Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[florrat]

PS: I disagree with your argument "The voting is over hence the players who didn't vote are not eligible voters." Suppose that this vote just required a simple majority. Then certainly the vote would be over and passes. Not because the only 9 players who voted were eligible to vote, but because no matter what the other players voted, the vote would pass.

[Voltaire]

But you may say "Aha! Rule 334 does say explicitly that the  players who didn't vote are not eligible voters. So we do (did?) have a unanimous vote among eligible voters." But rule 334 says this only when 60 hours have been passed.

Actually, it says "If a proposal has been in the voting stage for 60 hours or more and has not been resolved..." This vote has been resolved.

[florrat]

This vote has been resolved.

This argument only works assuming you're already right (i.e. assuming that the vote could be ended). Hence it's a bad argument and I disagree with it.

Rule 109 (overruling rule 334) states that a unanimous vote is required, and that isn't currently the case. If your problem with rule 109 is that it states that only unanimity among eligible voters is required... see my previous post.

[Jack Rudd]

I sense a call for judgment coming up. Florrat, are you invoking one?

[Voltaire]

OK, well, we have reached a point where the rules are unclear because we disagree on what they mean. Either one of us declares judgement on what has happened, or everyone else shows up and votes "Yes" quickly and it becomes moot.

[florrat]

I'm don't want to invoke this judgement. I like this outcome, but I think it's not following the rules.
So I won't invoke judgement, but if someone wants to vote "No", then I'll completely support any invoked judgement.

[Jack Rudd]

I'm going to bed. Should I be called on to give judgment on this issue, my ruling is in the spoiler tags.


All the rule changes except 347 to 349 pass on a simple majority. 347-349 still need the three outstanding voters to participate: 347 because it's a transmutation, 348 and 349 because each is an invalid proposal unless 347 passes.

[Voltaire]

OK. After thinking about this more and sleeping on it, I think florrat and Jack Rudd are right. Because I suspended the "one rule change per turn" rule, you can cast different votes on each of these proposals. That also means that Jack Rudd is right, only 347, 348, and 349 need all eligible voters (which is everyone before 60 hours) to pass.

So I see 3 ways we can go:

• the non-voters speaks up and say they would have voted yes, meaning everybody is fine with the result. I made a mistake, but it didn't break the game. We continue with heron's turn
• the non-voters vote yes right now, bringing the current situation in line with what should have happened
• wait for 60 hours to elapse (which would be 5 AM FT on Saturday morning) at which point the non-voters are ineligible and it actually becomes heron's turn. Probably have to call Judgement (and hope the judge rules this way) to make it clear what's going on

I think 3 is the most correct option, which would require Judgement to go back. If anyone thinks we need to use Judgement to sort this out, I certainly won't mind. I do now agree with florrat and Jack Rudd, as I've said. Just a note that we only have 24 hours since I incorrectly ended the turn to call Judgement on that action if we want to - that's later today at 6:45 PM FT.

[EFHW]

I'm don't want to invoke this judgement. I like this outcome, but I think it's not following the rules.
So I won't invoke judgement, but if someone wants to vote "No", then I'll completely support any invoked judgement.

I agree with florrat's assessment of the situation.  I support waiting until we have heard from everyone/60 hours are up.  With this many people in the game, maybe someone should amend the rule to a shorter amount of time than 60 hours for the future.

PPE I see Voltaire has also posted

[Voltaire]

I support waiting until we have heard from everyone/60 hours are up.  With this many people in the game, maybe someone should amend the rule to a shorter amount of time than 60 hours for the future.

I would also support shortening the 60 hour deadline.

FYI, if we're taking the "sit and wait" approach, the deadline is today due to the 24-hour limit on challenging an incorrect end-of-turn. At that point, the default situation (heron's turn, my rules passed 9-0) would become official.

[mail-mi]

I would have voted yes.

[Voltaire]

Well, the 24-hour clock passed - it's super-duper heron's turn now.

[EFHW]

Now that the color rule has passed, should mail-mi pick before me?

[Voltaire]

Now that the color rule has passed, should mail-mi pick before me?

You can pick whenever you each want, it won't matter.

[EFHW]

Next time I'm at a computer.

[mail-mi]

[color=(6, 255, 0)] Choose color: (6, 255, 0)[/color]

[mail-mi]

[color=(6, 255, 0)] Choose color: (6, 255, 0)[/color]

Wellthat didnt work. How do I do it?

[sudgy]

Quote this example

[EFHW]

my color

[Voltaire]

I think colors need to be in (A, B, C) format to be legal.

Colors are chosen by posting in thread a color in the format (Red Value, Green Value, Blue Value), where each Color Value is an integer between 0 and 255. So for example, (0, 0, 0) would be black, (255, 0, 0) would be red, (0, 255, 0) would be green, and so on.

[EFHW]

my color rgb(102,0,102)

[sudgy]

It needs to be in this format:

Choose color: (x, y, z)

[Voltaire]

It needs to be in this format:

Choose color: (x, y, z)

Where are you getting that? I don't see it anywhere. I think EFHW's latest post was good enough.

[sudgy]

It needs to be in this format:

Choose color: (x, y, z)

Where are you getting that? I don't see it anywhere. I think EFHW's latest post was good enough.

I got it from my wrong memory of a rule.  Carry on.

[mail-mi]

Choose Color: (6, 255, 0)