which the players currently disagree.
(2) you've arguably ruled on already in the earlier thread.
In adjudicating (3) and (4) please note that neither Chuck nor volkspider has shown up to protest their removal from the player's list.
With regard to (1) I think the "paradox" option is finally circumscribed. With shelleycat tasked officially to adjudicate all matters before us there's really no space for a paradox win anymore...
I have to go to work. I'll catch up and deal with this when I get home (assuming I'm actually judge, I still don't see how ssg's turn hsn't finished but whatever), but I'm going to think about it too so don't expect something fast.
shelleycat: since ssg invoked, you're the judge either way. that's why ssg invoking judgment on this was a good idea.
jay, would it be OK if I withdrew invocation #1, since tallus is now playing?
311 was not proposed as an amendment to 203 yet clearly amends it.
Does not. It supersedes it. Not the same thing.
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?"
c: 311 and 203 are both valid rules. After the second complete circuit of turns, simple majority will come into effect. That will be in compliance with 311, since simple majority does not require more than 2/3.
ssg, fine by me.
Yeah, I realised later on the bit about ssg not voting on his own stuff. Which is why I need to catch up and a bit of time to think about what's going on. Quick judgements thrown out over breakfast didn't seem like a good idea.
1) has been withdrawn which is fine because I would rule that tallus is clearly an active and eligible player.
2) I'm going to deal with this separately, need to do some cross referencing. Stand by.
3) The removal of players isn't currently covered by the rules and needs to be done on a case by case basis. Therefore it can affect the completion of a specific turn and is suitable for judgement. Also there should be some kind of formal process with right of reply from everyone else for a player to be removed from the game because it's kind of a big deal, if nothing else a player has to wait a turn before they can be officially rejoined. So players can not be removed from the official list without judgement being invoked and the removal ordered by a judge. Ruling otherwise would leave the field open for anyone to remove anyone else at any time, and I consider that to be very destructive to the game.
This ruling reverses gerryblog's removal of players from the list and marks his actions as being unlawful.
4) in the past when volkspider had to take a hiatus he posted a forum thread saying so and was back at the specified time. However he has recently disappeared from the site and has not voted or posted anything in a couple of weeks. So I rule that he is no longer actively participating, is no longer an eligible player and is removed from the official players list.
Chuck has also not posted comments for a couple of weeks and has not voted for the last two turns. I am in favour of removing players after a set number of abstentions although am not sure if 2 turns is a high enough number for this to kick in. However the last few votes have taken quite a bit of time and Chuck still has not reappeared so I rule that he is also no longer playing the game, is not an eligible player and is removed from the official players list.
2) the question I am judging on is:
"Is a the case or b?"
The answer is no.
If you want commentary on why this is so and what the actual case is here then I direct you to ssg's discussion of the question over here
(for some reason those links never actually take me to the right comment, it's the second one in that thread.)