Well it's love it or hate, it seems we have a dictatorship - for a week.
Using the enormous power granted to Judges, player Lindrum has effectively 
declared himself the sole arbiter of the rules of Nomic World!

Do not panic, however! Lindrum has stated clearly his intention to step down
from his position as President of the Interim Government in one weeks time,
leaving in place a revised constitution including majority voting, protection
against dictators (!!) and other bugs in the current rules. He has cordially
invited all players to join the Interim Government to contribute their ideas
to how we can improve the rules from their current sorry state. He hopes to
offer a Draft constitition by Wednesday.

I here include the text of Lindrum's historic document seizing power for
himself "to make the game safe from tyranny"! There has never been a better
time to log on to Nomic World, and join in the furore!

See you there!

Steve

-------------------Text of President Lindrum's Judgement------------------

Lindrum's Judgement: Part 1 (Lindrum, Sep 27)
 Part 1:  On the scope of this judgement.

 Evantine raises a question regarding the wording of Heffalump's
 Proposal 1004.  Since 1004 was a proposed amendment to Rule 210,
 judgement of this matter will require clarification of Rule 210
 and, as we shall see, various other rules on whose interpretation
 a proper understanding of Rule 210 and the present judgement will
 depend.  Accordingly, I take the scope of my jurisdiction on the
 present matter to include the interpretation of any rules relevant
 to a proper understanding of this present judgement.  This includes,
 but is in no way limited to, the interpretation of Rules 206, 210,
 and 102.

 Some comments in support of this statement of scope are 
 appropriate here.

 Rule 206 states that: "Unless a judge is overruled, one judge
 settles all questions relevant to the disagreement which the 
 judge was selected to settle, including questions as to their
 own legitimacy and jurisdiction as Judge."  It is quite clear
 from this that any question of the scope of a Judge's
 jurisdiction is up to the Judge himself (and no-one else)
 to determine.

 Rule 206 also states that: "New Judges may, however, settle
 only those questions on which the players currently disagree."
 This might reasonably be taken to be an explicit
 limitation of the scope of jurisdiction of a New Judge.
 However Rule 206 defines a "New Judge" to be one who
 has been selected after a previous judgement has been
 overruled.  I am not a New Judge.

Lindrum's Judgement: Part 2 (Lindrum, Sep 27)
 Part 2:  On the interpretation of Rule 210.

 Rule 210 is a rule that includes an explicit, though vague,
 limitation of the period of its own effect.  It states:
 "Initially, proposals shall be adopted only by unanimous
 vote ... "  In other words, Rule 210 concerns only what
 is to happen during the initial part of the Game.  It says
 nothing at all about the criteria by which proposals are to
 be adopted once the initial phase of the Game is over.
 (Rule 102 has a similar limitation.)

 In order to understand Rule 210, then, we must clarify the
meaning of the word "initially".  One approach would be to
 interpret "initially" in this context as meaning "until
 this rule is changed".  It is this Judge's firm and considered
 opinion, however, that such an interpretation is mistaken,
 since it would rob the word "initially" of any force
 whatsoever.  In that sense, after all, every Rule of the Game
 would be "initial" and one might fairly ask why it is not the
 case that every rule begin, as Rules 210 and 102 do, with the
 word "initially".

 As a matter of general principle one ought to prefer an
 interpretation of a rule that ascribes some relevance to each
 word or phrase appearing in the rule's statement, over any
 interpretation on which that word or phrase is merely
 superfluous or otiose.

 Now the Rules of Nomic offer no precise answer to the question:
 when does the initial part of the Game end?  Rule 206 states
clearly that when the rules are "silent" or "unclear on the
 point at issue", then the issue is one for judgement.  As
 indicated in Part 1 above, I judge the interpretation of
 Rule 210 to fall within the scope of my present jurisdiction,
 and hence I am required as Judge to make this point precise
 in a manner consistent with "common morality, common logic,
 and the spirit of the game".  Realizing that the choice of
 any particular point in time would be somewhat arbitrary,
 but forced nevertheless to choose, I hereby declare that
 the initial part of the game will end at the time of posting
 of the final Part of this Judgement.  I interpret Rule 210
 as stating that from that time onwards Rule 210 is no
 longer in effect.

Lindrum's Judgement: Part 3 (Lindrum, Sep 27)
 Part 3:  On the spirit of the game

 The present Judgement does not involve the enactment, repeal,
 amendment, or transmutation of any rule.  Any such thing
 would clearly be improper.  The present Judgement does no
 more than to interpret the rules as they currently stand.
 While some details of my interpretation may be a 
 controversial matter, it is uncontroversial that, according
 to the current rules, I have the right as a duly selected
 Judge to enforce an interpretation which has less than
 universal support, provided that the opposition I face is
 also less than universal.  Some of you may doubt, however,
 that the present Judgement is really "in the spirit of the
 game".  Let me explain why it is.

 Peter Suber's carefully framed Rules of Nomic were not only
 adapted for the purposes of this computer implementation,
 they were changed, and for the worse.  Since the beginning
 of play it has been clear to me that there were several
 serious problems, for example with rules regarding judgement
 that allow a Judge legally to grant himself absolute power
 by interpretation.  There seemed to me to be a very real
 threat that the first appointed Judge would seize control
 of the Game with evil intent.  I have been very troubled
 about this, for it seems to me that the spirit of the Game
 is cooperative and democratic, not totalitarian.  When by 
chance I was selected as Judge I decided after much 
 soul-searching and careful thought that the only sure way
 to preserve the integrity of the game was to proceed in
 the present manner.

 Accordingly, I have done no more here than to lay bare what
 was already implicit in the Rules: that an appointed Judge
 may legally determine that he himself has absolute power.
 I am committed to changing this state of affairs.  I shall 
 move immediately following the posting of this judgement
 to establish a Seven Day Interim Government with
 temporary emergency powers.  The Interim Government is
 committed to establishing majority rule at the end of a
 seven day period following the posting of this Judgement.
 The democratic forces seeking a move to majority rule
have been systematically thwarted by the tyranny of a
 minority who insist on retaining a unanimity requirement.
 I solemnly pledge to you democrats that the Interim Government
 will be dissolved after one week, leaving in its place
 a set of rules free from the flaws uncovered in the 
 present judgement, and according to which proposals
 will be adopted by majority rule subject to a quorum.

 I urge you all to take an active part in the operations of
 the Interim Government during the coming week.

Lindrum's Judgement: Part 4 (Lindrum, Sep 27)
  Part 4: Clarification of the criterion for the adoption
  of proposals.

 Rule 210 ceases to be in force at the conclusion of the initial part
 game.  The remaining rules of the game are "silent" and 
 "unclear" on the way in which proposals might be legally
 adopted once Rule 210 is no longer in effect.  Since this
 murky state of affairs is a direct consequence of the 
 interpretation of the rules presented in the current
 judgement, it would be an abuse of my position as Judge were
 I not to clarify the situation.

 To leave the Game in complete chaos or subject to
 exploitation by a Judge less scrupulous than myself would
 be unconscionable.  Thus I judge in accordance with
 Rule 206 that "common morality" and "the spirit of the game"
 leave me with no choice but to interpret the remaining
 rules collectively in the following way when it comes to
 the subject of the adoption of proposals:

     A proposal shall be adopted if and only if
     Lindrum approves it.

 Note the following crucial point.  In stating this criterion
 I am not enacting, repealing, amending, or transmuting
 any rule.  I am merely interpreting those rules that will
 remain in force once Rule 210 has suspended itself.  The
 interpretation, though controversial, is strongly
 supported by the comments on the spirit of the game outlined
 in Part 3 above.
 As was stated in Part 1, I have judged the scope of my
 jurisdiction on the present matter to include the
 interpretation of any rules relevant to an understanding
 of this present judgement, so my right to interpret these
 rules is unquestionable.  Furthermore, my position as an
 appointed Judge makes the criterion that I have offered here
 legally binding from the moment that the final part of this
 judgement is posted, subject, of course, to the possibility
 that this Judgement be overruled.

 Similarly, Rule 102 only deals the situation that obtains
 during the initial part of the game.  Rule 102 says nothing
 about the status of Rules in the 100's and 200's after that
point.  I hereby judge that from the time of posting of
 the final part of this judgement, all the rules of the game
 are henceforth mutable.

Lindrum's Judgement: Part 5 (Lindrum, Sep 27)
 Part 5:  How this judgement may be overruled.

 Rule 206 states that: "The Judge's judgement may be overruled
 only by a unanimous vote of the other players."  The rule
 is "silent" on the matter of a quorum for this vote. As
 stated in Part 1, I judge that matters concerning the
 interpretation of Rule 206 fall within the provenance of
 my present Judgement.  I hereby interpret the quoted
 sentence as saying that the present Judgement may be overruled
 only by a unanimous vote of all registered players other
 than Lindrum.  A unanimous vote that does not include
 every other player registerd as of the time of posting of
 the final part of this judgement will not overrule this
Judgement. Furthermore, since neither this rule, nor any
 other rule, specifies a time period for overruling, I
 hereby judge that there shall be a time period of THREE
 MINUTES immediately following the posting of the final
 part of this judgement, during which any vote to overrule
 must be completed.  If the present Judgement has not been
 overruled by the end of that period, then it cannot later
 be overruled.

 Addendum to Part 5:  Since there appear to be technical
 problems with the newly created Judges' Noticeboard, and
 since the existence of that noticeboard may not yet have 
 come to the attention of all registered players, and since
 the rules are silent and unclear on the question of the
 proper way to post Judge's Acceptances and Judgements, and
 since the matter is relevant to the present judgement and
 thus, by Part 1 above, within the proper scope of the 
 present Judgement, I hereby judge that the general discussion
 noticeboard is an acceptable place on which to post
 such Acceptances and Judgements.

Lindrum's Judgement: Part 6 [Final] (Lindrum, Sep 27)
 Part 6:  Concluding Judgements

 In light of Parts 1 to 5 above, the issue between Heffalump
 and Evantine takes on a rather academic cast, being a
 dispute over the wording of a failed amendment to a rule
 that is about to suspend itself even as I write.  However,
 the issue is of a kind that may arise again, and it would be 
 remiss of me not to settle it here too.

 I find the wording of Proposal 1004 regrettably loose:
 Heffalump makes explicit mention of the word "unanimity"
 which occurs nowhere in Rule 210.  The wording is, however,
 not such as to make the meaning of the Proposal unclear.
 Note that I make no appeal here to any consideration of
 the intentions of the framer of the proposal.  Such intentions
 I judge to be irrelevant.  The key point is that the meaning
 of the proposal as it satnds, or, rather, as it stood,
 is not such that reasonable people could disagree as to its
 interpretation.  I have no doubt, in fact, that the meaning
 is quite clear to Evantine too.  But of course that was not
 the reason for Evantine's having (quite properly) raised
 this issue, and indeed I thank Evantine for raising it.
 Nevertheless I am compelled to judge in favor of Heffalump
 in this dispute.  Proposal 1004 was quite acceptable as 
 it stood.

 End of Judgement.
 Lindrum, 27 September 1992. 6:35 p.m. Melbourne time.