Judge ctmf,
Rule 312 states,
312. Every player is an eligible voter. Every eligible voter may participate in every vote on rule-changes or judicial overrides.
An abstaining player will be considered a non-player for the purpose of calculating whether a rule change or judicial override passes. Any player may voluntarily abstain from a vote. A player who does not vote within 48 hours of a vote opening is considered to have abstained.
Please note that that the rule does not state that these are the *only* situations in which an abstaining player will or should be considered a non-player. Accordingly, I argue that
(a) flatluigi's failure to cast an explicit vote on 320 constitutes strong evidence that he is no longer "voluntarily playing the game of MeFiNo Nomic" (per 311's definition of a player);
(b) likewise he has not yet posted any discussion points for 321, nor any comment in any thread since May 27;
(c) that there is no evidence of flatluigi's continued desire to participate that is more salient or persuasive than the above two observations;
(d) and that therefore flatluigi should be removed from the player list, with play proceeding immediately to the next player in the playing order.
If flatluigi appears before judgment is rendered on this question I happily withdraw it.
Invoking judgment on this question should in no way be understood to relinquish my right under 116 to unilaterally remove non-players from the player list.
Side argument regarding the inevitable argument over who is judge. As I have proven beyond all reasonable doubt that flatluigi is no longer a player (see above), it is clear that my turn has already begun, as the discussion of 322 is already in process and I'm simply waiting for the all-clear to post the voting thread. This surely makes ctmf the judge.
If ctmf rules against me, this means flatluigi is a player, which means he has not yet begun his turn, which (per the game custom established over my objections during the shelleycat/ssg debacle) means ctmf is not yet the judge and therefore has no authority to rule in the first place.
So:
* Logically the only ruling ctmf can issue is one in agreement with my claims.
* Conversely, backseatpilot can assert his Judgitude and rule against me, though I would strongly contend that such a ruling would be completely illegal under these very straightforward circumstances, given that someone must be moving and that it plainly not ctmf, nor apparently flatluigi.
* In the interests of avoiding either paradox or communal ill-will, it seems most prudent to accept a ruling from ctmf in favor of my claim and allow voting on 322 to begin.
gerryblog, you can't begin your turn until flatluigi is declared a non-player by the judge. The game just won't work if everyone goes around declaring this and that. You'll also note that playerhood is regulated by the rules, so you can't just remove people under 116.
In any case, since flatluigi has not yet begun his turn (and he is the next player until he is officially removed from the list), the judge here is backseatpilot. Your comment shows why claiming ctmf is the judge makes no sense, yet you still insist on doing so. Are you trying to derail the game?
The definition of a player is "one free-willed human Metafilter member voluntarily playing the game of MeFiNo Nomic." It's my contention that flatluigi currently fails this test. If that's true, that makes me the moving player and ctmf the judge.
Are you trying to derail the game?
No. Are you?
I am Judge. My turn is over, therefore I am now the previous player, without regard to exactly who the current player is. It suffices to stipulate that there exists some player who is the current player, and that that player's turn has begun.
Ruling on flatluigi's status to follow.
*Judgement suspended for 48 hours*
Wheras the rules now regulate joining the game, and provide for resigning from the game, I find that player status is regulated. Rule 116 therefore does not permit any other methods of adding or removing players from the game.
I also find, however, that the rules are unclear or silent as to what should be done when the player whose turn arrives shows no sign of particiaption. After considering game-custom and the spirit of the game, I judge that flatluigi has voluntarily forfeited the game per Rule 113. flatluigi may rejoin at a later time without penalty per Rule 314.
This decision was simplified by the length of time since flatluigi has participated in the game. Had it been only a day or two, it would have been a much more difficult question to judge.
The current player is gerryblog.
Did anyone try emaiing him to see what's up (I can't, I'm still at work)? He hasn't commented in over a month but was he voting in the meantime? Losing your turn is a bigger deal than just being removed from voting so there should be at lest some effort put into making sure it's the right call.
[previous comment edited for clarity]
[my previous comment, that is]
Mm. You're right, shelleycat. He voted in 319, which was posted on 6/27. It's been less than a week.
I stand by my judgement, but suspend it for 48 hours, the commonly accepted waiting period. If flatluigi shows up, it's his turn, otherwise gerryblog's turn begins.
ctmf, you are wise. Some very fair rulings and good precedents being set.
Ctmf, I appreciate your bold leadership and use of two colors. You are totally the Barack Obama of MeFiNo.
I am Judge. My turn is over, therefore I am now the previous player, without regard to exactly who the current player is. It suffices to stipulate that there exists some player who is the current player, and that that player's turn has begun.
We can't just go around claiming that a turn has begun if the player whose turn it is isn't playing. The definition of a turn is pretty clear that action is involved. In any case, someone needs to make a proposal to codify when turns start and end soon.
Bravo, ctmf. We again see that "finishing your turn" is what makes you judge, despite the "next guy hasn't started" camp's spurious and illogical arguments.
And, furthermore: ctmf used two colours, how could he not be the judge?
We can't just go around claiming that a turn has begun if the player whose turn it is isn't playing. The definition of a turn is pretty clear that action is involved.
Of course, if the player whose turn it is isn't playing, then it can't that player's turn. That's the crux of the issue precisely: is it flatluigi's turn (not begun) or my turn (begun)?
Or the other alternative, which is that neither of your turns has begun yet, gerryblog.
We again see that "finishing your turn" is what makes you judge
Except that the rules are about the next turn beginning and don't mention "finishing" a turn at all.
The rules don't mention beginning, either. They say: "the player preceding the one moving is to be the Judge." AAA is therefore correct: because ctmf has finished his turn, he is no longer "the one moving." This must be either me or flatluigi.
The rules also say nothing about using two colors, but we hold certain truths to be self evident.
I've always been in favor of new judges ascending when the next proposal is posted for vote, to cut down on opportunities for self-judging.
In any case, someone needs to make a proposal to codify when turns start and end soon.
I agree with that.
gerryblog, the rules do mention beginning. I've pointed this out before.
Unless a Judge is overruled, one Judge settles all questions arising from the game until the next turn is begun,
Had the next turn begun when you posted this invocation?
One turn consists of two parts in this order: (1) proposing one rule-change and having it voted on....
Had flatluigi proposed a rule change? No, and so he had not begun his turn. There is absolutely nothing in the rules to suggest that the next turn begins right after points are calculated.
Regarding the "one moving" wording, we can't just focus on that part of the rule, when there are other parts to consider. We find that no one is moving at the moment of the invocation, so we turn to the rest of the rule and learn that the judge remains judge until the next turn is begun. No problem.
Had the next turn begun when you posted this invocation? This was the subject of my invocation. It had if it was my turn; it (potentially) had not if it was flatluigi's. In a few hours, it will turn out it was mine turn, which at that time will have turned out to have already begun.
I say (potentially) because that's the crux of our dispute. It's clear to me that it must always be someone's turn. If ctmf's turn has ended, then it must be the next player's turn, whoever that is, even if they haven't done anything yet. Being empowered to do something starts the turn, in my view, not the doing something.
I'll add that this situation is especially (and unnecessarily) hairy because I invoked so fast. If I'd waited 12 hours, it'd be rather clearer who was judge. That's 57 demerits against me, for sure.
It's clear to me that it must always be someone's turn.
You insist that it must always be someone's turn and so read the rules in such a way as to avoid conflict with that assumption and I make no such assumption and thus read the rules differently. Since it doesn't say anywhere in the rules that it must always be someone's turn, I'd suggest that you might be making a bad assumption.
ssg, this is a question about which reasonable people can disagree. The sentences in question read:
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.
...
Unless a Judge is overruled, one Judge settles all questions arising from the game until the next turn is begun...
Since a player who has ended his turn cannot in any sense be said to be moving -- and since it is reasonable to conclude that the rule was intended to provide a means to decide disputes at all moments of play -- I find it reasonable to conclude that one turn must begin when another ends.
You read the same words and conclude that there is actually a gray zone between turns during which it is actually no one's turn, during which the player two before the one about to move is still the judge, until such a time as "the next turn begins," which (one assumes) occurs with the posting of a forum to discuss a proposal, even though this action has sometimes occurred before the previous turn ends and sometimes (as now) can in itself be the matter of dispute.
That's a fine interpretation, I guess, as far as it goes -- but our endless discussions on this point have demonstrated it's pretty idiosyncratic. I'm not sure anyone has ever agreed with you that this is how the rule should be understood. It's also a pretty inconsequential matter, in the grand scheme of things, which is why it seems odd that you've been so dogmatic about it in the face of said near-unanimous disagreement and an earlier brush with a game-ending paradox.
I'll leave it to the group to decide which of us is actually being more parsimonious, but obviously when we pass a rule about this we're going to write it so it explicitly describes my interpretation rather than yours, which is weirdly specific about unconnected sentences two paragraphs apart and which creates a needless ambiguity about who is the Judge at a particular moment where clearly none was ever intended to exist.
gerryblog, it seemed to me you were just itching to re-open this debate by posting above about how ctmf was the judge but couldn't rule that flatluigi wasn't a player and so on. That whole bit wasn't required under your interpretation of the rules, so I'm not sure why you included it, other than in an attempt to stir shit up.
ssg, your interpretation is insane.
The rule reads: 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.
This seems to clearly imply that there is always someone moving.
I am worried that you may be having a stroke.