I invoke judgment on whether my turn (commonly known as turn 307) has begun, as of the time I am invoking judgment. If it has not, as I contend, then backseatpilot is the judge both for this invocation and the recent invocation by Aaron A. Aaronson.
Rule 212 states, "When Judgment has been invoked, the next player may not begin his or her turn without the consent of a majority of the other players."
Judgment was invoked during twice during turn 306, in "An exploration of the limits of judicial activism," and "Has 306 failed?" At this time, only seven players have consented to moving on (see the "Has 306 failed? thread), which is less than a majority of the fifteen players.
Backseatpilot does not have any authority as judge, and your invocation is spurious. She herself declared her term over when she declared that 306 was finished.
Only an insane litigant would pester the court with such a misplaced and obviously wrong invocation.
Judge bonobo will soon be along to assert her authority and put you straight, I am most certain.
Rule 212: "Unless a Judge is overruled, one Judge settles all questions arising from the game until the next turn is begun, including questions as to his or her own legitimacy and jurisdiction as Judge." [emph. mine]
Crikey, this is ridiculous.
Chuck, rule 202: 202. One turn consists of two parts in this order: (1) proposing one rule-change and having it voted on, and (2) ... throwing a die, players subtract 291 from the ordinal number of their proposal and multiply the result by the fraction of favorable votes it received, rounded to the nearest integer.
Both those things happened for 306, and a majority of players consent to move on, so in my opinion bonobo is clearly the judge. Moreover, AAA is right that backseatpilot already ruled on this:
I will judge that the motion has failed and once bonobo tallies her points the turn is over.
Out of fifteen players, seven have consented to move on.
There are a majority of players who do not recognize the need to answer the illegal and unrecognized poll(s).
Seven have *explicitly* done so. (And not counting AAA is just silly; given that he tried to strip of your turn entirely for failure to move on, he clearly consents.)
And, more importantly, *zero* have objected. That's consent of the majority by any reasonable measure.
OH MY GOD JUST POST YOUR PROPOSAL
Chuck:
By my count, 8 players had consented to moving on when you posted this. The seven you listed in the "Has 306 failed?" thread, plus offby1 (I don't see how his comment of "+1" can be interpreted any way other than adding his consent). After this thread was posted, bonobo also consented, so we now have 9 out of 15. Clearly, we have consented to move on to 307 and so we have moved on to 307 (in fact, we did so yesterday when ctmf added his consent). If you don't think offby1 consented, then we can ask him, rather than bonobo. Do you still want bonobo to judge this question?
I think it would be in Chuck's best interest to post 307 to vote before bonobo gets judicial on him.
I added my consent if that helps.
Yelling will not convince me to proceed any faster.
Nor will threats, especially those which are extremely unlikely to actually be effective.
Wow, rational argument! A tactic that is clearly beyond some of the players here. Yes, I agree that my turn has now begun.
I'm not sure it's possible to withdraw an invocation of judgment, but if it is, I will withdraw mine if AAA will withdraw his attempting to have me expelled from the game.
AAA, 1, if you are in such a hurry to proceed, I suggest you let me know in the proposal discussion thread whether you would vote for my draft 4.1, and if not, why not.
I'm voting "no" if it doesn't get posted within 24 hours. Then I'll type in caps some more.
I am not obliged to give my opinion on future votes - and recent experience tells me that any objections means another round of beanplating and fluffpicking.
And Chuck, you incredibly impertinent naughty uncultured and smelly player, how is it that ssg convinced you by referring to the illegal poll that has not yet been acknowledged as valid in a single judgment, but you are NOT convinced by the judge telling you that it is your turn? If this is what passes for "rational argument" in the glue-sniffing community then I want nothing of it.
Now post a bloody vote, before I am forced to issue more empty threats and start yelling in all caps.
I will not withdraw my invocation. But perhaps if you post something to vote, then the facts on the ground will prevent the judge from expelling you as you so rightly should be for your ongoing lies, obfuscation, and general underhanded sneaky mode of play..
I hereby guarantee that voting on my proposal will begin between midnight and 2 a.m, Eastern Daylight Time (GMT-4), on April 28, unless I am required by a judge to begin voting sooner (and even then, my personal schedule makes it unclear whether I would be able to comply). Any negative comments will not delay the posting of a proposal beyond that time. However, a lack of comments will not entice me to post a proposal sooner than that, so I would request the opinion of all players (which, admittedly, they are not required to provide) on my proposal. After all, a poor gluesniffing-addled brain like my own can barely comprehend the nuances of this game, and would benefit from the counsel of those whose heads are unaffected by such substances. You may comment secure in the knowledge that any negative comments will not significantly alter the time of the beginning of the vote, though they may improve the proposed rule-change itself.
Oh, and perhaps you could explain to my imbecilic glue-impaired self where "lies, obfuscation, and general underhanded sneaky mode of play" are either against the rules or cause for expulsion, for I do not see that in the rules. I'm sure that my impression is merely due to my glue-scrambled brain, and you will kindly correct my error by pointing out which rule prohibits such things and calls for expulsion.
Put something to vote now (next couple hours) and I will endeavor to vote yes.
People are getting cranky.
I'm pretty sure I ruled that bonobo's turn was over after she tallied her points, which has been done. However, There is nothing stopping Chuck from taking all the time he needs to come with a good proposal.
Also, I'm a guy.
Also, I'm a guy.
The rules don't say if you are or not, so it can't be determined without a judgement.
It is instructive to contrast these two attempts at coercion. The former both expresses a specific time limit, and a specific guaranteed action if the time limit is not met. The latter only lists a vague, undefined "couple hours" (so the player can decide after the fact whether the time limit was met or not, depending on how he wants to vote), not to mention that he neither guarantees a yes vote within the time limit (only that he will "endeavor to vote" yes), nor a no vote after the time limit. The second quote above is essentially "if it's proposed before a time I will select later, I might vote yes, and I might vote no; if it's proposed after that yet-to-be-decided time, I might vote yes, and I might vote no." Even a half-brained gluesniffer such as myself can recognize that it basically says nothing at all and thus attempting to comply with it (or even attempting to intentionally violate it) is pointless.
I voted yes anyways, sweetie, just because I know you've put so much effort into this (and that way, shelleycat torpedoes it anyways and I look magnanimous).
The form "(punishment / negative consequences) if you do something" is a threat.
It makes the person seem agressive, and focuses on the negative. Stick. Cold and prickly.
The form "(bonus/positive contribution) if you do something" is an offer.
It makes the person seem helpful, and focuses on the positive. Carrot. Warm and fuzzy.
Feel the love, Chuck, I am reaching out to you. It will be a real challenge for you, but it is never too late to become a right thinker.
I will endeavor to observe your wise, non-gluesniffing example, and learn from it and follow it.
The voting record shows you voted NO. Clearly, voting NO and claiming you voted YES is an example of wise, non-gluesniffing play.
I voted yes. After a few hours, others voted no. Had the unanimity held, I would have been there for you friend.
Chuck: You clearly believe that it is no longer still 306. There is nothing for bonobo to judge here. AAA has withdrawn his invocation. Will you withdraw yours and then we can move on to 308 (without the need for consent)?
I'm not sure it's possible to do so. However, if it is legal to do so, I withdraw my invocation.