I still have disagreements about how vote 303 is being handled. As a judge has to settle all disagreements within a specific turn and this is not being done within the previous invocation, I am invoking judgement on what I consider the most important points.
When does a vote officially open? I contend that we could not vote knowledgeably until the exact wording was put into the voting thread. However a couple of people had voted already, so maybe it's when the thread was pasted? Given that there was judgement agreeing to close the vote very soon after the proposal was pasted and that the timing was part of that decision I think it's important to clarify this process.
Secondly, how can a player be considered to have participated in a vote if it's closed before they even see it? Can a player participate by not having anything to do with this game? I want judgement on what exactly is participation, particularly with regards to rule 105.
I realise this will be unpopular, I don't care right this second. I also realise that judgements can't be held from one turn to the next but I think this stuff needs clearing up and judgement will give us a precedent. If the issues come up in the same way for each turn then they can be judged on for each turn.
There's nothing in the rules that says we can only have one judgement per turn. It also says that the judge has to clear up all disagreements and I want mine dealt with (even if judgement goes against what I believe, at least then I know what's what). I also realise you now need another majority vote as you need to close this judgement as well as the last one - but then at least the majority of players get to see the judgement before things happen.
As we don't yet have majority on the other judgement to allow the game to move on this one still falls under turn 303. So 1 is the judge and voting on 304 can not start yet (although a discussion certainly could).
Although I'd be happier with a faster pace (It's really rude to join a game that requires unanimous participation and then fuck off, leaving your fellow players in the lurch) I have to agree with shelleycat; the point of this game is to follow the rules. If you don't want to, because they're not fun, then the other point comes in: Change them. Most importantly, you have to somehow herd all of these cats into an agreement with you that the change is correct and helpful.
I'll do my part by continuing to invoke judgement on the status of players... after a reasonable interval has passed. And, maybe, if I'm all kinds of creative, I'll come up with a winning rule. I can dream, can't I?
I believe I already ruled that the turn was over. Anyway, vote required unanimity and I'd already declared that I'd be voting no out of spite, so the whole vote was moot anyway. More to the point: again, I believe that I already ruled that the turn was over and the judgment was not overturned. Don't make me spiteful!
Move on dot com, sez I.
Just a technical point, but if turn 103 is indeed over, you cannot judge this now, 1. If turn 103 is over, then I am the judge. You would only be able to judge this issue if turn 103 was still in progress.
Turn 103 is indeed over, as I have taken my score and passed on to anomie. Anomie's turn is in progress right now. We do not yet need to vote to move on - that can happen when anomie tries to pass to next guy, for turn 105.
I don't think we can move on unless all the players have voted. We've been through this two times already, and the only legal way is to remove those who haven't voted from the player list.
As I've said before, I'm not too comfortable with just doing that whenever we want, but
1) It's been some time since voting opened
2) No rule prohibits it.
2) since we've done it a couple of times now, it's getting to be standard "game custom"
Really, since that's what we're doing anyway, we may as well just document the practice in a rule so we don't have to wring our hands over it every time. Make 105 mutable, add the 48 hour time limit. That's what we need to do. Soon. Please?
"I don't think we can move on unless all the players have voted."
Sorry ctmf, but unfortunately you are not the judge at this point. Either overrule me with a unanimous vote (dream on), or submit to my legally binding judgment.
Anomie, your turn has begun, you may post your rule proposal at your convenience.
When does a vote officially open?
When the "vote" thread is opened. If the player does not post the text being voted on, the text will be assumed to be that at the head of the relevant proposals thread. This text is editable - the player should edit the text that appears there to keep it up to date rather than post revisions in the thread.
Secondly, how can a player be considered to have participated in a vote if it's closed before they even see it?
They cannot be considered to have participated in the situation you have described. This is why we must try to interpret the intent of the original writers of our currently flawed set of laws, and implement them in our new context in a way that allows us to continue the game. Keep in mind that these rules were written with the intention of being used by a a group physically present within a room. The concepts of "player" are very different here. Imagine we were all sitting in the same room, blind, calling for a player to vote - how long would our calls continue before we decided that the person in question had left the room, and was no longer intending to play, and was therefore not a player anymore?
A person who is not participating is not a player. Therefore, by definition, every player will participate in every vote. Your question seems pressing, shellycat, because of the unclear usage of the word "player".
You can't move on when there are "players" who have not voted - it's black-letter law from Rule 105. That doesn't mean I'm disagreeing with your judgement - it means there are consequences of your judgment, that is, you have declared everyone who hasn't voted on 303 yet a non-player.
I'm not saying we have to wait, I'm saying we have to remove the non-players from the player list. Which I will now do.
Also note that that removes anomie from the player list. anomie was the player after you, and no longer gets a turn as a consequence of your judgement. The next player is backseatpilot.
Huh, looks like this judgment will make abstainers lose their player status. (Which is fine by me.)
Hm. Looks like anomie just proposed (opened for voting) 304. Should we invoke judgment to see if it's allowed or just abide by the current ruling?
No, that's fine. It still works. Consider anomie to have just rejoined right at this second, after 303 ended, but before 304 began. It's anomie's turn.
Alright, sounds good. If anyone disagrees, they can invoke.
I disagree that we had moved on because we hadn't had the majority vote needed to close the previous judgment, but I'm happy with the judgment that Aaron has given (with one question, to follow) and am happy that this got dealt with, so I'm cool. I do think it's important for everyone to see a vote regardless of if the first person already voted it down just to allow them to participate, but it appears others don't agree so I'll give up (for now anyway).
What if, as in the current vote, there is no proposal thread? I know this is very unlikely, having both things missing, but the current setup for the voting thread where you can't add separate text means it could possibly happen. I guess maybe in that case we could all just point and laugh at whoever is proposing?
I'm sorry I disappeared for so long after posting this btw, real life called.
Oh, take this as a vote to move on btw. I should have been more explicit.
I'll add to the State of the Game page that wee need a majority vote over here since we need that before we go to 305. I know we're still dealing with 304 and don't want to rush that, but might as well get this out of the way too.
shelleycat: it's important for everyone to see a vote regardless of if the first person already voted it down just to allow them to participate
Do you want to invoke judgment on a minimum duration for the voting window? I wouldn't mind.
BTW, I vote/consent to move on.
+1 consent
Do you want to invoke judgment on a minimum duration for the voting window?
No because there is a core group of people who don't think it's important to allow others to participate, only care about their own vote, and can't be fucked waiting for anyone else. Which pisses me off but which I've promised myself to stop bitching about (for a while anyway) because it's a waste of time.
Are we even close to majority here? I don't see very many votes.
I think "consent to move on" applies to any invocations of judgment which exist at the time consent was given. If judgment is invoked three times in a turn, and I consent to move on, that's clearly my consent to begin the next turn. I don't need to consent to move on three different times! (Now, if judgment is invoked sometime after I gave my consent, it may be the case that I would need to give my consent again. But I don't believe that's the case here.)
shellycat, you have every right to be dissatisfied with the current situation, and I urge you to invoke judgment on this important issue.
LOL good grief can't we just vote yes on 305 and get this game going.
Gah, spell my name right dammit!
(Sorry, there's been a rash of misspellings across the internet over the last few days. It's really not that hard).
Apologies shelleycat.
Can we get a judgment on this? I think the name really is supposed to be shellycat.
Ha!
Could have been worse.
The name is as it is written on my profile page :-P. I actually prefer to be called Shelley (and my parents will pass judgement on how that one is spelled since they made it up), just stuck with the same (stupid) username I have at metafilter to make things easier.
Apology accepted btw. If you could get everyone else on the internet to do the same I'd be grateful. In person I have a special mega death stare saved just for those who miss the second e, so it doesn't tend to be a problem. I'm very friendly and nice otherwise.
OK I have officially used too many girly emoticons today and shall turn off the internet until it wears off. Apologies all round.