Everyone has voted on 309 except vernondalhart, who announced that they were leaving Spork on Monday.
As MeFiNo is an official minigame within Spork (see Spork 47), vernondalhart's declaration that he/she is no longer a player therefore applies to MeFiNo as well.
Accordingly I ask ctmf to rule that vernondalhart is no longer a player and that 309 has therefore failed.
so ruled.
If precedent mattered this would be one for the books.
I think we should have purged him out in the standard way... so now events in Spork have weight here?
They surely don't and I resent the presumption.
As MeFiNo is an official minigame within Spork (see Spork 47), vernondalhart's declaration that he/she is no longer a player therefore applies to MeFiNo as well.
The more I think of this, the wronger it seems. ctmf has judged in haste, and stumbled. The logic is the other way - as Spork is a mini-game, quitting here could be seen as quitting there, but not vice versa. Most of us are not participating in Spork, so by this logic we should be purged from MeFiNo?
As a mini-game of MeFiNo, I could see us legislating here to effect Spork, though... hmm, interesting...
I was trying to be provocative and have a little bit of fun. And given Spork's assertion of its transcendent superiority to the pocket nomic known as MeFiNo, I think ctmf's ruling must be applauded for its wisdom.
And of course the ruling is good and necessary insofar as vernondalhart probably isn't coming back to either game anytime soon...
I don't see anything official on MeFiNo that claims Spork is subservient. "Side game," maybe, but America used to be a side game to Britain too.
Also, MeFiNo will be understood to exist in a hermetically sealed "Pocket Nomic" and events inside MeFiNo will be understood to have no effect on Spork. There are specific exceptions to this but all you can really do to Spork from here is earn us money.
ctmf's judgment here re vernondalhart can be overruled via standard MeFiNo process, of course.
If necessary, I invoke a vote to overrule this judgment. This seems like a bad idea to base decisions in this game on Spork happenings.
I vote to overrule judgment.
I vote not to overrule judgment, breaking unanimity.
MeFiNo is the new Tibet.
If you like, I'll propose a Spork rule to grant MeFiNo sovereignty in the event MeFiNo passes a free-willed voter rule.
You are breaking my perception that this game was occurring in a vacuum. Now I've got to start printing "Free MeFiNo!" signs and t-shirts. I'm also hoping this means I can get into a brawl with some of those Spork players and blame it on their repressive regime.
I'll buy two of each if you send a paypal address.
Wow, all kinds of wrong. Did you know I am playing a side game where the rule is that I automatically win MeFiNo?
It's more fun in a shared universe.
A wise ruling.
Just so we're clear, this ruling has no force other than to remove vernondalhart from the voting rolls, which needed to be done anyway... I only played the "Spork mini-game" card for fun, not to dick with the game in any substantive way.
(That comes later.)
Of course, under some theories of jurisprudence, the effect of this judgment ends once turn 310 begins anyway.
I'm against having the two games cross over in any way. I want to be able to completely ignore spork. Those playing there should not have any advantage or disavantage here. I also don't want anything done here to have an effect there, otherwise it's not very effective ignoring. If you want to remove someone from the game do it because of what is happening within this game, not because of something outside.
I wasn't ruled solely based on (the rules of) spork, it was ruled based on evidence that vernondalhart isn't playing any more. Such evidence included: he hasn't voted or commented for some time, and he quit spork, andhis stated reason for quitting spork, which similarly applied to MeFiNo at the time (but he didn't explicitly say he was quitting MeFiNo.
I believe pretty strongly he intended to quit MeFiNo, but forgot to say something. That's why I ruled that. Spork has no bearing, other than that some of the circumstantial evidence was over there.
Pretend I proofread and corrected the typos in that before posting.
Hm. I hadn't thought of (that implication of) that argument yet. Under the one-turn-statue-limit, are players purged under the previous judge's judgment automatically players again?
the theory of one-turn-statute-limit, that is.
This stupid keyboard keeps typing what I type, not what I mean.
All other actions being legal, I think any of them can rejoin the same way we originally joined, and that it would take another judgment to play otherwise. Is the shadow ruleset ready?
Our game custom has been that they can rejoin any time by starting to participate again. The language to that effect was removed from the player page, and I think it needs to be there rather than a link to your (soon to be irrelevant) judgment for turn 309.
So long as the purged accounts are dormantly non-participating, there is no reason they should be put on the player list - they would just keep getting re-purged every turn.
AAA: that's what I think, too. I brought it up as a strike against the limited-judgment-lifetime theory.
Note that the sockpuppet screening judgment still has an explicit expiration date.
I would much rather see this solved by rules than judicial expansion.
Under the one-turn-statue-limit, are players purged under the previous judge's judgment automatically players again?
I don't see any reason why they should be. The judge has ordered players removed from the players list and so they have been. The removal from the players list happens during the same turn that the judgement is made. It would require some sort of other action in the next turn (such as the player voting again) for the player to be moved back onto the players list.
This is entirely different from a situation where the judge legislates from the bench and create a new-pseudo rule. That pseudo-rule should not prevent or cause actions in future turns.
A better example would be if a the players disagreed about the number of points a certain player should receive during a particular turn and a judge decided they should get less points than they claimed. Once the turn ends, we wouldn't expect the number of points that the player has to revert to whatever they originally claimed, just as we wouldn't expect a non-player to become a player again automatically.
The judge has ordered players removed from the players list and so they have been.
This should be headlined. And great analogy. I was wrong about this upthread.
Is the shadow ruleset ready?
Yes.
ctmf, you are truly my hero. It's been my dream to see game-custom and past judgments given the pride of place that they deserve. You have not included a number of key judgments made during my tenure. Are you intending to add them, or shall I dive in and help you out with that?
You can help if you see one I missed. I was trying to leave out superceeded judgments, but still get in the interpretation discussion, where it may influence later judges.