Call for Judgment Archive

9 Apr 1999

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 10

CfJ1 [22 Jan 1999] Mark Simpson
Judge: Lisa Patacchiola

Esteemed colleagues:

Rule 207 clearly states that each player has one vote. If this is true how can we vote on more than one proposal. If this were true then we could only have voted on the first proposal when we started this game and upon no other. I wish the judge to determine that this rule means that players only have one vote _per_ proposal; thus we can vote on more than one proposal in this game.


Players have one vote per proposal, not per game.


The key to the problem is rule #207, which states: "Each player always has exactly one vote. " This can be understood a couple of ways. 1. That each player can only vote once, and then can't vote for any more proposals for the rest of the game. Or 2. Each player may only vote once per proposal. Luckily, we have more rules that touch upon this subject, namely rules 104 and 105 which state:

104. All rule-changes proposed in the proper way shall be voted on. They will be adopted if and only if they receive the required number of votes. 105. Every player is an eligible voter. Every eligible voter must participate in every vote on rule-changes.

Now, rule changes were made the proper way, so they need to be voted on. And, every player MUST participate on every vote for rule changes. The only way that this can occur is if players have one vote per proposal. Therefore, if rule #207 used definition #1, it would be in conflict with #105.

For even more clarification, I look at game custom. Four proposals were voted on during the last Chairpersonship. Clearly, our dear Nomic was using definition #2, and is a valid, nonconflicting rule.

CfJ2 [22 Jan 1999] Mark Simpson
Judge: Lisa Patacchiola

Mr. Zimmerman sent his proposal more than ten minutes after the end of the Proposing period. While compassion is good, this seems a flagrant disregard for the Power of the Chairperson. I wish the Judge to determine that Mr. Zimmerman's proposal was not properly proposed and thus in accordance with Rule 104 shall not be voted upon.


Mr. Zimmerman's proposal will be debated on this turn, but not voted on. The proposal (if Mr. Zimmerman wishes) will be held on to for the next Chairperson's distribution.


The initiator, Mark Simpson said:
>Mr. Zimmerman sent his proposal more than ten minutes after the end of the
>Proposing period.  While compassion is good, this seems a flagrant
>disregard for the Power of the Chairperson.  I wish the Judge to determine
>that Mr. Zimmerman's proposal was not properly proposed and thus in
>accordance with Rule 104 shall not be voted upon.

>In accordance with Rule 212, Lisa Patacchiola shall be the Judge for this
>Call for Judgment.

Comments from Mr. Zimmerman:
>I understand the gravity of my violation of the Rules and gladly
>and willingly submit myself to Judgement.  But I do plead for leniency
>from our Madame Judge.  There are extenuating circumstances (I went to see
>Blue Man Group last night and was out longer than I expected to be).  Also,
>despite the fact that Mr Simpson (Big Meany, and stuck in the Corner) is
>deriding me for post-midnight activities, his tag line at the
>beginning of this message said, very clearly "Midinght, Friday 22,
>January 1999".  Can someone who is so flagrantly casual about time
>truly expect more of others?

>However, I will respect the final decision of the Madame Judge, and
>will withdraw my Proposal should she decide that would be appropriate.

Comments from Mr. Simpson:
>Esteemed Colleagues, Your Honour...

>In a seeming reversal I too plead for leniency in Mr. Zimmerman's case.  As
>Chairperson I feel that I must in all ways follow the dictates of the Law.
>However as a Player, I feel that Mr. Zimmerman's Proposal needs to be
>discussed and voted upon.  Thus I ask Your Honour to show leniency on
>Mr. Zimmerman; and also ask you, in your Judgment to spell out a limit
>upon acceptable lateness, so that this precedent will not become a flagrant
>loophole against the time limits declared by the Chairperson.

>Shawn P Zimmerman writes:
> > ...  Also,
> > despite the fact that Mr Simpson (Big Meany, and stuck in the Corner) is
> > deriding me for post-midnight activities, his tag line at the
> > beginning of this message said, very clearly "Midinght, Friday 22,
> > January 1999".  Can someone who is so flagrantly casual about time
> > truly expect more of others?

>My 'handwritten' dating of the email letter has no bearing here.  They are
>simply an affectation of mine, hearkening back to the dating of handwritten
>letters esp. as seen in Romantic Age novels.  The headers of your email
>clearly show that the letter came at: 00:10:09 on the 22 of January.
I do agree that there should be some acceptable leniency for proposals arriving late. For example, if a proposal arrived late (within 12 hours) because of net lag, I do not think the proposer (or the proposal) should be penalized for it. But, this is not the case here. Mr. Zimmerman waited until the last minute, and sent the proposal out late. I don't think there would be so much of a problem if this wasn't such a needed proposal. But, the law should not make exceptions. If we allow a proposal in 10 minutes late, what will stop proposals being a day or more late? There are always extenuating circumstances. Allowing this precedent would set a very bad example. As Mr. Simpson has once pointed out, "The Rules are The Rules after all." A proposal should be sent on or before the stated deadline. According to the law, the proposal can not be voted on this turn. However, also according to the law, nothing prevents us from DEBATING the proposal during this turn. Hopefully, this extra time for debate will only improve the proposal.
CfJ3 [22 Jan 1999] Lisa Patacchiola
Judge: Lisa Patacchiola

I am calling to judgement whether or not it is OK for me to Judge, because rule #212 clearly states "except that no player is to be Judge during his or her own turn or during the turn of a team-mate. ".




Mr. Simpson says:

While you will be Judge for this question, I would like to simply raise the question of what is a turn after all... In the original Suber Rules a turn is a player proposing a rule. The rule defining a turn was replaced by the Chairperson rule which has each player taking on the role of the Chairperson in turn. It is my humble opinion that a each turn starts when a player takes the role of Chairperson until they relinquish it to the next Player. Also in accordance to Rule 212 you are Judge since it is my turn. If it not my turn then you are not Judge. If you are not Judge then you cannot Judge this question. Which is it, are you Judge or not?

As far as 'team-mate' is concerned, that has not been defined. You are not my team-mate... in fact I renounce you and your comfy chair!

Ms. Patacchiola says on her retraction:

Now that I think of it, that rule makes perfect sense. Mark is not my team-mate (he even renounced me and my comfy chair), so it is valid that I am Judge. And, the statement about turns only means that the next person, i.e. Shawn, would not be able to start his turn if I haven't finished my Judgement (unless the majority of players agree that it is ok).

CfJ4 [26 Jan 1999] Mark Simpson
Judge: Lisa Patacchiola

This CfJ is in regards to the last clause of Proposal #308

 > A quick question...
 > I noticed that proposal #308, section 9 renumbers the rule. Does that go
 > against rule #108?
 > Rule #108 is the only one (that I noticed) that explains Rules numbering.
 > Rule #103 explains that a rule change is modifying/creating/repealing or
 > transmuting a rule, but doesn't go into the numbering system.
 > So, would proposal #308 need a transmute/modification of #108 to be
 > renumbered?

Ah, you have come to understand why i added that clause... I think we can see this in three possible ways:

  1. The proposal since it is an amendment is causes the rule to be renumbered according to rule 108. Then the amendments to it take place, thus when the last clause occurs the rule has already been renumbered to 308 and then by the last clause gets amended to be rule 1.
  2. Same as above except that rule 108 does not kick in until _after_ all the amending has taken place, thus the renumbering clause is pointless.
  3. The number of a rule is not part of a rule and thus cannot be amended.

Since the Rules are unclear to this mere Player, I must lift up my arms and cry out: "Oh Judge, will no one help a confused Player"?

I hereby call a CfJ(s) on this.

  1. Is this clause valid?
  2. If it is not, does that cause the entire proposal to be invalid?
  3. If it is valid, what will be its effect?


Proposal #308 is valid, and if it becomes a rule, will first change to Rule #308, then Rule #1


In order to judge this proposal, I looked into a couple of things. First, I looked into what turns a proposal into a rule. According to rule #105, "An Adopted rule-change takes full effect at the moment of the completion of the vote that adopted it. " A very good rule, but it doesn't fully explain all the steps the proposal goes through. Because, first, the proposal has to be changed by existing rules. Then, it becomes a rule in it's own right. So, if the proposal #308's numbering clause is valid and is adopted, proposal #308 will become Rule #308. Then, it will come into effect, and change to rule #1.

But, is the numbering change valid? To find the solution, one must answer if the number is part of a rule. According to rule #108, "Each proposed rule-change shall be given a number for reference." I'm taking this to mean the number becomes an integral part of the proposal and rule. Therefore, according to rule #103, the numbering change is valid.

CfJ5 [5 Feb 1999] Lisa Patacchiola
Judge: Mark Simpson

According to rule 106, all proposals have to be written down. I wrote the proposal that I sent out to Mark. I also handwrote the proposal "If this proposal passes, Lisa wins the game" [Exhibit A]

According to rule 111, the proponent decides the final form of the proposal to be voted on.

Nowhere does it say that the proponent has to inform others that the proposal has changed.

So, I won.


Judgement: Lisa Patacchiola did not win the game.


Reasoning: It all hinges on the sentence in Rule #106 which states: ``If they [all written down proposals] are adopted, they shall guide play in the form in which they were voted on.''

The Chairperson last turn (myself) had recieved from Ms. Patacchiola a version of P307. This version is what I sent to all the Players notifying them that this was a Proposal to be voted on. In other words, this was the form of the Proposal to be voted on. Thus Ms. Patacchiola, Mr. Zimmerman and myself voted on that form of the Proposal. It was accepted and is now guiding play as Rule #307 in the form that it was voted on.

While it is true that Rule 111 allows the proponent to decided upon the final form of the proposal before the vote, I feel that Rule 106 takes precedence over it and thus the form that was voted on is of highest importance.

If Ms. Patacchiola had told the Other Players of the new form, then we would have voted upon that form of the Proposal instead of the previous one.

Thus it is a case of the Players mistakenly voting on the incorrect form of the Proposal. Since we did vote on that incorrect form and it was accepted, it is that incorrect form which guides our play.

CfJ6 [6 Feb 1999] Mark Simpson
Judge: Mark Simpson

Proposal #310 cannot have any effect if it is not accepted; according to Rule #107 a proposal cannot have effect until the completion of the vote which adopted it. It says nothing about proposals having effect if they are not adopted.


A Proposal can have no effect if it is not accepted.


Rule 106 and 116 do not allow for a rule change to occur if the Proposal is not accepted. Also Rule 106 further strongly implies that a Proposal can have no other effect if not accepted. This judgement is no way is meant to imply that the Proposal is illegal, simply that it will have no effect if unless accepted.

CfJ7 [6 Feb 1999] Mark Simpson
Judge: Mark Simpson

Mr. Simpson cannot judge upon the matter of the validity of his own Proposal. Its just wrong!; wrong I tell you!


A Judge may, and shall, judge on any matter brought up for judgement during their tenure as Judge.


Rule 212 is quite clear on this. There is no question of conflict of interest, which is not yet defined in this game.

CfJ8 [16 Feb 1999] Lisa Patacchiola
Judge: Shawn Zimmerman

There were many crimes that occurred after Mr. Zimmerman passed on his Chairpersonship, but before I was allowed to be chairperson. Those crimes could have happened in Shawn's turn (which can not be punished), my turn (which can be punished) or a deadzone time (which may or may not be punished). Since the rules are unclear, I call for judgement.

So, my questions are:

  1. Whose turn did the crimes occur in?
  2. Can those crimes be punished?


  1. These alleged crimes did not happen during *anyone's* turn.
  2. Sadly, these alleged Crimes may no longer be addressed.


The Rules are indeed unclear on this issue. That is the fault of us, the too too human Players, and we should in no way lose respect for the Rules because of this matter.

However, while the Rules are not *explicit*, I believe they do implicitly provide us with the answer we seek. Rule 202 outlines the duties of the Chairperson. They follow a very explicit order, and detail exactly what the Chairperson is responsible. The first duty of a new Chairperson is to call for Proposals, and the last duty of the Chairperson is to resign their position in favor of the next Player. This, it is my interpretation that a turn ends when the Chairpersonship is resigned. The next turn begins when the new Chairperson calls for Proposals.

Note: at no time are we without a Chairperson. The next Player becomes Chairperson as soon as the previous one resigns, even though they may not be allowed to begin their turn right away.

CfJ10 [8 Apr 1999] Lisa Patacchiola
Judge: Mark Simpson

Mr. Zimmerman is being lax in his duties as Chairperson.


I judge that this is TRUE.


Mr. Zimmerman has been lax in his duties since he has not distributed the result of the vote, nor the result of the speling pruhposals, nor has he determined the next Chairperson, nor has he punished any of the many crimes committed this turn. Thus in accordance with R202e Ms. Patacchiola is now Chairperson Pro Tem. I urge Ms. Patacchiola to determine and distribute the result of the vote, punish the crimes and then determine the next Chairperson. NOTES

This page maintained by Mark Simpson who can be reached via email.
Please read my disclaimer.

$Date: 1999/03/30 02:55:24 $