I'm guessing a lot of players here have more of a programming than legal background.
It seems that the rules mirror more of a legal system. In a legal system a complaint (suit) is required in order for a judge to act. If a complaint is filed (suit, invocation) then the judge has the duty/power to interpret the law/rules that are in place with respect the question posed to them.
I think a lot of us are trying to take any action/suggestion and run it through the rules like an algorithm to determine the result. There is no requirement that we do that if no one objects (files suit, invokes judgment etc.)
In a legal system you only run an action through the rules/ judicial system if, and only if a person requests that.
I believe (IANAL) that is referred to as the adversarial system.
So someone ending their turn early, withdrawing a vote, withdrawing, amending a proposal is ok, unless someone invokes judgement.
Whatever ruleset we have, or could come up with will never be a perfect algorithm. Nor are we required to follow that as such unless a complaint is filed (suit or invocation)
Hear hear jeblis.
Yes, this is a game of rhetoric as much as anything. The point of the game, in many ways, is that there are no hard-and-fast rules to cover every eventuality. That's the fun of it! We're running a banana republic.
Incorrect.
What we have here is a parliamentary system, not a legal system. The game is more of simulation of Congress than it is of a courtroom. You are correct that in an adversarial legal system, actions or statements are not censored unless and only unless they are explicitly challenged (and said challenge is successful, of course.)
However, in a parliamentary system like this one, all statements and actions are governed by the rules of procedure for that particular legislative body, and if one violates them, usually there is immediate sanction.
Resrever, I would argue it simulates both. a parliamentary system most of the time, a courtroom duing invocations.
My point in either case is we can't expect to ino\put all available data and have a crisp outcome from the rules as to what to do next.
This is kind of why I'm playing actually. I've gotten very limited in my thinking and problem solving, too much following specific protocols and exact procedures with a hefty dose of other stupid shit to deal with in the last three years which have corroded my lateral thinking and flexibility. All my close friends are science types too and we're all too much the same.
Following a specific set of rules and actions and getting a set, expected output is my bread and butter (not that I'm doing it very well recently) but I'm moving beyond clear cut answers and previously validated information. My current over-adherence to logic is not going to help me think about my data in meaningful or novel ways despite that that is what a PhD is actually about. It won't make me good at Nomic either. This game has already made me challenge my readings of the rules, deal with ambiguity and observe other ways of dealing with a situation. I've never thought about something from a procedural parliamentary point of view and it's interesting.
And in case all that sounds too heavy I should also point out I'm the queen of procrastination and this is a wonderful way of doing that.
This is amazingly similar to my job. I have some manuals with some pretty unambiguous requirements, but others that take some... shall we say, interpretation. I write local instructions that clarify how we interpret what the manual says. (And then divvy up the work and make sure it gets done.)
There's a lot of guessing what the "intent" of the manual was and what that means to weird situation X. Unfortunately there's also a certain amount of getting audited by higher authorities who disagree.
For anyone who wants to make a fortune: invent a cell phone that works deep underwater, so I can just call and ask whenever I have a question. I'll buy several.
Also, the manuals get changed at random intervals on me. Sometimes even for the better.