It seems that some of our group feel this game can move forward willy-nilly, with no respect to following the rules.
A judgment was made regarding the completion of turn 304 which included language related to voting procedure.
volkspider said "AAA, I don't think you can pass judgment on issues that haven't been presented to you. (ssg did not ask if majority consent was needed to move on.)"
ctmf, operating completely outside the bounds of the rules, has created a "procedure" document that he claims we are all following, step 8 of which is in direct contravention of the judge's ruling.
A vote to move to 305 was held, again in direct contravention of the ruling of the judge.
When a judgment is not to a players liking, there is legal recourse:
from 212: The Judge's Judgment may be overruled only by a unanimous vote of the other players taken before the next turn is begun.
Or are we now considering judgment an "optional" aspect of the game, to be ignored as it suits us? Will we pick out the sections of judgments that we like, and ignore those we do not?
The direct question, to current judge anomie: are you going to allow mere players to trample over the rulings of your esteemed peers, or shall we follow proper procedure - in this case, we must either follow the ruling of your predecessor, or challenge his ruling through a unanimous vote.
Or is this not the case, your honour?
ctmf's "Another way to get legal time limits" thread (that's what you're referring to, right?) is not part of the rules. If it were meant to be, it would be on the "MeFiNo Rules" page. I'm nearly certain he created it only for the purpose of discussing a possible future amendment.
Also, your judgment that removed the majority-consent requirement ("we can move to the next turn without a vote") was illegal under 212 ("All decisions by Judges shall be in accordance with all the rules then in effect"). That's why I assumed we could disregard it. (I mentioned this in jay's overruling thread as well.)
(This isn't personal. I just want that clear since my criticism has been perceived that way in other threads. Generally, I like the things you've tried to do for the game.)
It's all play, volkspider, no worries at all.
Okay -- cheers, then! I'm enjoying this immensely.
MeFiNo: This isn't personal.
Sweet about the not personal part, y'all. I'm definitely here to have fun (and make some rules and muck around in procedure) and it's a lot less fun for me when there are personal attacks. I mean, isn't the point that we're supposed to argue with each other? It's all part of the game!
Also, who is the judge right now that anomie has dropped out?
AAA, the players never disagreed about the need for a vote to move on to 305. My judgement invocation made no mention of it, so you were not called to say anything on the subject of voting to move on. As far as the game is concerned, nothing you said about the vote to move on was part of a judgement. Judgement is pretty clearly laid out in rule 212 as a method to resolve disagreements, not an appointment of a dictator. Finally, you seem to be under the mistaken impression that your judgement has some effect on future turns, when it is clearly intended only to resolve disagreements and not, as you would believe, a back-door rule changing mechanism. You can read, so why do you need to mess around with this judgement request when the rule in question quite clearly contradicts you.
mosessis: That would be the esteemed predecessor himself, Aaron A Aaronson. I wasn't going to mention it, in the hopes that AAA would just drop it, but it looks like we are stuck with him.
What is the issue you'd like the judge to decide? Or were you just bitching?
Did you want to go back to turn 304, re-end it, and restart 305? Ok, pretend we just did that.
I can have a vote on anything I want. Watch this:
Green is the best color. Everyone in favor say aye.
I think anomie has left, so where does that leave us with future judgements?
in this case, we must either follow the ruling of your predecessor, or challenge his ruling through a unanimous vote.
Judgement is for that turn only, it doesn't carry over. And judgement can only be made on things the players disagree about. Just because the judge offered an opinion on something that wasn't disagreed about (the need for majority rule to move on) doesn't mean we have to follow it, particularly when what is suggested is against the rules, something the judge doesn't have power to do anyway.
Aye. Vote closed. The motion passes. Whee!
The judge is the previous player. anomie isn't a player. The previous player is... wait for it... AAA.
Hmm. I was trying to link over here: http://blogshares.com/mefino/node/40#comment897
This is sweet.
First, it would seem that it is unclear exactly what judgment is being invoked on here. In order that we might avoid any misunderstandings, I will restate. I would not want Aaron to be unfairly accused of operating outside the bounds of the rules in this judgment.
1. Is it acceptable to disregard the rulings of a judge, even when it seems that the judge is not following the rules?
2. Can the judge use his powers of logic and reason to define the scope of the invocation as he sees fit, and to answer related questions he feels are relevant to the invocation?
3. Do admins here on the site have any further authority or status that authorizes them to work outside the bounds of the rules?
4. Is it legal or illegal for a judge to urge his successors to take into account his rulings when considering similar cases in the future?
My JUDGMENT IS AS FOLLOWS. ALL of the text of this message shall be taken as my lawfully authorized judgment on the current invocation.
1. The judge is the ultimate authority in this game, and his rulings must be taken as the word of law. If we allow the most active players or admins to force the pace of the game and disregard the institution of judgeship we will all be lost. Do we want to be like Pakistan, with those who have the guns ruling as they please? Of course not. That is why it is crucial that even when we disagree with an individual judge or ruling, we nevertheless respect the institution and do not trample roughshod over rulings.
2. The answer is YES. It is not the job of mere players to debate and question and reinterpret the ruling in a way that suits them, or that they feel better reflects our written laws. Players DO NOT HAVE THE AUTHORITY to debate and interpret and accept / reject rulings of judges. There is only ONE clearly defined remedy for a player who wishes to challenge a judge, and that is by opening a (unanimous) vote to overrule.
For the record, the court applauds jay insofar as he followed the proper procedure in the "improper judgment by AAA" invocation.
The court also censors ctmf, ssg, and volkspider and all others who disrespected the legal ruling of my predeseccor and felt it was within their remit to declare sections of the ruling illegal.
3. Admins here have a very important role. First and foremost that role is to act as the instruments of the duly appointed judges and carry out their will blindly and obediently. Admins must work especially hard to separate their roles as instruments of the court from their own interests as individual players.
Again, the court condemns ctmf in the strongest possible terms for his casual and intentional disregard of the judgment that he was given the position of trust to carry out.
4. It is of crucial importance to the future health of this game that the institution of judgeship gains strength and scope. A judge may make whatever urgings he wishes to his successors in order that game tradition and custom may be established.
So it is written, so it shall be done.
Hmmm. Well played, AAA. Well played indeed.
OK, like, number one, you can't judge yourself. "The judge is the previous player. anomie isn't a player. The previous player is... wait for it... AAA." -- this would in fact roll back to the player prior to AAA, or back around to the end of the list if we have to. This is one issue I don't think I would have a hard time gaining unanimous consent around if pressed.
Number two, AAA's "Players DO NOT HAVE THE AUTHORITY to debate and interpret and accept / reject rulings of judges." -- how could you call for a unanimous overruling of a judge without debate first?
In my view AAA's language oversteps the authority of the position, hence my call to overturn.
Number three, what admin power did ctfm abuse? I'll need to make my own sort of ruling.
"this would in fact roll back to the player prior to AAA, or back around to the end of the list if we have to"
Says who? Quote the law and explain where it says that a judge cannot rule on his own invocation.
"how could you call for a unanimous overruling of a judge without debate first?"
Debate, certainly. But not to unilaterally ignore the judgment and follow improper procedure.
"what admin power did ctfm abuse? I'll need to make my own sort of ruling."
He kept the "move on to 304" vote open against the explicit ruling of the judge, arguing in thread why it was an illegal judgment that he was not bound to follow.
jay: rule 212 states "If a Judge's Judgment is overruled, then the player preceding the Judge in the playing order becomes the new Judge for the question, and so on, except that no player is to be Judge during his or her own turn"
Key phrase: "his own turn". It is not my turn, I am the judge.
I don't think we can reasonably disagree that AAA is the judge here, but I think we can all agree that his esteemed self has said absolutely nothing that actually changes the game and as such we are best off to ignore his rabid ranting until such time as it becomes a problem. Let's just finish the vote on 305 and move on.
Also, I consider myself duly censored for my impertinence, including the above, and grovel for forgiveness at the feet of the most esteemed judge.
A judge DOES NOT HAVE THE AUTHORITY to make a judgement that goes against the rules. Judges simply aren't allowed to do this, rule 212 is clear. So yeah, we can ignore anything that obviously breaks the rules because the judge doesn't have the right to say that in the first place.
If the rule was ambiguous or unclear then yeah, we could argue. But it wasn't so tough shit.
Being an admin means nothing and I was actually the one who first pointed out that turn 305 should not have gone ahead. AAA can continue to blather all he likes, but he can't break the rules any more then the rest of us whether he's being a judge or not.
I see no reason why the same person can't invoke judgement then judge on it. Rule 212 includes: "Disagreement for the purposes of this rule may be created by the insistence of any player". The judge is still a player so falls under this specification.
Also as this is an official invocation for judging we need a majority of players to consent to beginning the next turn before we can now move on to turn 306 (from 212: "When Judgement has been invoked, the next player may not begin his or her turn without the consent of a majority of the other players.". Note that this rule does not make any mention of if the previous turn is over or not but instead focusses on when the next player can begin. Therefore AAA judging on if the previous turn is over or not does not change this requirement.
This needs to be enforced regardless of what AAA thinks as no one has repealed or changed or done anything to rule 212 to remove this requirement, and as rule 212 itself clearly states "All decisions by Judges shall be in accordance with all the rules then in effect; ".
I agree that this judgement is done and that we can move on to 306 as soon as voting on 305 is completed.
Agreed, shelleycat. Let's just wait until voting is closed on 305 before we vote to move on per 212. We might as well wait to see if there will be any more judgement invocations, so that we don't have to vote again if one comes up.
Makes sense to me.
What you guys are missing here is that the reason judgment is invoked is because the rules are unclear. That is why we bring in the opinion of the judge - to adjudicate the rules. Ignoring a judgment that is "obviously wrong" is a dangerous precedent to set.
So, guys, the tradition and game custom that has now been set is that a judge's ruling is not the final word, and a unanimous vote is unnecessary - ctmf and jay can proceed ahead with the game the way they think the rules indicate, so long as a few other players also agree.
Please understand that I am not trying to say my judgment was a good one - it was an edge case intended to provoke and test. I only hope that other judges will continue to fight for the power and honour of their post and not be cowed by all of the player experts that know the rules better than them.
But the rules aren't unclear about what needs to happen for the next turn to start, which is actually pretty rare given how ambiguous a lot of these rules are. Also there has never been a disagreement about this aspect of the rules and no one has ever asked you to pass judgement on it. (note: asking if the turn is over does not affect whether or not the next turn is allowed to begin, they are two different events).
Judges can't break the rules and can't just make up judgements about whatever they like, only clarify areas of the rules where players disagree. So it's not even an edge case and you're not testing anything. Just making noise :-P