Page 5 of 7

Re: Nomic 5 - Proposal 302 "Thingagenesis"

PostPosted: 20 Feb 2014, 03:40
by Crunkus
glittle wrote:
Oh boy, here we go. By my clock, it says 9:23AM.


glittle, this seems easy enough to clear up. If by your clock it says 9:23, what does your clock say about the time of the OP? This doesn't have to be a mystery. If Pagane were to start and you were to endorse that, I'd withdraw my request for judgment and connect4 wouldn't even be able to rule on it since we no longer have 2 players that disagree...barring someone else speaking up.

I mean, it's fair beans. Heck, I'd even stand behind simply including your AYE and SD's AYE into the role, just to get things moving and neglecting to call either of you inactive. But I don't see how one can be called inactive and the other can't. I understand how the confusion arose...but this is a very solvable problem.

Re: Nomic 5 - Proposal 302 "Thingagenesis"

PostPosted: 20 Feb 2014, 03:53
by Ugluk
Crunkus wrote:If Pagane were to start and you were to endorse that, I'd withdraw my request for judgment and connect4 wouldn't even be able to rule on it since we no longer have 2 players that disagree...barring someone else speaking up.


I am interested in learning how you came to the conclusion that you are allowed to withdraw an invocation of judgement. I see nowhere in the rules (particularly 212) that states that two players may deny the power of Judgement once it has been called for. Merely that a 3/4ths majority may overturn the judgement.

Re: Nomic 5 - Proposal 302 "Thingagenesis"

PostPosted: 20 Feb 2014, 05:17
by Crunkus
Ugluk wrote:
Crunkus wrote:If Pagane were to start and you were to endorse that, I'd withdraw my request for judgment and connect4 wouldn't even be able to rule on it since we no longer have 2 players that disagree...barring someone else speaking up.


I am interested in learning how you came to the conclusion that you are allowed to withdraw an invocation of judgement. I see nowhere in the rules (particularly 212) that states that two players may deny the power of Judgement once it has been called for. Merely that a 3/4ths majority may overturn the judgement.


Oh, I largely just made it up after combining it with a misremembered tidbit of rule. You know, the usual speaking out of my ass type of thing. I figured if I was wrong it would get sorted out just fine.

Let's get this cookie going.

Re: Nomic 5 - Proposal 302 "Thingagenesis" Judgment Require

PostPosted: 20 Feb 2014, 10:22
by super_dipsy
Ah yes, I see both glittle and I missed the deadline. glittle, there is no question here, although of course Connect4 has to rule. The timestamps for the original post from Crunkus and your vote (and mine) are more than 72 hours apart. It doesn't matter whether anyone's clocks have changed or what timezone people are on, the rule is not a time thing but an elapsed time thing (48 hours).

In my own defence, and I know I have not been paying attention, the original rule set was not altered to reflect the passing of 301 so it still goes by 214 which gives 72 hours ;) . But of course I should have realized we passed 201, so it is my fault totally. I did wonder for a moment because C4 replaced 202 not 214, which means 214 is still in effect. But on careful reading I note it simply states a player not voting in 72 hours is inactive. It does not say a player voting within 72 hours is active, which would have conflicted with 301 and would have overriden it because it has a lower number. So 214 says you are inactive if you do not vote in 72, 301 says you are inactive if you don't vote in 24. Therefore there is no contradiction.

Anyway, I don't think we have any penalties (yet) for going inactive, do we? So glittle and I can just come back to life!

Re: Nomic 5 - Proposal 302 "Thingagenesis" Judgment Require

PostPosted: 20 Feb 2014, 14:38
by Crunkus
Can we reach a 3/4 majority to overrule the judge's decision before the judge makes one?

It might move it along a little faster... :)

Re: Nomic 5 - Proposal 302 "Thingagenesis" Judgment Require

PostPosted: 20 Feb 2014, 16:46
by super_dipsy
Crunkus wrote:Can we reach a 3/4 majority to overrule the judge's decision before the judge makes one?

It might move it along a little faster... :)

Interesting idea - particularly the idea of Nomic EVER moving faster :lol: . veterans of previous games know this is but a dream....

We can indeed overrule the judge's decision with a 3/4 majority, but at this point the judge has not made a decision. However, we CAN agree to move on with the next turn with a simple majority. I realize this is complicated by the fact in the original roster glittle was next, but as I read things the Adjudication phase finished, glittle and I were too late, we are inactive, it was not glittle who called for the judgement but Crunkus in order to confirm the decision that glittle is inactive (and me too) and therefore while we may be awaiting the judge's ruling,at this point glittle is inactive, numberwang1 is inactive and it is pagane's turn except we are paused by the judgement.

However, if the majority of the active players (I am not one so I cannot vote) want to vote to continue, it is then Pagane's turn. Of course before then C4 may be in to give his judgement. He has to do so in abut 5 hours anyway or he will be inactive too!

Re: Nomic 5 - Proposal 302 "Thingagenesis" Judgment Require

PostPosted: 20 Feb 2014, 16:56
by glittle
If there's a simple majority to overrule any judgement, how would my adjudication not stand?

Re: Nomic 5 - Proposal 302 "Thingagenesis" Judgment Require

PostPosted: 20 Feb 2014, 17:00
by Crunkus
glittle wrote:If there's a simple majority to overrule any judgement, how would my adjudication not stand?

How would it?

Re: Nomic 5 - Proposal 302 "Thingagenesis" Judgment Require

PostPosted: 20 Feb 2014, 17:26
by glittle
You called for judgement and have the burden of proof in that question. I posted the scoreboard, ended the adjudication phase and the turn in conjunction with the rules. Your call for judgement puts my adjudication in question. Should we overrule all judgements in an effort to continue, my adjudication stands.

Re: Nomic 5 - Proposal 302 "Thingagenesis" Judgment Require

PostPosted: 20 Feb 2014, 17:41
by glittle
This vote is in an effort to gain a simple majority in order to continue the game without the requested judgment.

AYE