Nomic 5 Proposal 304 - Stalin's Stamp (closed)

[super_dipsy]

I wish to overrule super_dipsy's judgement.

Perfectly fair

I have changed the thread title accordingly.

[Crunkus]

My turn ended when Crunkus made his post.

212. If players disagree about the legality of a move or the interpretation or application of a rule, then the active player preceding the player who began the turn in which the disagreement arose is to be the Judge and decide the question. Disagreement for the purposes of this rule may be created by the insistence of any player. This process is called invoking Judgment.

So, according to rule 301 my turn ended at the second Crunkus made his scoring adjudication post, and ugluk's turn started. My disagreement with Crunkus' scoring post arose during Ugluk's turn, therefore. As I read Rule 212 I am therefore the judge. If the disagreement had arisen in my turn, I would not be eligible to be the judge, but my turn ended with the scoring post.

Have I got this right?

If so, I rule that the blue votes counted and that therefore Stalin's Stamp passed and the scoring post that ended my turn is incorrect.

(Not trying to be difficult, just testing the rule set to destruction )

You are missing the part where it says IN WHICH THE DISAGREEMENT AROSE. The disagreement arose during your turn. If it is in fact the next turn, no judgment is possible.

It's just an impossible ruling to invoke. I applaud the effort but you're either right and a judgment is not possible on the matter or you're wrong and you aren't the judge, indeed, no one can be.

So which is it? Do you wish the turn to be over, or do you wish for judgment not to be possible on this manner? Your "ruling" needs to be overruled because its just simply making up the rules as you go along. That's not a good precedent to set so early in the game.

OVERRULE
SD's "judgment"
It's completely illegal. I cannot speak to the intent of the voters, and the rules don't require me to. I can speak to the intent of this rule we're quoting, since it's pretty clear as either rulings on whoever closes out the voting phase are impossible (I rule I win!) and the rule has no purpose but to unbalance the game, or the purpose of the "in which the disagreement arose" is quite clear. We're talking about giving Ugluk the keys to ending the game next turn if he chooses. SD, I'd like to see you withdraw your own ruling...it isn't worth the effect it will have on the entire game.

[Ugluk]

If no judgements can be invoked after the score is settled, I call dibs on tallying the next score.

[Crunkus]

If no judgements can be invoked after the score is settled, I call dibs on tallying the next score.

I bet you do.

I'm surprised you didn't change your request to overrule.

Seriously folks, SD included, overrule this puppy.

[Ugluk]

What we really have here is a vote tally discrepancy. Don't we have an amicable adjudication process? Seems like 212 paints with wide strokes.

[connect4]

OVERRULE
I wanted it to pass, but the wrong color was used (and blue was specifically defined with a color code)

[super_dipsy]

That concludes this little interlude

With 3 out of the 4 active players (the rules specify 'other' so I do not get to vote as the judge being overruled) voting to overrule, my 'judgement' is overruled and the previous player becomes judge (which was Pagane) and he has already ruled. so we are done.

However, I do think this has made some important points about the holes in the rules as they stand. We should keep them in mind I suggest.

One point I must make - I think Crunkus is wrong here, and I think this is one of the big holes.

You are missing the part where it says IN WHICH THE DISAGREEMENT AROSE. The disagreement arose during your turn. If it is in fact the next turn, no judgment is possible.

On the contrary, I was being precise. Not sure if you read my post dated 05:38, but according to 301 (the way it is written) my turn ended at the exact moment you made your adjudication post. My disagreement came AFTER that (how can it have been before when I did not know the content of the adjudication post? ). Therefore according to Rule 301 which specifically states that the net turn (Ugluk's) started at the point your post was made, the disagreement arose in UGLUK's turn, not mine.

I am also not convinced that

If it is in fact the next turn, no judgment is possible.

is correct. I see nothing that says a judgement can only be requested during a turn, and in fact if this were the case then we have a more serious problem. As I think Ugluk is pointing out with his wish to be the one to adjudicate the next turn, the way we passed 301 with the turn finishing at the point the adjudication is posted, if indeed you cannot ask for a judgement after a turn is finished then a player could simply post an adjudication post with whatever conclusions they wish and since that ends the turn the deed is done. Or even if the adjudication post makes some arithmetic errors (which we have certainly had in previous games!) if it is not something that can be challenged then that again causes problems.

However, as I say I am very happy to continue. My judgement was overruled (or perhaps was not even legitimate in the first place ) and therefore the Thing did not get created.

[Ugluk]

In the event a judgement is overrulled, judgement of the same matter falls upon the next judge in line.

The matter is not settled.

[super_dipsy]

The matter is not settled.

Yes it is. Pagane already ruled. He ruled first.He ruled that the votes do not count and the adjudication is correct.

Unless you are saying you want him to repeat his ruling because technically the rulings were made out of order?

[Crunkus]

Alrighty, all that remains is to change the scoreboard and update the rule set to reflect this passing.