Home

FAQs

Rules

Players

Current Proposals

Cases

Papers

ERRORs

Other Referenda

History of MacroNomic

Past Proposal Archive

Old Rules

Links

Cases

Calls for Judegement

Proposal 22 passes. This is because by Rule 0, there are no changes to gamestate that are allowed to happen except in accordance to the rules. There is nowhere in the rules that specify what happens if a player votes LOYAL on a proposal that is not produced by a member of the Revolutionary Party. Therefore, the votes which were LOYAL remain LOYAL and are not changed to AGAINST, meaning that there are two votes which are FOR and one that is AGAINST, meaning that the proposal passes.

Game custom might possibly let me handwave it down, but with, IMUHO, drastic damage to the game as a result. If the procedure were case-based, and had a default clause, the situation would depend on the contents of that last clause, but it's not, so it doesn't.

JT recieved 3 Ideas and 3 Words from The Gingham Wearer when the Gingham Wearer was expelled from the game.

Reasoning:
In the message i sent, I said the following:
>Argh.. I hadn't even noticed that I'd becom SoTrade. I now have the info
>together and will include it at the bottom of this mail.

At this point the assignments of mines and commodities had been done, but I chose, due to length, to attach the item to the end of the mail instead of placing it inline.

I then continued:
>I note that I believe it's been greater than 14 days since any of Narf,
>The Gingham Wearer, and AKA The Wiz have made any game action, voted or
>said anything publicaaly, and therefore they should be expelled.

Thus, at the time of my noting the idleness of the players in question, I had already completed the assignments.

I judge that to be TRUE, agreeing with JT's reasoning.

(However, as it has just been noted that we all should have had one more of each commodity each, I would say that neither TGW or The Wiz had these commodities when they left (even though they should have) and so JT doesn't get them.)

I believe that it has been unofficial game custom that a player ceases to be an entity within the game of Macronomic when they have left the game.

I believe this to be the case because Entities are a game defined concept. According to the convention (Section 0-1-0-1, English), unless a statement is given an in-game meaning then common english usage applies. Leaving the game merely says that the player leaves the game. It assigns no other in-game meaning to those words. Therefore common english would mean that the leaving player ceases to be a player and thus ceases to be an entity since a non-playe of the game isn't defined to be an entity. Even the joining the game rule makes a distinction here and says a player is considered new if no previous player had the same email address. This implies a change of state from player to something undefined by the rules and then back to playerhood.

If the above argument about entityhood is persuasive, then the events upon Slakko's joining and leaving and rejoining were as follows: He joined the game and gained 10 Vote Farms. He left the game, ceased to be an entity and his 10 Vote Farms devolved to the management of the State. He rejoined the game and thus gained 10 Vote Farms.

Thus the statement above should be judged TRUE.

I believe that it has been unofficial game custom that a player ceases to be an entity within the game of Macronomic when they have left the game.

I believe this to be the case because Entities are a game defined concept. According to the convention (Section 0-1-0-1, English), unless a statement is given an in-game meaning then common english usage applies. Leaving the game merely says that the player leaves the game. It assigns no other in-game meaning to those words. Therefore common english would mean that the leaving player ceases to be a player and thus ceases to be an entity since a non-playe of the game isn't defined to be an entity. Even the joining the game rule makes a distinction here and says a player is considered new if no previous player had the same email address. This implies a change of state from player to something undefined by the rules and then back to playerhood.

If the above argument about entityhood is persuasive, then the events upon Slakko's joining and leaving and rejoining were as follows: He joined the game and gained 10 Vote Farms. He left the game, ceased to be an entity and his 10 Vote Farms devolved to the management of the State. He rejoined the game and thus gained 10 Vote Farms.

Thus the statement above should be judged TRUE.

Since this is the reasoning I originally presented, I don't really like having to judge it, but I don't see any way for me to decline judgement on it, so I have to do so.

Also, because this is the reasoning I originally presented, I judge it TRUE.