I invoke judgment on whether backseatpilot and Chuck simultaneously achieved the score of 200 points, prior to any other player doing so, and by doing so jointly won the game.
Please note the question I am invoking judgment on is the entirety of the above. While the judge may wish to consider individual components of the above in rendering judgment (e.g., whether backseatpilot has achieved the score of 200 points), judgment is not invoked on those individual components, only on the whole.
Cheeky.
As judge for this turn, I rule that you and I have not won this game. Neither of us has the requisite number of points, and in fact you haven't even played a turn yet.
Of course, ruling in the other direction opens a whole can of worms that I'm not willing to get into, especially because I'd like to see the game continue.
Ah, too bad. :)
I'm interested in what Aaron A. Aaronson believes the effect of this would have been, had backseatpilot ruled in the affirmative. Especially since this was in part inspired by a comment of his in another thread. He was espousing a very strong model of judicial activism; when someone asked whether, under his model, a judge couldn't simply declare that he had 200 points and win, AAA noted that such a judgment would be unanimously overturned. This invocation was designed as one which would not have been unanimously overturned, had the judge ruled the other way.
This is a clever thought experiment. What I was planning for my turn (coming soon) was a discussion along these very lines to put a much stronger check on judicial activism now that we no longer need it to move forward through votes, because like you I think there are many ways in which a too-strong Judge can really screw things up.
In general I think the real check on this sort of action would be the approbation of the other players, who would refuse to accept it, and who would likely through both the offending players out of the game (extrajudiciously, though they're space for this in 116) than allow somebody to just declare themselves the winners out of the gate.
Look at all those spelling errors, Christ. Next time I'm showering before I sign online.
In general I think the real check on this sort of action would be the approbation of the other players, who would refuse to accept it, and who would likely through both the offending players out of the game (extrajudiciously, though they're space for this in 116) than allow somebody to just declare themselves the winners out of the gate.
Exactly this. You have to have a little bit more style and finesse, Chuck. Baby steps.
I was thinking similar thoughts: what if I conspired with Chuck to, on my turn, propose a rule, both of us vote yes, and declare voting closed. Inevitable judgement goes to Chuck, who rules in my favor. Attempt to overrule fails, because I vote to uphold.
Any two consecutive players could conspire to do nefarious things. I'm not sure how to fix that, yet.
I think the participants in this game are strong-willed enough that if anything grossly unfair happens, it'll be ignored or rebuked. Of course that's not really legal according to the rules.
I think the participants in this game are strong-willed enough that if anything grossly unfair happens, it'll be ignored or rebuked.
Hopefully, that's true, but the bigger issue is what happens judgements break the rules, but don't break them enough to precipitate a revolt. We don't really have any way to deal with all the judgements that fly in the face of the rules, but aren't egregious enough to cause some sort of civil disobedience. I think AAA has pretty clearly demonstrated this in his judgements (I opened a vote to move on, despite his judgements, in the hope that enough players would follow the rules rather than AAA's judgements, but it didn't happen).
I think that, as a fist step, we should codify what consent to move on consists of (and I don't think lack of objections counts, unless we allow a significant period for objections - otherwise we have moved on to the next turn immediately). We might also consider a lower threshold to overrule (say 2/3). With a 2/3 majority required to overrule, we have a mechanism to enforce 212 (especially the part about all judgements needing to be in accordance with the rules), whereas now we have to rely on either on the judge's goodwill or a unanimous vote to overrule. A rule against judging one's own invocations would be an improvement as well.
ssg, I'm taking notes on all of this, because if it hasn't been done by my turn I think I'm going to introduce some comprehensive judicial reform. I'm thinking also that it might be good to have a council of judges, rather than just one, perhaps chosen by a couple different methods -- or perhaps just a "Supreme Court" for appeals.
Along those lines I'd also like to introduce the idea of actual precedent -- I'm not sure "judging" really makes any sense without some notion of precedent to back it up. At the very least a Supreme Court comprised of the last 3 judges would establish some sort of continuity to judging logic.
Whatever AAA said or did not say as judge doesn't mean anything in the future. Just because he doesn't want to have a majority vote and instead prefers to work by telepathy or whatever doesn't mean anything. Judgement only lasts for the turn during which it is asked for. His judgement is no longer binding.
We only need to clarify what a judge can do if future judges continue to ignore the rules, ignore what it is they're asked to make judgement on and continue to just say whatever they like. And even then only if other players continue to listen to them when they don't need to.
I don't like the idea of precedent because it just formalises the behaviour I outlined in my last paragraph, and I see nothing positive about that. I'm a long way down the list and for ages yet will only get to really have any say by voting (assuming I'm allowed to do so) so read into that whatever you like.
he doesn't want to have a majority vote and instead prefers to work by telepathy or whatever
You say that like it's a bad thing, shelleycat. It would almost seem like you don't trust me to put your best interests first?
We only need to clarify what a judge can do if future judges continue to ignore the rules, ignore what it is they're asked to make judgement on and continue to just say whatever they like.
We already saw that people were willing to go along with a judge who ignores the rules last turn, so I think we should aim to prevent that from happening again, not wait until it does.
I'm in agreement with shelleycat on the issue of precedent. I see judgement as a method to resolve problems in the short term. We have rule changes to resolve long term problems. Using precedent to expand the scope of judgement will only serve to muddle things.
We already saw that people were willing to go along with a judge who ignores the rules last turn, so I think we should aim to prevent that from happening again, not wait until it does.
You and shelleycat saving the naive proles from themselves? If people are willing to follow a firm judge with the courage to show leadership and a clear vision for the future, maybe that suggests a way forward out of all these muddled, contradictory, poorly written rules.
I think the idea of a permanent "supreme court" is excellent. It will keep rogue judges in check and oversee the orderly followign of procedure.
We already have a means of establishing precedent. Rule 212 says judges shall "consider" game custom when making rulings - but only where the rules are silent or vague. While not invalidating the ruling automatically, not following precedent (without explaining a good reason why) would certainly be grounds for overruling.
We've seen that unanimous anything is damn near impossible, so the only check on the Judge - overruling by the other players - is pretty ineffective. Change that to 2/3, as has been suggested, and we're in business.
I think the appellate court idea is interesting, too, but while proposals still need unanimous approval, anything more complicated like that has zero chance of getting approved.