The rules are not clear on how many players must vote to overrule a judge.
313: The Judge's Judgment may be overruled by a vote of the other players taken before the next turn is begun.
This rule doesn't tell us what the threshold for overruling the judge is. 311 seems relevant here, but it doesn't answer the question either.
311: Unless otherwise demanded by an immutable 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.
We know that the override will take no more than 2/3 of the players, but that doesn't tell us that it must take 2/3 of the players. Perhaps it takes only a majority of players.
I'd urge judge gerryblog to err on the side of caution in this case and judge that overruling takes only a majority of voting players, given that the end of the game may well hinge on this decision.
313 could be read that even calling for a vote results in the judgment being overruled.
The game is over, so there is no longer a mechanism in place for invocation or judgment. I beseech gerryblog to ignore this after-game banter.
However, to save jay the effort, there is no need to remove my SHINING STAR OF GOLD.
No player should be able to claim "I win" and pack away the board.
Besides, gerryblog set precedence by answering the initial invocations after the win claim. At this point, a refusal to answer an invocation would result in that player being idled out and rolling back to previous judges. ssg could string the process out till a friendly judge rotated in.
BlogNomic handles this by having victory claims as a separate post type that freezes other play till the community votes on whether the petitioner won or not.
No player should be able to claim "I win" and pack away the board.
The board is still here. It's just that players who continue rolling dice and moving their pieces when the game is over look a little bit, um, what's the word...?
... playful?
flatluigi tried to call the game over, but you kept playing then.
313 could be read that even calling for a vote results in the judgment being overruled.
Indeed it can. I invite gerryblog to consider that possibility in his judgement.
JUDGMENT:
Okay, you've got us here. When we took out the unanimity language we just left in the word "vote," and there's no reason to think that "vote" means anything but "majority vote." Some may have assumed it meant a 2/3 vote, but this was a legacy of the conflict between 311 and the unanimity language we excised; it's not actually in the rule anywhere.
...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.
The spirit of the game points me in the direction of a majority vote as well.
Sorry, SCVF. I realize I'm probably going to have my membership revoked over this.
HOWEVER, the current poll is not a valid one. 313 describes how overrides work:
The Judge's Judgment may be overruled by a vote of the other players taken before the next turn is begun. If a Judge's Judgment is overruled, then the player preceding the Judge in the playing order becomes the new Judge for the question, and so on, except that no player is to be Judge during his or her own turn or during the turn of a team-mate.
Two points here:
* The player previous in the playing order is ctmf, who is gone until October, and who has entrusted me with his "vote" in the meantime, whatever that means. This raises a number of questions as to what happens if I am overruled, questions on which I will be forced to exert judgment.
* More importantly, the current poll is not a valid one. The poll must be specific as to which question I am being overruled on, as I retain judgeship on other questions. So which of my recent rulings is being challenged? On what grounds?
I ask the other players to take the spirit of the game seriously in challenging my ruling. The Currency rule is vague, yes, but words have meaning, and it has already been established in two separate rulings that one requires exactly 300 points to win the game, no more, no less. Given this, the transfers as accomplished were completely legal.
Now, I realize that people will abuse this judgment in order to cheat the SCVF of a rightful, hard-fought victory. But simply ruling that the transfers were illegal because they resulted in a win for somebody else is utter nonsense. What made the transfers illegal? On what grounds can you say that this victory is illegitimate, other than that you don't like the idea of someone ever winning? Clever exploitation of a loophole is not the same thing as cheating, however similar they might seem when you're on the receiving end.