Judgment: Joining the Game

Joining the Game

The question of whether a new player may join the game, and how that should be controlled has recently become the subject of controversy. The answer to these questions has the potential to greatly affect the play of the game.

Superficially, it would seem simple. No Rule prohibits or specifies any qualifications or prerequisites for joining a game in progress. Therefore, by Rule 116, the joining of new players is explicitly permitted and, significantly, unregulated. By Rule 212, specifically the clause requiring judgments to be in accordance with the rules in effect, any judgment prohibiting or regulating the act of joining the game would be contrary to Rule 116 and thus illegal.

The act of joining the game as a new player, however, requires a working answer to the more fundamental question, "What IS a player?" This answer is less simple. No Rule defines what is meant by the term "player," therefore Rule 212 requires the Judge to "consider game-custom and the spirit of the game."

Considering game-custom provides some data. vernondalhart, ssg, offby1, and possibly other players joined in progress, and were not required to have any prior qualifications. They were also not required to ask permission of some fraction of the current users. Most, but not all, of the people who have been considered players up to this point have MeFi usernames I can find. Not all usernames are the same as MeFi usernames. Therefore, by relying on game-custom, the judgment would have to be that joining the game as a player requires no qualification, no approval of current players, and no matching MeFi username.

Rule 212 also directs the Judge to consider the "spirit of the game." Though no Rule specifies it, I judge that the spirit of the game requires that where the Rules refer to a "player" they mean one individual person. With that the case, the presence of multiple accounts by a single person ("sockpuppets") violates the spirit of Rule 207, and are therefore prohibited.

We are left with the problem of establishing that a prospective new player is not a sockpuppet, and is therefore eligible to join the game. The Rules do not specify a method of determining the answer to that question. There is no game custom to refer to for guidance in this case - there has never been a sockpuppet trial.

I judge the "spirit of the game" in this case to require more of a democratic process than an authoritarian judgement. I also judge the spirit of the game to require the benefit of the doubt be extended and that some protection be afforded against a "lynch mob" group of disgruntled other players. In this spirit I direct the following procedure for the limit of my authority (turn 309, beginning when the vote to move on passed for turn 308, and ending when turn 310 begins):

The current players are those holding the following accounts:
1 (user id 36)
Aaron A Aaronson (user id 7)
backseatpilot (user id 25)
Chuck (user id 23)
ctmf (user id 30)
flatluigi (user id 6)
gerryblog (user id 19)
jay (user id 3)
jeblis (user id 9)
mosessis (user id 12)
shelleycat (user id 11)
ssg (user id 37)
tallus (user id 20)
vernondalhart (user id 38)
volkspider (user id 21)

and no others.

A new player may request to join the game by posting to the forum. The current players then have 48 hours to object. Objection may only be made on the belief that the new player is a sockpuppet. No other basis for objection is allowed. Rebuttal by the prospective player is allowed. Objections may be retracted within the 48 hour time.

If, after 48 hours, the number of objections exceeds 1/2 of the total number of current players, the prospective player may not join the game. Otherwise, the prospective player becomes a player of the game effective at the beginning of the following turn.

Any previous player of the game (holding an account with a user id less than 38) may rejoin the game without following the above procedure. They become a player again immediately upon request.

There is no procedure for accusing a current player of being a sockpuppet. During this turn, the current players are assumed to not be sockpuppets.

This Judge urges the players to address this issue by modification to the Rules as soon as practicable.

 

ctmf, you are wise...

#
 
 

Three cheers for judge ctmf and his excellent judgement! He has returned the rightful glory to the position of judge after it had been so badly tarnished by some of those who previously held the office.

#
 
 

Agreed. This is an excellent remedy to our sockpuppet problem.

#
 
 

Awesome.

#
 
 

This closes all remaining open invocations, including the suspended one.

#
 
 

I also applaud the vacillating and logically inconsistent judgment of the honorable ctmf! It is also most excellent to see game-custom and the spirit of the game being given the central place that they deserve in his deliberations.

#
 
 

Meatbomb, you're the last one to talk about the spirit of the game.

#
 
 

What do you guys think about limiting participation in game forums to current players, except for a new player application zone?

#
 
 

I don't mind the socks making noise in the forums (until we end up with a flooding problem).
They might be a nuisance with the polls, though.

#
 
 

Agreed, a very wise ruling. I do have one minor quibble: I think you understate your own authority here:

In this spirit I direct the following procedure for the limit of my authority (turn 309, beginning when the vote to move on passed for turn 308, and ending when turn 310 begins):

While it is true that future judges are not bound by your decision (rule 212), nowhere does it say that the scope of a judge's decision is limited to the turn on which the judgment is issued. I would argue that your decision holds even on future turns, until a future judge rules differently (or the rules regarding player-ship are changed).

#
 
 

Chuck, can you explain then why polls to move on to the next turn were created, and their legality defended by almost all the players, against the explicit ruling and orders of a judge? No judge ever ruled that polls could/should be held after the initial judgment that they were expressly forbidden.

#
 
 

Could you direct me to the judgment that said such polls were forbidden? Note that judgments that say such polls are unnecessary are not the same thing: I am aware of at least three such judgments; I made one of them myself!

#