Submitted by Mat on July 4
Rule 17, "Force Success" does not explicitly state what is to happen with the ring once a player has been eliminated from possession of it for two turns. To remove this unclarity, I suggest a clause be added to require the host to reselect a bearer [similar to when the rule was enacted] upon it's original possessor's parting.

Delivered on July 6
Yes. This is a good solution, as long as players are not opposed to it.

Submitted by Jolly Jonny on June 8
Is a "rule" merely the sum of its words, or does the meaning behind the rule also constitute part of the rule?
Why, you ask? Well, Poposal 011 ("Real Ultimate Power"), while not changing the wording of the rule, attempts to change the MEANING of the rule. As far as I can tell, this is still a "change", and is therefore a violation of Rule 02 which states "The players may not change the High Rules."
The proponent himself even says "...Rule 2 now means...". "Now" means? If you're telling us what it means NOW, then clearly it must have changed at some point.
Not convinced? Well then, Proposal 011 additionally attempts to repeal a total of 2 rules, which is a violation of Rule 4 ("Proposals") which states that "A proposal may...repeal an existing rule" - SINGULAR.
I therefore submit that proposal 011 is invalid, and should not be voted upon in its current form.

Delivered on June 8
Proposal 011 is an improper proposal, and for more reasons then Jolly Jonny has pointed out.
First of all, it attempts to repeal two rules. While Ornithopter has pointed out that Rule 4 (Proposals) states ‘repeal an existing rule’, Daffynition will be an existing rule at the time Proposal 011 attempts to repeal it.
Second of all, I am going to agree with Jolly Jonny that the meaning of a rule is also a part of the rule. Without a meaning, rules are ambiguous characters, and the words of a rule are there to facilitate the meaning. Therefore, Proposal 011 cannot take effect because it attempts to change the meaning of a High Rule, which is part of the rule itself, and this cannot take place.
Thirdly, even if the rule Daffynition could be created, it would change the meaning of Rule 5 (Submitting Proposals), which states: ‘These proposals must include a title and detail the changes to the rules the player wishes to carry out.’ If Daffynition were to take effect (which it can’t), the meaning would be changed to something along the lines of: ‘These proposals must include a title and detail the fish-slapping to the rules the player wishes to carry out.’ Since Proposal 011 does not detail any sort of fish-slapping to any rules, it would not a proper proposal at that point. Proposal 011 in effect outlaws itself.
I am going to fall short of saying that Proposal 011 will fail regardless of votes, because this verdict shows the voters that Proposal 011 would not produce the desired effect even if passed. I leave it up to the voters to decide how to vote.
Also, I’ll ignore that other RFJ, since Jolly Jonny withdrew it.

Submitted by SatyrEyes on June 5
Relevant Laws:
The rules state that "every Saturday at 9 PM CST, the Host will reveal if any game actions taken by any players have caused one or more players to be Eliminated, and those players will be removed from the game immediately" (Rule 3). They also state that "If a player does not vote on proposals for two consecutive rounds, that player will be Eliminated" (Rule 11).
Aaron has not voted on proposals for two consecutive rounds and hence should be Eliminated, by Rule 11. But his nonvoting cannot be construed as a "game action;" indeed, it is a notable lack of game action. Therefore, he cannot be Eliminated at 9 PM on Saturday as normal.
Proposed Remedy:
Aaron is Eliminated immediately, since no rule addresses what time frame inactive players are to be Eliminated in.
What says the Host?

Delivered June 5
Here's what the rule says, in part: 'any game actions taken by any players'. I believe this to mean, 'anything that has happened in the round'. So, Aaron not voting on proposals is something that has happened.
Also, for the sake of consistency, I would like all Elimination results to be revealed at the same time each week. Which I why I rule nonvoting to be a game action, one that can cause oneself to be Eliminated.Cerainly both action and inaction should be able to cause Elimination.
As for Llamizzle's plea to keep Aaron in the game, I say that we must stick to the rules. Nomic is a game of rules, and we must adhere to them in the strictest sense. You all knew when you signed up that this was not going to be a nice game, and that only one player could win. Don't try to pretend the game is something that it is not.

Submitted by both Mat and SatyrEyes on June 1st
Mat says:
I by no means favor or disagree with the rule, however, I do with the means that went about in this RFJ. Rule 4 "Proposal" states:
A proposal may create a new rule, amend existing rules, repeal an existing rule, or describe a game action to be carried out.
This is a bit ambiguous, but just to say that a proposal's meeting more than one requirement breaks this rule is a confusion of logic.
Now, if rule 4 "proposals" said the following:
A proposal may EITHER create a new rule, amend existing rules, repeal an existing rule, or describe a game action to be carried out.
then the claim would be correct; but I feel an injustice has been made on SatyrEyes' proposal.
Examine the wording for yourself and readup on the difference between OR and exclusive-OR. With this, I wish to overturn the recent RFJ and revalidate Proposal 003.

SaytrEyes says:
As the maker of the proposal in question, it should be obvious where I stand. I'd point out that in logic and law alike, "or" is not used to mean "either X or Y but not both" unless the law says so specifically. For instance, if I say that you commit assault if you verbally or physically harrasses someone else, clearly I don't mean that if you both verbally and physically harass them you're not guilty of assault.
By the same token, the "or" in the relevant rule should be read as inclusive until and unless it's changed.
I hereby make a Request for Judgment on these terms and request that Proposal 003 be reinstated.

Delivered on June 1st
I must admit that the reason I delivered judgement so swiftly upon Proposal 003 was because Jolly Jonny’s interpretation of Rule 4 was identical to my intention. I wanted proposals to do only one thing, unless it was to amend a rule, in which case the proposal could amend multiple rules. However, I now realize that the rule was badly worded, and my intention was not properly conveyed.
The reason I limited the power of a proposal was because I did not want a single proposal to be too powerful. I now realize that if a proposal is indeed too powerful, or does too much, the voters will likely vote against it.
Since my intention was not properly conveyed, and I misled several players with my ambiguous wording, I therefore rule that SatyrEyes’ and Mat’s interpretation is the correct one. Therefore proposals may define multiple actions to be carried out, and that Proposal 003 is no longer an illegal proposal, and will pass or fail depending on the actual votes cast on it.

Submitted by Jolly Jonny on May 31
According to Rule 4 ("Proposals"), "A proposal may create a new rule, amend existing rules, repeal an existing rule, or describe a game action to be carried out."
It seems to me that the "or" in the sentence above makes the choice between "create", "amend", "repeal" and "describe" exclusive.
Therefore, I submit that Proposal 003 - The Immunity Gavel is invalid, as it attempts to both amend AND create more than 1 rule at a time.

Delivered on May 31
This is true. Proposal 003 is an illegal proposal. It will not pass, regardless of any votes.