111. If a rule-change as proposed is unclear, ambiguous, paradoxical, or destructive of play, or if it arguably consists of two or more rule-changes compounded or is an amendment that makes no difference, or if it is otherwise of questionable value, then the other players may suggest amendments or argue against the proposal before the vote. A reasonable time must be allowed for this debate. The proponent decides the final form in which the proposal is to be voted on and, unless the Judge has been asked to do so, also decides the time to end debate and vote.
We have now been discussing 309 for over one week, with the game stalled accordingly. In light of the fact that a reasonable time has been allowed for a debate, and in light of the fact that the failure of 309 is almost a near certainty anyway, I ask that debate be ordered ended and the vote held.
Only an insane judge would rule against you, gerryblog. I have faith in the wisdom of Judge ctmf to lead us past this.
In my opinion, the delay has been more than explainable due to the clusterfuck of invocations and the endless shifting of 309, but if we need to post it right now, it'll be posted. I'll await ctmf's ruling before posting in case he rules against it.
The proponent decides the final form in which the proposal is to be voted on and, unless the Judge has been asked to do so, also decides the time to end debate and vote.
The judge has now been asked to do so.
If a rule-change as proposed is unclear, ambiguous, paradoxical, or destructive of play, or if it arguably consists of two or more rule-changes compounded or is an amendment that makes no difference, or if it is otherwise of questionable value, then the other players may suggest amendments or argue against the proposal before the vote. A reasonable time must be allowed for this debate.
All players have had ample opportunity to argue against the proposal and suggest amendments.
210. Players may not conspire or consult on the making of future rule-changes unless they are team-mates.
The first paragraph of this rule does not apply to games by mail or computer.
This rule does not apply to MeFiNo, but provides insight into the spirit of the game (yes, that again.)
I judge the intention of the rules is that the player state his proposal, hear objections, take them into consideration, then post the (possibly revised) proposal for voting. Not to allow a continuous rules-by-committee cycle of revision/argument/revision/argument ad infinitum, which causes excessive game delay.
flatluigi is directed to post the proposal for voting (in whatever version he sees fit).
Alright then, let's get it over with.
This is very well-interpreted, and I'm not just saying so because the decision flowed my way.