Ruling:

Statement:

Rule 111/0 does not preclude proposals regarding multiple rules changes.

A suggested amendment of this proposal [301]:

214. All votes will be _counted_ as either "yes" or "no" for purposes of determining the passage of the proposal on which is being voted. This tabulation does not place restrictions on the actual allowed content of a lodged vote, i.e. votes are not required to be "yes" xor "no".

It is suggested that, for the purposes of tabulation, any non-"yes" vote be counted as a "no" vote. This means that abstains are allowed, and should be recorded as abstains - but they would count as "no" votes.

It is not clear to me at present whether or not this second suggestion could indeed be a part of my proposed amendment, or whether it would require a separate rule, as per the section "arguably consists of two or more rule-changes compounded" of rule 111. Perhaps the Judge can offer commentary on this rule interpretation.

Rule 111/0 refers to proposals "arguably [consisting] of two or more rule-changes compounded" in the context of conditions requiring debate on such proposals. Nowhere in he rules is there a statement precluding proposals for multiple rule changes; as such both suggestions as stated above could be contained within the same proposal.

Although Rule 111 does not prevent such proposals, I would strongly suggest a proposal to limit the scope of proposals to one topic.

Ruling:

Statement:

Mike Jensen does not win the game.

I am the winner of this game.

Now for those of you who might take issue at that, let me present a legal argument.

The mechanics of my victory are as follows. I am breaking rule 101/0, which prohibits me from breaking the rules. Having broken this rule, I am free to break any other rules, including those regarding order of play and winning conditions (specifically, I am breaking rule 201/0, playing out of turn, then breaking rule 104/0, creating a new rule which abolishes rule 106/0 and creates new winning conditions, i.e. belonging to the class of things known as "Mike Jensen" {this also violates rule 109/0}. So, by virtue of this new rule, I am the winner of the game.

Now, clearly all of this hinges on my ability to break rule 101/0, which I argue I have a legal right to do. Rule 101/0 is what I would call a self referential rule. Now, clearly, rule 115/0 allows for the legality of such rule. But rule 107/0 forbids retroactive applications of rules. The wording is as follows:

No rule-change may take effect earlier than the moment of the completion of the vote that adopted it, even if its wording explicitly states otherwise. No rule-change may have retroactive application.

Notice there are two parts to this rule, which may at first seem redundant. However, it is clear that the first part refers to rules that are adopted by a vote. The second part must then refer to all rules made by any other method. This clearly includes those rules found in the initial set. So, it seems that rules 107/0 and 115/0 are now in conflict with each other. Rule 211/0 provides for just such an instance and states that the rule with the lower ordinal must take precedence. This is rule 107/0, which forbids retroactive application of rules. Therefore, rule 115/0 cannot allow self reference for rules 101 - 114. Rule 101/0 is included in this set. Therefore, rule 101/0 cannot legally apply to itself or any other rules before it (of which there are none), so breaking rule 101/0 cannot be legally forbidden given the current set of rules. Anything not forbidden is permissible (rule 116/0), so I can break rule 101/0 and become the winner of this game.

Thank You and Viva la Revolucion

The claimant is correct in stating that given the possibility of violating rule 101/0, he would, in fact be able to declare himself the winner of the game; however, a decision in his favor would no longer render any of the rules binding: in such a situation, any other player could declare himself the winner as well. With no effective rules in place, essentially everyone would win (or lose, as the game would be unplayable). Even rule 213/0, which under other circumstances (namely when rule 101/0 is binding) would cause the player whose turn it is (Ben Byrne) to win, would not be in effect. By this reasoning, the game would end in confusion rather than victory.

In examining the claim dealing with the right to violate rule 101/0, it can be seen that the key issue is the definition of retroactive. The claimant's remarks presuppose retroactive is indicative of a spatial as well as a temporal relationship; however, upon consulting Webster's and Black's Law Dictionary, no such relationship was found. Because retroactive refers only to time and (as Josh Kortbein noted) all of the original rules were adopted simultaneously, rules 107/0 and 115/0 are not in conflict and rule 101/0 remains binding.

Ruling:

Statement:

The current ruleset does not render the game unplayable.

If a rule is amended or transmuted, it receives the number of the proposal to amend or transmute it.

To quote Mr. Kortbein: "Implicit in this notion of "receives" is that rule 114/0 is then GONE - absent from the list of rules."

Must the Proposal be passed to effect the change of Rule Number? If not then is, according to Josh's theory, Rule 108/0 no longer in existence? If Rule 108/0 is no longer in existence, then is Proposal 302, "I propose that rule 108 be transmuted", meaningless? And, if Rule 108/0 is no longer in existence then we need no longer debate the issue, Mr. Chapman has handed the game to Mr. Ellefson by making the game unplayable (Rule 213/0).

213. If the rules are changed so that further play is impossible, or if the legality of a move cannot be determined with finality, or if by the Judge's best reasoning, not overruled, a move appears equally legal and illegal, then the first player unable to complete a turn is the winner.

Am I making any sense, or is the Guiness taking over my mind?

Adam Haar's Guinness is indeed messing with his head, and the relevance of rule 114/0 to this situation is basically nil as far as I can tell.

I see no problems or conflicts with the rule numbering system as it currently exists. However, I believe a clarification of rule 108/0 may be in order.

Rule 108/0 states "Each proposed rule-change shall be given a number for reference. The numbers shall begin with 301, and each rule-change proposed in the proper way shall receive the next successive integer, whether or not the proposal is adopted." It the goes on to say, "If a rule is amended or transmuted, it receives the number of the proposal to amend or transmute it."

This means that Dave's proposal, when it becomes a formal proposal, will be numbered 302. If his proposal passes, rule 108 will become rule 302. Regardless of passage, Allan Dudding's proposal shall be numbered 303. When a proposal fails, it is not added to the rulebook, but the next rule number is incremented regardless. Thus, since proposal 301 failed, there will never be a rule 301 (barring a change to 108).

Ruling:

Statement:

There was not enough time for discussion of Proposal 303. Therefore all votes before this judgment are void.

i wish to protest. even though i already voted, i dont think there was time for sufficeint(?) time for debate. i am particularly interested in mr mayfields thoughts on the possible results of this proposition passing.

Ruling:

Statement:

The dropping of the last part of 302/0 and the changing of rule 302 to 108 will happen at the same time if 303 passes. Rule 302 will not become 303 because of the dropped section, so there is no paradox.

I request a judgment as to what would happen if proposal 303 were passed. I contend that upon the passage of proposal 303, the second paragraph of rule 302 would be stricken, rule 302 would be renumbered 108, and nothing more. Rule 108 would not be renumbered 303 to match the current proposal number, as the clause that would cause such a thing to happen would no longer exist by the time renumbering would normally occur.

Renumbering due to rule 302 is caused by the amendment of some rule. As an effect, it cannot occur simultaneously with its cause (the amendment of some rule). Since the amendment and renumbering cannot happen concurrently, renumbering cannot occur before the next infinitesimal increment of time. Due to this, the ruleset will be altered BEFORE any number change takes place, thereby preventing one, since the portion of the rule governing number changes was removed.

Essentially, the question to be judged is: Does rule 302 become rule 303 if proposal 303 is passed, or does it become rule 108?

I no way are judges REQUIRED to make comments!

Ruling:

Statement:

New players cannot be added at this time, but players need not be aware that they are playing.

Can new players be added at this time? Can individuals be added to the game without their consent?

I contend that both of these questions should be answered in the negative. While Rule 116 allows anything which is not prohibited, nowhere is there specified a procedure for adding new players. On its face, this would imply that new players can be added in ANY way. However, a closer inspection of the ruleset reveals a check on the seemingly-unlimited actions allowed by Rule 116/0. Rule 212/0, which deals with our Judicial system, clearly states: "All decisions by Judges shall be in accordance with all the rules then in effect; but when the rules are silent, inconsistent, or unclear on the point at issue, then the Judge shall consider game-custom and the spirit of the game before applying other standards."

As for the first question, game-custom dictates that no new players be added unless they could be inserted after the player whose turn it is and before the last player so as not to affect previous judging order. At this point, if custom were followed, we could only add players whose surnames fall between Kortbein and Uckelman. No one protested this procedure at the time -- presumably it should still be in effect as game-custom and will remain so until a rule codifies the procedure.

As for the second question, the spirit of the game should tell us that a person cannot be drafted into our game. Integral to the concept of a player is a willingness to play and a knowledge that a game is being played. For instance, while it would appear that the entire population of the Russian Federation could be added to our game without their knowledge, they could not rightly be called players. To be a player, one must "play" -- and it is unlikely that any of them will ever be aware that they are in the game, thereby preventing the necessary actions to make them players. We can also refer to game custom for insight into this problem: when the game began, individuals wishing to play contacted me in some way, be it personally or by e-mail. If people are not aware that they are in the game, they cannot contact me, which prevents them from being added to the player roster and mailing list -- an effective barrier to "play."

Furthermore, it would also violate the spirit of the game for an individual to add players solely for the purpose of gaining a majority in support of a rule declaring him the winner of the game. Scamming, while clever and admirable in its own right, should not turn the game into a race to add the most players to one's side.

NOTE: My game-custom augment for adding new players is slightly inaccurate -- new players were only allowed in during the first turn if they would not have come in order between Ben and me, i.e. disrupting the judging order. Entry into the game was denied Aaron Wohl for that reason, although I assured him we would soon have a rule dealing with new players. It seems I that grossly underestimated the time it would take to get such a rule... Let this clarification be reflected in my earlier protest.

Questions for Judgment:

1.) Can new players be added at this time?
2.) Can individuals be added to the game without their consent?

1.) No. (sort of) Adding players is a game related action. Now, there are no rules regarding new players, so it might seem that rule 116 can be invoked to permit adding players at any time. However, game actions are regulated in the rules, and rule 116 does not apply in this case. The correct procedure for adding a player at any time under the current rules would be to introduce and pass a proposal adding the player. If "at the current time" means now, during Josh's turn, then of course it is impossible. I realize that the addition of player Chris Mayfield did not occur in this manner, but this is not inconsistent with my judgment. Technically adding Mr. Mayfield was an illegal action, but no one had a problem with it and it was not protested, therefore it stands as a fait accompli. The same course of action may be taken at any time, provided there is no protest. This would, of course, imply unanimous consent.

2.) Yes. I see no reason why players, added in the procedure above (rule change or uncontested action) are required to recognize their franchise, spirit of the game or otherwise. We would be insane to let such players into the game, but if we did, we would deserve what we get.

Ruling:

Statement:

Transmutation of mutable rules to immutable rules requires a simple majority of players (as defined by rule 305/0).

Uckelman sez: Exactly. When no explicit restrictions are placed on rule changes, implicit restrictions take over. I've already stated what I think these are in previous posts with the same subject.

Rule 116/0 states:

Whatever is not prohibited or regulated by a rule is permitted and unregulated, with the sole exception of changing the rules, which is permitted only when a rule or set of rules explicitly or implicitly permits it.

Thus 116 requires that rules governing rule changes (of which transmutation is a part) to be explicitly stated. No guesswork.

I don't want this to become an ad hominem, but it seems that your arguments against this are primarily aesthetic ones, which, though nice, have exactly zippo to do with what's legal. Since there seems (as of right now) to be little chance in either side (Josh & Chris vs. Joel) convincing the other, I hereby CALL JUDGMENT AND LET SLIP THE DOGS OF WAR!!

Have a nice day.

Rule 109/0 states that rule changes transmuting immutable rules to mutable rules require a unanimous vote. It makes no reference to transmuting mutable rules to immutable rules.

Therefore mutable to immutable transmutations are governed by rule 306/0 (according to rule 103/0 all transmutations fall into the category "rule-changes" and ought therefore be governed by the rules that govern all rule changes, except when a rule specifically states otherwise, as in the case of transmuting immutable to mutable.)

Regarding rule 116, the statement that anything not prohibited by the rules is thus permitted by the rules with the exception of changing the rules, changing of the rules in this case is already permitted. The question at hand deals solely with method of rule-change rather than the permissibility of rule-change. Thus the matter of implicit or explicit permission is irrelevant to this judgment.

Ruling:

Statement:

The arbitrary re-assignment of any player's score is not permissible.

I hereby arbitrarily declare that Joel's score is immediately reduced to -10. I do this based on what I will hereafter refer to as the "Uckelman principle," which is an assumption on the meaning of Rule 116/0.

Rule 116, as you may or may not recall, reads: "Whatever is not prohibited or regulated by a rule is permitted and unregulated, with the sole exception of changing the rules, which is permitted only when a rule or set of rules explicitly or implicitly permits it."

The Uckelman principle is as follows: Rule 116 means actions which are not specifically prohibited or regulated in the rules are permissible. Even though a it may regard a mechanism of the game which is regulated by rules, as long as a certain action is specifically neither prohibited nor regulated, it is legal. As an example, even though scoring, the assignation of points, etc. are regulated by the rules, there is no rule regarding an instance where "Matthew Potter arbitrarily reduces Joel Uckelman's score to -10." As such, according to the Uckelman principle, my doing so is legal.

Having said that, I realize that this is basically an anal and bass-ackwards way of interpreting a (IMHO) rather straightforward rule. Therefore, I CALL FOR JUDGMENT.

Does Rule 116, as the Uckelman principle suggests, only prohibit actions specifically proscribed by rules; or does it prohibit mucking around arbitrarily with any game mechanism regulated by the rules (i.e. the scoring process)?

Rule 116 states that "whatever is not prohibited or regulated by a rule is permitted and unregulated."

Note the presence of the word "regulated." Were that word absent, then the "Uckelman principle" would be in effect. However, the word "regulated" indicates that when a facet of gameplay is addressed in the rules, the area is therefore not totally unregulated beyond specific, literal applications of the rules.

In this instance, scoring/allottment of points is regulated by (multiple) rules and as a result anything not specifically addressed by those rules is not necessarily permitted.

Ruling:

Statement:

There can be only one judge per turn; once a player has served as judge he shall remain judge for the remainder of the turn.

i must disagree with mr. kortbeins latest proclamation. the rules state that the judge is the player who precedes the player whose turn it currently is. mr. luloff is not a player--by his own rule he is a "new player"--nor does he precede mr. mayfield. mr. luloff will precede mr. mayfield in the future, but since mr. luloff did not propose a rule during his present entrance in the game, mr. kuhns precedes mr. mayfield. mr. kuhns is the judge. i call for a judgment on who holds the judgeship.

Upon first examination the situation at hand appeared to present an unresolvable paradox: If there is no defined judge, no one can pass judgment on who the judge is and thus the game cannot continue because judgment would be forever pending.

However, according to rule 212/0, there can only be one judge per turn. Thus, because I have already been judge I shall continue as judge.

Ruling:

Statement:

Haar's transfer of points stands.

I protest Haar's offer of points to Josh. In light of the recent ruling that scores cannot be modified except by the rules, it seems that this too, as a form of score modification, should be illegal.

116/0. Permissibility of the Unprohibited (immutable): Whatever is not prohibited or regulated by a rule is permitted and unregulated, with the sole exception of changing the rules, which is permitted only when a rule or set of rules explicitly or implicitly permits it.

Exchange of points is not prohibited nor regulated. Exchange of points is different from creation or destruction of points, which are governed by 202/0, 204/0, and 206/0. Thus this situation is different from the situation on which Kuhns ruled.

It is my judgment therefore that the exchange of points is neither prohibited nor regulated, and is not the exceptional case of changing the rules; therefore exchange of points is permitted and unregulated.

Ruling:

Statement:

Haar's transfer of points stands.

I'd like to protest Haar's latest transferal of points. I realize Chris already allowed point exchange, but what Haar has done in giving Josh points is a different matter and calls for judgment.

Why? Because Haar has traded points he doesn't have by going negative. Though the total number of points in the game has not changed, Haar has attempted to exchange points which were never earned during the course of the game. Everyone began with zero points, and therefore should not be able to trade points beyond what they have earned during gameplay. Any dipping into the negative constitutes movement of points which don't actually exist. Thus I call for judgement--not for trading points (which has already been declared allowable), but for trading points one doesn't have.

beN

I protest that Haar cannot give Josh 186 points because he does not have 186 points to give. Negative points represent a point debt, not an unlimited supply of points, and as such cannot be given away.

J. Uckelman

There are no rules against negative points, and the precedent has already been set. As there are no rules against negative points, there is no rule dealing with a limit to the amount of negative points.

As for "trading points one doesn't have," this approach views points as some sort of concrete good. This is not so. Points do not have physical representations like apples; nor are they like dollars in that there is a real world implication to having a "debt" of points.

Points are a quantity. In this situation, Haar's exchange of points has kept the quantity of points constant as opposed to creating/destroying points (cf. previous ruling). That this has rendered him with a negative scalar representation of points is neither unprecedented (see above) nor is he "trading points he doesn't have" in that points do not exist except in the abstract, as a scalar quantity.

Ruling:

Statement:

Josh Kortbein has won the game. [Admin.]

I protest this [Haar's second point transfer].

Both the protest earlier that Josh did not have exactly 200 points, and Joel's move to award everyone else points after Josh's victory are moot.

As of 208/0, the winner is the first to achieve 200 points. By having more than 200 points, one has achieved 200 points.

Second, the winner is the _first_ player to achieve 200 points. Therefore, Joel's move to award points is not allowed as it comes after Josh's win, so there can be no additional winners.

Joel's comment that he does this "at that exact instance" is null and void. Though not a rule, his action would be retroactive in that the game takes place in real time. His attempt to perform this action retroactively is against "game-custom and the spirit of the game" (212/0). Therefore his action does not stand.

no exclusions

Ruling: FALSE

Statement:

Proposals containing unintentional errors in typography, editing, or the like may be fixed if done so in a timely fashion. Complainant's Comments: [none] Judge's Comments: Based upon the rule set at this time, I must decline Nick's request. The rules specifically state that the author of a proposal may make changes to it up until the time that a final version of his/her proposal is submitted for voting.

Even though judgements do not need to be followed in the future, I do not want to see a precedence set of changing proposals after they are submitted for voting. I would recommend that future proposals be submitted in final draft form, but not with a call for a vote until any such "typographical" errors can be found and corrected.

For me to pass judgement to allow changes to proposal after a vote is called would directly violate the (current) rules.

As I see it, Proposal 312 is still a usable proposal, assuming it passes. Since the voting is based completely upon personal preference, no one can accuse anyone of putting their least favorite proposed name at the top of their list and their favorite at the bottom. Thus, rule 101/1 is not violated.

Judgement is passed; let the voting upon Proposal 312 commence.

Ruling: DISMISSED

Statement:

If proposal 312 passes, the votes made as a part of its name-determination process shall be made in a manner consistent with the rule governing the voting period for proposal votes.

Proposal 312 has failed. Any CFJs relating to proposal 312 "do not address a rules-related matter" and must be dismissed, per rule 216.

no exclusions

Ruling: DISMISSED

Statement:

If proposal 312 passes, there shall be a period of three days after its passage, in which names may be suggested. Any name suggested on the nomic mailing list is eligible to receive votes. The voting period shall begin immediately after the three day period has expired.

RFJ 15 is dismissed on the grounds that a single statement was not presented for Judgment.

no exclusions

Ruling: FALSE

Statement:

If proposal 312 passes, the votes shall be collated and counted by player Joel Uckelman.

SImpyl because I don't know what I'm being asked to judge. i don't see a question, just a statement. What am I judging, the truthfullness of the statement? Well last I checked the proposal says nothing about the vote-counter, so I unfortunately must say the statement is untrue. Bascially it amounts to a textual amendment to the bill-- not, in my opinion, a clairification.

exclusions: Allan Dudding, Jeff Schroeder, Rich Peters

Ruling: SENT TO LOWER JUDGE

Statement:

If proposal 312 passes, the votes shall be collated and counted by player Joel Uckelman.

I am not vastly concerned with the outcome of the judgment, since Nick's proposal didn't pass. I am concerned with receiving a reasonable judgment, which this one doesn't seem to be. The judge, as he says, didn't read the rules at all - rules which include the most crucial ones here, the rules governing the judiciary. Rules which state the ways in which calls for judgment must be made, and which specify the content and form of such calls.

Essentially, I would simply like the court's formal assent that this ruling is fucking dumb. It behooves us as a Nomic to work at setting a high quality standard for judgments. Remember, someday it could be you up against the wall, when Judge X is selected.

Ruling: DISMISSED

Statement:

I would like to dismiss this case. However, (keeping things short) a reading of the rules might indicate that since an appellate panel, who chose not to dismiss the case, passed the matter on to me, I do not have this right. I believe the matter is unclear, and am requesting judgement on the matter. So, my judgement is DISMISSAL, but it might be eventually be deemed invalid. If such is the case, I will take up the reopen the case. Since I have technically made a judgement I shall not be penalized for waiting more than 72 hours to make a judgement.

no exclusions

Ruling: FALSE

Statement:

If proposal 312 passes, there shall be a period of three days after its passage, during which names may be suggested, and immediately after which the voting period shall begin.

This statement would create something in Proposal 312 that currently does not exist therein. While such ammendment may be expedient and possibly even necessary for the execution of Proposal 312 should it pass, the statement must, nonetheless, be ruled FALSE in accordance with the precedent set in Judgment 13 of disallowing alterations to proposals after CFV's. Moreover, it is in doubt whether this is a rules-related question (q.v. Rule 216/1), as it deals only with a hypothetical situation. Finally, using RFJ's to rectify deficiencies in proposals not yet passed seems to me to be an abuse of the Judiciary system.

no exclusions

Ruling: DISMISSED

Statement:

If proposal 312 passes, there shall be a period of three days after its passage, during which names may be suggested, and immediately after which the voting period shall begin.

Judge Uckelman's ruling claims that a true judgment on the statement in RFJ 17 would "create something in Proposal 312 that currently does not exist therein." While judgments carry the force of rules, they do not explicitly modify rules, and specifically, the statement in RFJ 17 does not explicitly modify the hypothetical rule 312. Thus, the precedent set by Judgment 13 is irrelevant.

I make this appeal because I strongly disagree with the precedent which would be set by an otherwise unappealed Judgment 17. Judgments can change rule interpretation and usage implicitly, but they should not be considered to modify rules in the explicit sense in which proposals may modify rules.

no exclusions

Ruling: TRUE

Statement:

If proposal 312 passes, any name which is both suggested before the voting period for the naming contest begins, and suggested on the nomic mailing list, is eligble to receive votes during the voting period.

Proposal 312 creates no structure for receiving submissions. Because of this, the statement in RFJ 18 is a practical summation of the default process. It may also be noted that the submission period, since every player may submit as many names as he wishes, is not closed until all players agree that it should be so.

However, to quote Mr. Uckelman, "Moreover, it is in doubt whether this is a rules-related question (q.v. Rule 216/1), as it deals only with a hypothetical situation." I would discourage further RFJ concerning proposals which have not passed, unless said RFJs are worded so as to be a statement relating to existing rules.

no exclusions

Ruling: FALSE

Statement:

If the sun collapses then I win the game.

Winning conditions are explicity stated in the rules. Therefore conditions not mentioned do not result in victory for anyone. Rather, given the tremdous speed at which the sun's collapse would occur compared witht he relative pace of our game, the game would be indefinitley suspended--as, in all likelihood, all players would be physically incapable of voting on whatever current proposal was on the table, and the voting time period would be extended ad infinitum.

no exclusions

Ruling: DISMISSED

Statement:

If the Nomic page needs to be updated, Joel Uckelman should do make the necessary changes.

I dismiss this call for judgement on the grounds that: 1. it is not rule related; 2. Joel is doing a damn fine job and has not yet complained publicly to the list about the responsibility; and 3. while Mr. Luloff's grip on reality may be slipping he still has feelings and a false judgement may be the blow to his self-esteem that pushes him over the edge.

no exclusions

Ruling: FALSE

Statement:

CFJs including theoretical conditions must be dismissed by judges, no matter how probable.

Consider the third paragraph of rule 216/1:

"Judges may Dismiss Requests for Judgment without comment if they contain no clear statement, are not answerable with a TRUE or FALSE, or do not address a rules-related matter."

Although this is a relatively ambiguous statement, it is at least clear that the rules do not force dismissal in any case (use of the word "may"). Regardless of my personal opinions on judgements relating to theoretical conditions, I do not think it would behoove me to impose constraints on the freedom of judges. I believe grounds for dismissal should be found by judges in each individual case, and blanket statements forcing action when not necessary should be avoided. So although my judgement should not be interpreted as condoning requests for judgement containing theoretical conditions (nor should it be interpreted as condemning the same), it should be interpreted as the avoidance of a precedent allowing rigid and automatic judicial action.

no exclusions

Ruling: DISMISSED

Statement:

If anyone abuses the judicial system like this, we should kick their ass.

Judgment 22 is hereby dismissed, on the grounds that Damon Luloff has lost all contact with reality.

no exclusions

Ruling: DISMISSED

Statement:

If Andy doesn't get his ass in gear and make a proposal, we should all formally urge him to do so.

This is more of a personal gripe than anything to do with the rules, which (as far as I saw) have no express timelimit on making proposals. If this is untrue, and I've missed a clause somewhere, then this judgment defers to that rule. Otherwise, I dismiss the complaint as irrelevent.

no exclusions

Ruling: TRUE

Statement:

A judge appointed by an appellate court to hear a matter shall, in principle, have the right of dismissal.

Rule 219/0 states: "If the Court decides to appoint a new Judge to rule on the matter, the new Judge will be chosen pursuant to the rules for selecting Judges." As the judiciary rules make no other statements regarding differences between judges appointed by appellate courts and "normal" judges, I consider judges appointed by appellate courts to have all the rights and responsibilities in judging that "normal" judges do. This includes the right to dismissal.

Theoretically, dismissal is to be used mainly to separate the wheat from the chaff, culling statements presented for judgment which are not statements which can be answered with a "TRUE" or "FALSE" judgment, are not rules-related statements, or are not clear statements at all. However, judges may also wish to dismiss calls for judgment for other reasons. Among these might be the desire to avoid being forced to add to the body of law governing the game, or the desire to avoid judging, due to some perceived bias on the judge's part.

That said, the role of judges appointed by appellate courts seems to be slightly different. The rules in place which govern the appellate courts were intended (at least, as far as this judge, who took part in the administrative review which set up the new court system, is aware) to allow complainants or other players a chance to countermand "bad" judgments, i.e. those in which the decisions were not made in accordance with the rules, or those in which there was obvious bias present. Thus, unless the primary problem with a judgment is that it should have, according to the rules, dismissed the original call for judgment, judges appointed by appellate courts should almost NEVER have the right of dismissal, if the appellate courts are to work in the way discussed above. The conditions under which dismissal should be allowed may be the same as those in the previous paragraph; however, they may not be, depending on one's opinion of the role of appointed judges. This is obviously a problematic matter.

If the players desire this sort of constraint on judges appointed by appellate courts, it is recommended that they seek to modify the judiciary rules. Furthermore, it is recommended that they should desire this sort of constraint.

exclusions: Andy Palecek, Rich Peters, Jill Wittrock

Ruling: TRUE

Statement:

The "fraction of favorable votes" received by a Proposal in Rule 202/1 refers to the expression (favorable votes)/(total non-neutral votes).

Essentially, it is not clear to me whether the rule refers to (favorable votes)/(total possible votes) or (favorable votes)/(total non-neutral votes). As such, I cannot calculate Andy Palecek's score without clarification.

I exclude Andy Palecek since this directly affects him, and Rich Peters and Jill Wittrock as I don't know whether they're actually playing.

I get too little sleep these days to be able ot explain my actions. But rest assured they make sense to me. It think it has to do with discouraging fence-sitting neutrality. That is, if you don't want someone scoring points, you should have to actually take action of a definitive nature in order to do, rather than affecting that individuals point total while remaining noncommital. But I'm not sure, really. It just makes more sense this way somehow.