Oh, Goethe has already CFJ'ed this. Oops. Blob (on the lam)
On 28/06/2013, at 10:19 AM, Malcolm Ryan wrote: > I call for judgment on the following statement: > > "At the 12:16am GMT on June 28 2013, Blob had not forfeited." > > Reasoning: The rules make it clear that forfeiting is a voluntary player > action. Rule 345 says a player "must" forfeit. It does not say that they "are > deemed to have forfeited". > > Blob > > On 27/06/2013, at 10:38 PM, Fool wrote: > >> Good day Agorans, >> >> A correction from last report brought to my attention by Yally. It does >> involve the disputed interpretation of the order of events when the voting >> on multiple proposals closes "simultaneously". I am going with the >> interpretation that they pass sequentially in order I numbered them (which >> is also the order they were proposed). This means that rule 305 does not >> forbid rule 332 from assigning points for votes on proposals 333-340. >> >> Rule 332 awards three types of points, which I'll label: >> (a) 10 points for proposing something that passed. I'd already awarded these. >> (b) 5 points for voting against a proposal which passed. Steve and Chuck get >> 5 for prop 333; Walker, omd, and Yally get 5 for prop 340. >> (c) 5 points for voting on any prop which passes or fails, provided you >> didn't get points by this clause in the last 24 hours. Walker, omd, Yally, >> ehird, Chuck, Steve, FSX, Blob, Murphy, Roujo get 5. >> >> (I'd already awarded the 10 points for proposing something that passes, 305 >> didn't forbid that.) >> >> ---- >> >> Alright, onward. Proposals 342-343 closed a few hours ago, and 344-347 just >> closed. >> >> Proposal 342 (Chuck) passes 6:2 with Michael, Blob, Chuck, ehird, Goethe, >> and Steve FOR; Walker and Yally AGAINST. This amends rule 326 (the ending >> conditions). Chuck gets 10 points by 332(a), Walker and Yally 5 by 332(b), >> Michael and Goethe 5 by 332(c) (the rest already got their 332(c) points). >> >> Proposal 343 (Chuck) passes 6:2 with Michael, Blob, Chuck, ehird, Goethe, >> and Steve FOR; Walker and Yally AGAINST. This amends rule 342. Chuck gets 10 >> points by 332(a), Walker and Yally 5 by 332(b). Everybody's already got >> their 332(c) points. >> >> Proposal 344 (Yally) passes 5:3 with ehird, Steve, Michael, Yally, and Chuck >> FOR; Walker, Goethe, and omd AGAINST. This amends rule 343. It basically >> restores this poor rule to the original winning condition (most points), and >> adds a clause to resume the game next year. Yally gets 10 points by 332(a), >> Walker, Goethe, and omd get 5 by 332(b). ehird, Steve, Yally, Chuck, Walker, >> and omd get 5 by 332(c) since the last time they got points was 24 hours ago. >> >> Proposal 345 (Blob) passes 6:5 with Blob, scshunt, Goethe, Steve, ehird, and >> Chuck FOR; Yally, Walker, Michael, FSX, and omd AGAINST. This enacts a new >> rule saying that whenever a proposal fails, the proposer forfeits. Blob gets >> 10 points by 332(a). Yally, Walker, Michael, FSX, omd get 5 by 332(b). Blob, >> FSX, and scshunt get 5 by 332(c). >> >> And the next proposal is 346, by Blob.... >> >> Now, did anyone guess that it would fail? Well, put on a big silly hat and >> call yourself Carnac the Magnificent! >> >> It fails 4:4, with Blob, Steve, Goethe, and Chuck FOR; Walker, ehird, >> Michael, and omd AGAINST. Blob forfeits. >> >> Finally, proposal 347 (Chuck) passes 7:2 with Walker, Blob, ehird, Steve, >> Goethe, FSX, and Chuck FOR; Yally and omd AGAINST. This amends 332. Now >> there's just 10 points for proposing a proposal that passes. Chuck gets 10 >> points. >> >> The twelve Voters, one ex-Voter, and their scores are: >> omd, 123 points >> FSX, 5 points >> Walker, 137 points >> Chuck, 115 points >> ehird, 40 points >> Yally, 40 points >> Michael, 10 points >> scshunt, 11 points >> Roujo, 5 points >> Murphy, 5 points >> Goethe, 10 points >> Steve, 27 points >> Blob, 20 points [forfeited] >> >> Then there's me, I am Speaker, I have -10 points. >> >> There is a pending CFJ called by Goethe on what "forfeiture" means, assigned >> to omd. I raised a CFJ on Roujo's votes which were conditional on the secret >> votes of others. Steve ruled these votes were invalid. >> >> Most importantly, Chuck called two CFJs on the wording of rule 331, which >> may give him the win by paradox. These are pending, assigned to Walker and >> Michael. >> >> If I receive any proposals promptly, I will distribute. Otherwise the next >> and final distribution is in 24 hours, and the game ends 24 hours after >> that. Unless the rules change, or Chuck wins in the meantime. >> >> The current ruleset is below. >> >> Cheers, >> Dan Mehkeri >> >> ---------------------------------------------------------------------- >> >> Rule 101 (Immutable) >> >> All players must always abide by all the rules then in effect, >> in the form in which they are then in effect. The rules in the >> Initial Set are in effect at the beginning of the first game. >> >> The Initial Set consists of rules 101-116 (immutable) and >> 201-219 (mutable). >> >> History: >> Initial Immutable Rule 101, Jun. 30 1993 >> >> ---------------------------------------------------------------------- >> >> Rule 102 (Immutable) >> >> Initially rules in the 100's are immutable and rules in the >> 200's are mutable. Rules subsequently enacted or transmuted >> (that is, changed from immutable to mutable or vice versa) may >> be immutable or mutable regardless of their numbers, and rules >> in the Initial Set may be transmuted regardless of their numbers. >> >> History: >> Initial Immutable Rule 102, Jun. 30 1993 >> >> ---------------------------------------------------------------------- >> >> Rule 103 (Immutable) >> >> At any time, each player shall be either a Voter or the Speaker; >> no player may simultaneously be a Voter and a Speaker. At any >> time there shall be exactly one Speaker. The term "player" in the rules >> shall specifically include both the Voters and the Speaker. >> >> History: >> Initial Immutable Rule 103, Jun. 30 1993 >> >> ---------------------------------------------------------------------- >> >> Rule 104 (Immutable) >> >> The Speaker for the Vigintennial game shall be Daniel Méhkeri. >> >> History: >> Initial Immutable Rule 104, Jun. 30 1993 >> Amended for Vigintennial by decree, Jun. 17 2013 >> >> ---------------------------------------------------------------------- >> >> Rule 105 (Immutable) >> >> A rule change is any of the following: (1) the enactment, repeal, >> or amendment of a mutable rule; or (2) the transmutation >> of an immutable rule into a mutable rule or vice versa. >> >> (Note: This definition implies that, at least initially, all new >> rules are mutable; immutable rules, as long as they are immutable, >> may not be amended or repealed; mutable rules, as long as they are >> mutable, may be amended or repealed; any rule of any status may be >> transmuted; no rule is absolutely immune to change.) >> >> History: >> Initial Immutable Rule 105, Jun. 30 1993 >> >> ---------------------------------------------------------------------- >> >> Rule 106 (Immutable) >> >> 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 and quorum is achieved. >> >> History: >> Initial Immutable Rule 106, Jun. 30 1993 >> >> ---------------------------------------------------------------------- >> >> Rule 107 (Immutable) >> >> Any proposed rule change must be posted to the mailing list >> designated by the Speaker for this purpose. If adopted, it must >> guide play in the form in which it was voted on. >> >> History: >> Initial Immutable Rule 107, Jun. 30 1993 >> Amended for Vigintennial by decree, Jun. 17 2013 >> >> ---------------------------------------------------------------------- >> >> Rule 108 (Immutable) >> >> 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. >> >> History: >> Initial Immutable Rule 108, Jun. 30 1993 >> >> ---------------------------------------------------------------------- >> >> Rule 109 (Immutable) >> >> The Speaker shall give each proposed rule change 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. >> >> If a rule is repealed and reenacted, it receives the number of the >> proposal to reenact it. If a rule is amended or transmuted, it >> receives the number of the proposal to amend or transmute it. >> >> History: >> Initial Immutable Rule 109, Jun. 30 1993 >> >> ---------------------------------------------------------------------- >> >> Rule 111 (Immutable) >> >> In a conflict between a mutable and an immutable rule, the >> immutable rule takes precedence and the mutable rule shall be >> entirely void. For the purposes of this rule a proposal to >> transmute an immutable rule does not "conflict" with that immutable >> rule. >> >> History: >> Initial Immutable Rule 111, Jun. 30 1993 >> >> ---------------------------------------------------------------------- >> >> Rule 113 (Immutable) >> >> A player always has the option to forfeit the game rather than >> continue to play or incur a game penalty. No penalty worse than >> losing, in the judgment of the player to incur it, may be imposed. >> >> History: >> Initial Immutable Rule 113, Jun. 30 1993 >> >> ---------------------------------------------------------------------- >> >> Rule 115 (Immutable) >> >> Rule changes that affect rules needed to allow or apply >> rule changes are as permissible as other rule changes. Even >> rule changes that amend or repeal their own authority are permissible. >> No rule change or type of move is impermissible solely on account of >> the self-reference or self-application of a rule. >> >> History: >> Initial Immutable Rule 115, Jun. 30 1993 >> >> ---------------------------------------------------------------------- >> >> Rule 116 (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. >> >> History: >> Initial Immutable Rule 116, Jun. 30 1993 >> >> ---------------------------------------------------------------------- >> >> Rule 202 (Mutable) >> >> All players begin with 0 points. Points may not be gained, lost, or >> traded except as explicitly stated in the rules. >> >> History: >> Initial Mutable Rule 202, Jun. 30 1993 >> >> ---------------------------------------------------------------------- >> >> [The following rule is REPEALED: >> Rule 203 >> >> The winner is the first Voter to achieve 100 (positive) points. >> If more than one Voter achieves this condition simultaneously, all >> such Voters win. >> When a game ends in this manner: >> -If there is only one winner, that Voter becomes the Speaker, and >> the old Speaker becomes a Voter >> -If there is more than one winner, the Speaker randomly selects >> one of the winners, who becomes the new Speaker, and the old >> Speaker becomes a Voter. >> -All players' scores are reset to 0. >> -A new game is begun. All rules and proposed rule changes retain >> the status they had at the end of the old game. >> ] >> >> History: >> Initial Mutable Rule 203, Jun. 30 1993 >> Repealed for Vigintennial by decree, Jun. 17 2013 >> >> ---------------------------------------------------------------------- >> >> Rule 204 (Mutable) >> >> A proposal shall be made by posting it to the mailing list. Only >> Voters may make proposals. The Speaker shall assign the proposal a >> number within 24 hours of its posting. >> >> History: >> Initial Mutable Rule 204, Jun. 30 1993 >> Amended for Vigintennial by decree, Jun. 17 2013 >> >> ---------------------------------------------------------------------- >> >> Rule 207 (Mutable) >> >> Voters may vote either for or against any proposal within its >> prescribed voting period. In order to be legally cast, the vote >> must be received by the Speaker by the end of the prescribed voting >> period. The Speaker may not reveal any votes until the end of the >> prescribed voting period. Any Voter who does not legally vote within >> the prescribed voting period shall be deemed to have abstained. >> >> History: >> Initial Mutable Rule 207, Jun. 30 1993 >> >> ---------------------------------------------------------------------- >> >> Rule 208 (Mutable) >> >> At the end of the prescribed voting period on a proposal, the >> Speaker shall reveal all votes legally cast on that proposal. If >> the Speaker's consent may be required for a proposal to be adopted, >> then the Speaker should indicate at that time whether or not e gives >> eir consent. If the Speaker does not explicitly indicate that e >> refuses to consent to the proposal, it shall be assumed that e >> consents. >> >> History: >> Initial Mutable Rule 208, Jun. 30 1993 >> >> ---------------------------------------------------------------------- >> >> Rule 209 (Mutable) >> >> The required votes for a proposal to be adopted is as follows: >> For a proposal which would directly alter the actions which are >> required of and/or forbidden to the Speaker: >> a) a simple majority of all votes legally cast, if the Speaker >> consents; >> b) a 2/3 majority of all votes legally cast, if the Speaker does not >> consent; >> >> For all other proposals, a simple majority of votes legally cast. >> This rule defers to rules which set the required number of votes >> for proposals which propose to transmute a rule. >> >> History: >> Initial Mutable Rule 209, Jun. 30 1993 >> >> ---------------------------------------------------------------------- >> >> Rule 210 (Mutable) >> >> An adopted rule change takes full effect at the moment of the completion of >> the vote that adopted it. >> >> History: >> Initial Mutable Rule 210, Jun. 30 1993 >> >> ---------------------------------------------------------------------- >> >> Rule 212 (Mutable) >> >> If two or more mutable rules conflict with one another, or if >> two or more immutable rules conflict with one another, then the rule >> with the lowest ordinal number takes precedence. >> If at least one of the rules in conflict explicitly says of itself >> that it defers to another rule (or type of rule) or takes precedence >> over another rule (or type of rule), then such provisions shall >> supersede the numerical method for determining precedence. >> If two or more rules claim to take precedence over one another or >> defer to one another, then the numerical method again governs. >> >> History: >> Initial Mutable Rule 212, Jun. 30 1993 >> >> ---------------------------------------------------------------------- >> >> Rule 213 (Mutable) >> >> If players disagree about the legality of a move or the >> interpretation or application of a rule, then a player may invoke >> judgement by posting a statement for judgement to the mailing list. >> Disagreement, for the purposes of this rule, may be created by the >> insistence of any player. When judgement is invoked, the Speaker >> must, within 24 hours, select a Judge as described in the Rules. >> >> History: >> Initial Mutable Rule 213, Jun. 30 1993 >> Amended for Vigintennial by decree, Jun. 17 2013 >> >> ---------------------------------------------------------------------- >> >> Rule 215 (Mutable) >> >> After the Speaker has announced the identity of the Judge, the Judge >> has 24 hours in which to deliver a legal judgement. If the Judge >> fails to deliver a judgement within this time, e is penalized 10 >> points and a new Judge is selected. >> A judgement is delivered by posting that judgement to the mailing >> list. >> >> History: >> Initial Mutable Rule 215, Jun. 30 1993 >> Amended for Vigintennial by decree, Jun. 17 2013 >> >> ---------------------------------------------------------------------- >> >> Rule 216 (Mutable) >> >> A legal judgement is either TRUE, FALSE, or UNDECIDED. The >> judgement may be accompanied by reasons and arguments, but such >> reasons and arguments form no part of the judgement itself. >> >> History: >> Initial Mutable Rule 216, Jun. 30 1993 >> Amended for Vigintennial by decree, Jun. 17 2013 >> >> ---------------------------------------------------------------------- >> >> Rule 217 (Mutable) >> >> All judgements must be in accordance with the rules; however, if >> the rules are silent, inconsistent, or unclear on the statement >> to be judged, then the Judge shall consider game custom and the >> spirit of the game before applying other standards. >> >> History: >> Initial Mutable Rule 217, Jun. 30 1993 >> >> ---------------------------------------------------------------------- >> >> Rule 218 (Mutable) >> >> In addition to duties which may be listed elsewhere in the rules, >> the Speaker shall have the following duties: >> -register new players >> -maintain a list of all players and their current scores, and >> make such a list available to all players >> -maintain a complete list of the current rules, and make such a >> list available to all players >> -make a random determination whenever such determination is >> required by the rules. >> >> History: >> Initial Mutable Rule 218, Jun. 30 1993 >> >> ---------------------------------------------------------------------- >> >> Rule 219 (Mutable) >> >> If a player believes that the rules are such that further play is >> impossible, or that the legality of a move cannot be determined with >> finality, or that a move appears equally legal and illegal, then the >> player may invoke judgement on a statement to that effect. If the >> statement is judged TRUE, then the player who invoked judgement >> shall be declared the winner of that game, and the game ends, with >> no provision for starting another game. >> >> This rule takes precedence over every other rule determining the >> winner of the game. >> >> History: >> Initial Mutable Rule 219, Jun. 30 1993 >> >> ---------------------------------------------------------------------- >> >> [The following rule is REPEALED: >> Rule 304 >> >> Upon the enactment of this rule, each player who voted for it shall >> receive 30 points, and each player who voted against shall lose the 10 >> points they gained for voting against; then this rule is immediately >> repealed. >> ] >> >> History: >> Enacted by Proposal 304 (omd), Jun. 19 2013 >> Repealed itself, Jun. 19 2013 >> >> ---------------------------------------------------------------------- >> >> Rule 305 (Mutable) >> >> No rule may award or penalize players based on their votes on proposals >> whose voting period ended before or at the same time as the time at which >> the current form of said rule took effect. >> >> History: >> Enacted by Proposal 305 (Chuck), Jun. 20 2013 >> >> ---------------------------------------------------------------------- >> >> Rule 306 (Mutable) >> >> A player may transfer points to another player by posting to that >> effect on the mailing list. >> >> History: >> Enacted by Proposal 306 (omd), Jun. 21 2013 >> >> ---------------------------------------------------------------------- >> >> Rule 309 (Mutable) >> >> Initially, each Voter has exactly one vote on each proposal. During >> the voting period on a proposal, a player with more than 50 points >> may cast an additional vote on that proposal by making a statement >> to that effect on the mailing list; this destroys 50 of the player's >> points. >> >> The Speaker may not vote. >> >> History: >> Initial Mutable Rule 206, Jun. 30 1993 >> Amended by Proposal 309 (Walker), Jun. 21 2013 >> >> ---------------------------------------------------------------------- >> >> Rule 321 (Mutable) >> >> Quorum for a proposal is defined to be 20% of Voters at the >> beginning of the prescribed voting period for that proposal >> >> History: >> Initial Mutable Rule 201, Jun. 30 1993 >> Amended by Proposal 321 (Walker), Jun 23. 2013 >> >> ---------------------------------------------------------------------- >> >> [The following rule is REPEALED: >> Rule 323 >> >> If, upon the enactment of this Rule, the Rules initially numbered >> 106, 107 and 109 are mutable, 50 of Walker's points are destroyed. >> If possible, two seconds after this Rule is enacted, it repeals >> itself. >> ] >> >> History: >> Enacted by Proposal 323 (Walker), Jun. 23 2013 >> Repealed itself, Jun. 23 2013 >> >> ---------------------------------------------------------------------- >> >> Rule 324 (Mutable) >> >> Rule changes that transmute immutable rules into mutable rules >> may be adopted if and only if the vote is unanimous among votes >> legally cast. Transmutation shall not be implied, but must be >> stated explicitly in a proposal to take effect. >> >> History: >> Initial Immutable Rule 110, Jun. 30 1993 >> Transmuted by Proposal 324, Jun. 23 2013 >> >> ---------------------------------------------------------------------- >> >> Rule 327 (Mutable) >> >> There must always be at least one mutable rule. The adoption of >> rule changes must never become completely impermissible. >> >> History: >> Initial Immutable Rule 114, Jun. 30 1993 >> Transmuted by Proposal 310 (Walker), Jun. 22 2013 >> Amended by Proposal 327 (Walker), Jun. 24 2013 >> >> ---------------------------------------------------------------------- >> >> Rule 331 (Mutable) >> >> The Speaker shall choose Judges randomly from the set of qualified >> players. The players qualified to judge a statement are the Speaker >> and those Voters who voted on the rule change whose voting period most >> recently ended, except for the player who invoked judgement, and the >> player (if any) most recently selected as the statement's Judge. >> >> History: >> Initial Mutable Rule 214, Jun. 30 1993 >> Amended by Proposal 331 (omd), Jun. 26 2013 >> >> ---------------------------------------------------------------------- >> >> Rule 333 (Mutable) >> >> The Speaker shall make one proposal distribution per 24 hours, >> numbering and publishing the text of each proposal submitted since the >> last distribution. This starts each such proposal's prescribed voting >> period, which lasts 24 hours. >> >> History: >> Initial Mutable Rule 205, Jun. 30 1993 >> Amended for Vigintennial by decree, Jun. 17 2013 >> Amended by Proposal 333 (omd), Jun. 26 2013 >> >> ---------------------------------------------------------------------- >> >> Rule 340 (Mutable) >> >> Within 24 hours of this Rule being enacted, the Speaker shall publish >> the names and email addresses of all registered players of Agora XX. >> >> History: >> Enacted by Proposal 340 (Steve), Jun. 26 2013 >> >> ---------------------------------------------------------------------- >> >> Rule 344 (Mutable) >> >> Each year on June 30th at 00:04:30 UTC +1200 , the game shall end, >> and the Voter with the most points shall win. In case of a tie, all >> such Voters shall win simultaneously. At this time, no game actions >> may be taken and all timers shall pause. Each year on June 1st at >> 00:00 UTC the game shall resume and each player shall have eir points >> set to 0. At this time game actions may again be taken and all timers >> shall resume. >> >> History: >> Initial Immutable Rule 112, Jun. 30 1993 >> Amended for Vigintennial by decree, Jun. 17 2013 >> Transmuted by Proposal 311 (omd), Jun. 23 2013 >> Amended by Proposal 326 (Chuck), Jun. 24 2013 >> Amended by Proposal 342 (Chuck), Jun. 26 2013 >> Amended by Proposal 343 (Chuck), Jun. 26 2013 >> Amended by Proposal 344 (Yally), Jun. 27 2013 >> >> ---------------------------------------------------------------------- >> >> Rule 345 (Mutable) >> >> >> If a player proposes a rule change which is not adopted at the end >> of its voting period, that player must immediately forfeit the >> game. >> >> History: >> Enacted by Proposal 345 (Blob), Jun. 27 2013 >> >> ---------------------------------------------------------------------- >> >> Rule 347 (Mutable) >> >> >> Players whose proposals are adopted shall receive 10 points. >> >> History: >> Initial Mutable Rule 211, Jun. 30 1993 >> Amended by Proposal 301 (Chuck), Jun. 19 2013 >> Amended by Proposal 302 (Walker), Jun. 19 2013 >> Amended by Proposal 332 (omd), Jun. 26 2013 >> Amended by Proposal 347 (Chuck), Jun. 27 2013 >> >> ---------------------------------------------------------------------- >> >> >> >
