Most esteemed and honourable bonobo,
Chuck is currently breaking rule 201., in that he is not taking his turn.
"201...Turns may not be skipped or passed, and parts of turns may not be omitted...."
I contend, your honour, that he is attempting to skip his turn by the current lengthy delay.
Will you tell him he must either post his proposal for voting or you will assume he is no longer participating and remove him from the player list?
From rule 111: "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."
First, t is entirely up to me when to end debate and vote on proposal 307, that is entirely within the rules. Also note, that as rule 111 is an immutable rule, in case of conflict with a mutable rule (such as 201), rule 111 takes precedence. (See rule 110.)
Second, you cite "no longer participating" as if that's some magical talisman you can invoke to have me removed. In fact, the removal of players who have not voted on proposals in the past is based on rule 305, "Every player must participate in every vote on rule-changes." [emph. mine]. Not "every player must participate in every activity related to the game ever." As there is currently no vote on a rule-change going on, any perceived lack of participation on my part is not in violation of any rule.
Third, only seven players have consented to move on after the judgment was invoked in turn 306, by my count, which is not a majority of players. Thus, my turn has not even begun yet!
Finally, I would argue that my continuing participation in the discussion thread for 307 does constitute participation in the game and is evidence that I do not intend to skip my turn.
Dear Chuck, you clearly misunderstand the current state of play.
In the most recent ruling, Judge backseatpilot ruled "I will judge that the motion has failed and once bonobo tallies her points the turn is over." Bonobo tallied her points, the turn is now 307, and we have all been picking the lint from our belly buttons while waiting about three days while we "Look forward to 307".
I don't want to look forward to 307, I want it to be a part of the past, or, grudgingly, a part of the present. Get that there vote on.
From rule 111: "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."
I have asked the judge to do so.
Rule 212 requires a consent of the majority of players to move on following an invocation of judgment, and a declaration of the judge in clear contravention of the rules cannot change that.
Question: had backseatpilot ruled, in my invocation on "An exploration of the limits of judicial activism," that he and I had won the game, do you believe that would mean that backseatpilot and I would in fact have won the game? Why or why not?
And what is the mechanism, precisely, given that the judge has not yet decided a time to end debate and vote, by which I would be expelled from the game?
But consent of majority is simply not the same thing as a formal statement of consent from a majority of players. Saying "Are there any objections?" and having nobody answer would clearly suffice. Not a single person has objected to moving on, from which we can infer that (at least) a majority consent to moving on.
The idea that consent of the majority can only be determined by a formal vote or a roll call or by some explicit procedure is an idea that is being brought into this by the players themselves -- it's not in the rules. It's perfectly legitimate for a judge (or, I think) for anyone to say "Let's move on by acclimation," and for that to stand barring objections.
This "what if" hand waving is entirely outside the scope of the current invocation, Chuck, I don't know what you are talking about.
It's perfectly legitimate for a judge (or, I think) for anyone to say "Let's move on by acclimation," and for that to stand barring objections.
Indeed, this has been the ruling of Judges, on multiple counts, and has become one of our strongest game customs. If Chuck doesn't think it is his turn he must be abusing some sort of organic solvents.
I am exploring your beliefs regarding the nature of judicial activism. Yes, it is entirely outside the scope of the current invocation. That doesn't mean discussion of the issue is forbidden. This isn't AskMetaFilter.
More generally, I raise the question to demonstrate that you have a view of judicial activism which, I believe, is not shared by most players here. Feel free to correct me if I am not properly understanding your view.
As they say in Wikipedia, citation needed. Shouting louder and louder that judges can do whatever they please will not make it so. Not to mention that it's the height of a circular argument to say, "Judges can do whatever they please, and this is the case because judges have ruled that they can do whatever they please."
Chuck, do you agree that consent of the majority does not necessarily require an explicit proof to be inferred from the total lack of objections? If so, then all this anxiety about judicial activism is entirely misplaced right now -- the judges are perfectly in line with a strict constructionist reading of 212.
No, I do not agree. What's to keep someone from saying, 2 seconds after a judgment, "oh, look, no objections, so we have majority consent to move on?"
A judge would stop that, if it happened, which it hasn't. The current situation is nothing like that -- it's been days and days and *clearly* a majority of players consent to moving on.
Or let me put it to you another way: if consent can be inferred from a lack of objections, how long does that take? If the judge (whoever he or she may be) rules I have 7 days from the time my turn began to begin the vote, what, exactly, would my deadline be?
backseatpilot's judgment implied that turn 307 began immediately following bonobo's calculation of points--do you believe that it is legitimate to infer consent to move on, on the basis of a lack of objections, in the brief time between backseatpilot's judgment and bonobo's calculation of points?
(Much like a judge was able to tell the difference between judicial activism of the necessary and productive sort and your invocation to determine whether or not you can be declared to have won. So far we haven't had to face a rogue judge -- we've been lucky -- and hopefully we can institute some sort of check on the power of judges before we get to that point.
I'd argue that you should try and pass the 2/3 majority rule so that either me or flatluigi can get to work on standardizing judicial practice.)
If bonobo rules that she is the judge and it is turn 307, and backseatpilot does not rule that it is not turn 307, I will (grudgingly) accept the judgment.
if consent can be inferred from a lack of objections, how long does that take?
That's a question for a judge to decide when it becomes an issue, which would only be the case when:
a) a majority of the players object to moving on;
b) but they were the denied the chance to express this objection in a timely fashion.
That plainly isn't the case here, so it's not relevant.
backseatpilot's judgment implied that turn 307 began immediately following bonobo's calculation of points--do you believe that it is legitimate to infer consent to move on, on the basis of a lack of objections, in the brief time between backseatpilot's judgment and bonobo's calculation of points?
With any judicial ruling you have to read "barring objections" into it, because as you say it's clear that a judge can't rule that they can never be overruled. If a majority of players had objected to moving onto 307, they would have said so, and in their saying so we would know that we hadn't actually moved onto 307 despite what backseatpilot may have said or thought.
But until a majority of players object, there's no reason and no call to delay the game indefinitely on the grounds that they might.
There's especially no call in this case, as you clearly have consent of the majority: the seven you name + AAA.
I believe AAA disagrees with you on this point.
gerryblog, I will rabidly beat that drum for you.
And will you also refrain from sniffing glue during play, from this point forward? I ask because I care, Chuck.
I can't "rule" that I am the judge. I have calculated my points and my turn is over, making me the judge for the next turn. That turn being NOW. That turn being CHUCK's. Go, Chuck, go!
I'll agree that, according to the rule set, there is no time limit for Chuck to floss and polish his proposal before submitting it for a vote. On the grounds of common decency and the love of the game, it would be great to move along. Don't make me turn this car around and get all judicial up in here.
None of the above is a formal judgment by me, just wishful thinking.
I may or may not be back in the next twelve hours-or-so. As I've stated before, I'm wicked busy at school and balancing too many spinning plates.
bonobo, since you haven't ruled yet, I want to point to rule 111 again:
...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.
The proponent normally decides the final form in which the proposal is to be voted on, but you've now been asked to decide that. I have to disagree strongly that there is no time limit for Chuck's proposal to be debated -- obviously at some point we would have to conclude, as AAA already has, that he doesn't intend to take his turn. We're pretty close to that point.
When you come back, can you declare the voting open, as is your right as a judge? Hopefully Chuck will have already posted it by then, making the question moot.
Why don't we resolve the question of whether 307 has begun in Chuck's judgement invocation thread (I think he is miscounting and we did have a majority, as I said in that thread) and wait until that question is settled over there (either by judgement or by Chuck withdrawing his invocation) before AAA's invocation here is decided? It seems logical to deal with the two separate issues in separate threads.
Although bonobo hasn't "officially" judged, I would say her claim to be the judge NOW pretty much answers Chuck's invocation as well.
Chuck, and all players actually, should be allowed as much discussion of their rule as they like or feel necessary before putting it up for voting. There's nothing in the rules (yet) about forcing this issue or how fast it has to happen, and I think there's a lot of value to a proper discussion. It means the vote is more likely to pass for a start. And even if one player is ready to vote no a proper discussion still allows the other players to work out where they stand on the issue and maybe put up a better version later on.
The rule does say a judge is allowed to decide when voting starts, but only after the player has formulated a final wording for the vote. Maybe Chuck doesn't feel he has that yet? It's no one else's place to rewrite his rule for him. If he does have a final form then yeah, continuing discussion is pointless and we should vote. Which I'm sure Chuck will set up just as soon as he's able.
shelleycat, I read that rule differently: I think the judge is empowered to tell a poster to decide on a final form and post.
Sniffing glue during play is permitted by rule 116. I reserve the right to do so. If it bothers you so much, you may propose to outlaw glue sniffing on your turn.
AAA, will you withdraw your judgement invocation based on Chuck's guarantee that he will put his proposal to vote by 2am EST? Surely you can wait 14 more hours to vote. As you know, if you do so Chuck will withdraw his invocation and we can all happily proceed forward.
It seems we can also happily move forward with the status quo? (aside from the imposition on the honorable Judge bonobo's time, for which I do apologize)
Unlike some players, I do not lodge frivolous Invocations. Once we have troubled the court I think it only shows the correct respect for the gravitas of the office that we await the formal result. I am most eager to hear the voice of authority setting precedent for our future turns and discouraging those trouble-making elements like Chuck and his kind from destroying our game through sloth and self-absorption.
AAA: Since the vote on 307 has come and gone, I don't see anything in your invocation for bonobo to judge. Would you consider withdrawing the invocation at this point?
I withdraw my invocation.