They joined the game later. Had they joined when the game started, then they would have been listed alphabetically, like everyone else.
Zev Steinhardt
I’m thinking no, because Rule 212 doesn’t say anything about the proposal it concerns. “The player preceding the one moving is to be the Judge and decide the question” seems to me to mean the one moving now, not the one who made the proposal we’re questioning. Let me think about this, though…
But then you’re admitting that your turn was over. You can’t have it both ways. Either it is BraheSilver’s turn and 301 was defeated and the turn is over and you are judge, OR it’s still you’re turn, 301 is still being voted on and I’m the judge.
Zev Steinhardt
My head hurts… :eek:
I don’t suppose it’s going to help matters by pointing out I was voting no to Zev’s version of rule 301 and not Achernar’s? I wasn’t happy with the acclimation/restart. If we start going outside of the rules, what’s the point? But I’m willing to accept the consensus that I was voting on the second rule 301 in order to keep things moving.
There is at least one important aspect to letting everyone vote. As some players (including myself) have noticed, you get ten points for voting against a rule change that the majority is voting in favor of. By ending the vote after the first no vote, you’re denying other people the chance to score points.
Well, according to 212:
So the judge gets to decide who is the judge. That doesn’t help much.
Here’s what I think. There’s nothing in the rules that definitively says that the turn doesn’t end until everyone votes. You can interpret 105 like that (and I do), but it’s ambiguous.
Some of the players, notably zev_steinhardt and BraheSilver, interpreted it differently, and the turn 301 ended, according to one interpretation of the rules. Since nobody challenged this interpretation during that turn, their actions went into effect, and since that turn’s over, we can no longer challenge that interpretation.
Just remember that that’s only true if and when rule-changes can be adopted without unanimity. See rule 204
But we’re not in a situation where a majority vote is required. We’re in a situation where a unanimous vote is required. So, there’s no 10 points for voting against and the proposal is defeated with the first NO vote.
Zev Steinhardt
Please, whoever come up with the next prop write a vacation/ idle clause for vote forfeiture, with some kind of nome time unit, like “a gnome week, of 24 SDMB eastern time zone hours.”
And I agree to whatever we are deciding right now. Any and all issues on the table.
Generally speaking, when it comes to Nomic I’m a strict constructionist. I’m opposed to doing anything outside of the rules. But the problem here is that if you don’t accept my assumption that Zev was playing the game, the only alternative is that nobody was playing. And with no players and no rules in place for people to become players, the game was stillborn.
And that’s fine and I’m willing to live with that. But if you’re now allowing turn 301 to end even without all the votes coming in, then we have a precedent, don’t we? Can’t we then let 302 stand (defeated) as it is and go to 303 and hope that iampunha will propose a rule to make things clearer?
Zev Steinhardt
Under the current rules, this doesn’t apply to defeating a proposal early. Those points are only awarded if the proposal passes. However, this change, so I agree that just because the result of the vote cannot be changed by later voting doesn’t mean that later voting is without effect.
zev_steinhardt:
Rule 212 says there’s no such thing as precedent, as I interpret it. As a Judge, I’m not bound by what happened in previous rounds. I’m only bound by “all rules now in effect.” I think, if we’re going to follow the rules, we need to get everyone to vote, yes or no it doesn’t matter, and then hope iampunha proposes a rule to make things clearer.
Well, what’s in dispute here is whether or not the challenge occured before the turn ended. If the challenge is valid then the turn had not ended yet. If the challenge is invalid, then the turn had ended. You agreed that the challenge was valid, therefore the turn had not ended. But, since the turn hadn’t ended, you weren’t the legal judge so you’re judgement is meaningless. So we have a paradox. I guess we could invoke rule 213 and declare Achernar the winner… 
So, then, just to clarify:
It’s your position that 301 ended, defeated, even though not everyone voted, but 302 is in progress but cannot end until everyone votes?
Zev Steinhardt
I agree, but we first have to make 105 mutable.
In the meantime, if everyone would please give a vote on 302 anyway, maybe we can get past this logjam simply by virtue of everyone voting…
Zev Steinhardt
Not necessarily. Just because it says that all players must vote that doesn’t mean that the turn can’t end until all players vote. See my earlier point re: jaywalking.
Zev Steinhardt
Yes. However, in the interest of moving things along, I would not have invoked Judgment over such a thing. The only reason it came up is because davidm invoked Judgment. When that happened (I believe) I became a Judge, and as such had to follow the rules as I read them. The fact that I wanted to move things along was irrelevant at that time.
I vote NO on Proposition 302. I suggest that in addition to voting, people also give consent that the game continue. 
Just to cover all our bases.
May I refer you to Rule #116. "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. "
Therefore if it isn’t mentioned in the rules you can do whatever you want to.