Choose your next post wisely, Achernar; it is number 4444:)
Posting to my favorite MB, of course;)
In actuality, I’m not sleepy, so I’m here. Y’all who are also here are stuck with me until I fall asleep, which should be soon if I know my body.
The problem is that without a certain amount of retroactivity, a game like this can get locked into its inherent contradictions. For example, the definition of “players”. Only players can vote on rule changes. But there isn’t a rule saying how people become players. So nobody can vote on Rule 301, because nobody’s a player until it goes into effect.
There’s a similar problem with the concept of “turns” which is also undefined. The rules as they currently exist, say that a turn must be completed before the next turn begins and that no player can skip a turn. This means that any player can stop the game by refusing or just not bothering to vote.
No. 
**
Technically true. However, until some things are better defined, we are “winging it.” You’ll notice that there is no definition on “voting” (email? on the board?) either. Until a new rule comes up to better define it, we’ll just keep going on “precedent.” The same could be applied to new players.
I believe that the current proposal is the first step in fixing that.
In any event, if, for example, the game does end here and now because someone refuses to vote, what do we do? We start a new one with a rule 105 that allows for a little more freedom.
Zev Steinhardt
It’s disturbing we’re all awake at this hour. I figured my two previous posts would appear consecutively.
However, to demonstrate I can play well with others, I will withdraw my proposed rules changes until my turn arrives. It’ll give me a chance to fix a few glitches I see already (such as Mikie’s observation that I wrote “do” instead of “don’t”). But I am voting no to rule 301.
You’re right, and this is exactly the kind of thing that my proposition is working to eliminate.
If you think that the term “player” is ambiguous, you can invoke Judgment via Rule 212, and capybara will decide.
If somebody refuses to vote here and now, then we invoke Judgment. If the Judge determines either that the legality of such a move cannot be determined, or if it makes further play impossible, then I win. 
Ironically, this same issue occurred with the passage of the American Constitution. The text of the Constitution clearly stated it would go into effect when nine states voted to ratify it. But until those states voted to do so, the Constitution wasn’t in effect. So on what authority did the ratification of nine states have any power?
Or to give another example, suppose Congress passes a law saying Supreme Court decisions have to have at least a 6-3 majority to declare a law unconstitutional. Then the Supreme Court, by a 5-4 decision, declares that law unconstitutional. Is the law overturned or not?
Achernar, as I understand the rulers, you can’t propose anything because it’s not your turn. So you can’t invoke judgement.
And even if it WAS your turn first, you can’t invoke judgement because judgement is arbitrated by the person whose turn precedes your own.
Either way, you’re hosed!
The same authority any party (especially one busy rebelling) has in declaring such: their own;)
Well, the “no” vote by Little Nemo ends the life of Prop 301 (since, as per Rule 203, until the second round is over, votes have to be unanimous.
BraheSilver, it’s your turn.
Zev Steinhardt
Oh crap.
You’re first on the list.
Don’t mind me. I’m stupid.
runs off to bang frying pan over forehead
If ever a game was made for people who argue semantics until the term “goat-felching asshat” is invoked, this is the game and these are the people:D:D:D:D:D
I guess I lose 10 points, huh?
Yep. The site already reflects that.
Zev
Yeah, I guess that’s a yes. If we’re moving on, then it would seem that it is not the case that a single player can tie up the game by not voting. Interesting…
Well, since rule 203 states that votes must be unanimous, a single “no” automatically ends the turn.
Well, since rule 203 states that votes must be unanimous, a single “no” automatically ends the turn.
What, my turn already? Okay. I’d been planning on keeping on a tack given that 105 was mutable, so my current plan goes out the window. Also, simply trying to mutate 105 again would do no good, since a) Little Nemo is against it for now and b) I need unanimous votes for this turn.
Qestion: by ‘round’ do you mean a round as in everybody, or does one person’s turn count as a round?
Since I’ve been thrown off track, I’ll just suggest a new rule:
RULE 302: A player may not vote against their own proposal.