|
|
| (17 intermediate revisions not shown) |
| Line 1: |
Line 1: |
| - | =='''Judgments of [[User:Applejuicefool|Applejuicefool]], first Judge of Nomicapolis.'''== | + | {| border="2" cellpadding="4" style="text-align:left" align="right" |
| | + | ! '''Archived Decisions''' |
| | + | |- |
| | + | | [[Decisions_of_the_Judge/Dec06|Judgments of Applejuicefool, first Judge of Nomicapolis]] |
| | + | | |
| | + | |} |
| | + | =='''Judgments of [[User:tucana25|Tucana25]], Judge of Nomicapolis.'''== |
| | + | ===Decisions requested by [[User:Finesterre|Finesterre]] === |
| | | | |
| - | ===Decisions requested by [[User:Applejuicefool|Applejuicefool]] 00:02, 1 December 2006 (EST)===
| + | ''Ruling TUC001:'' '''What is the difference between "dismissal" and "failure" for purposes of scoring?''' |
| | | | |
| - | ''Ruling AJF001:'' '''Can there be more than one judge at a time?''' | + | Rule [[326]] states when a term is dismissed. Rules [[206]], [[334]] and [[336]] define the failure of a proposal. I do not find any evidence suggesting that dismissal should be considered the same as a failure in terms of scoring. Rule [[346]] is where things get interesting. In the following quotes from the ruleset, I have added italics to the words I find must steer my judgement. |
| | + | :346 compels a player to vote for ones own proposal: "When a proposed rule-change ''may'' be voted on, the player who proposed the rule-change ''must'' cast at least one vote (or as great a fraction of one vote as the rules allow) in favor of that rule change." This doesn't say a player must cast one vote after the proposal had been called for a vote, but rather when it MAY be voted on, which is whenever the debate time (clearly stated in every proposal) has ended. |
| | + | :346 also states that "Should the proposer of a rule change fail to cast at least one vote (or as great a fraction of one vote as the rules allow) regarding that proposal ''prior to the end of the voting period'', 5 points shall be deducted from that player's score." The sticky part here is that without having the proposer declare voting to have begun, no 'voting period' can be stated to have existed. I beleive that given the wording and flow of Rule 346, a player must still vote for their proposal. |
| | | | |
| - | [[321]] and [[328]] are the rules governing Judges. Although nowhere in either rule do I find language explicily stating that there can only be one judge at a time, frequent use of constructions such as "the Judge" and "the player" certainly imply that the intent of these rules is to provide for a single judge at any time. Therefore, I rule that '''there may only be a single judge at any one time, until such time as rules specifically allow for multiple judges.''' I also request that the legislature be more explicit in their rulemaking in the future. [[User:Applejuicefool|Applejuicefool]] 00:02, 1 December 2006 (EST)
| + | Therefore, I rule that '''a player must place a vote for their own rule-change proposal or face a 5 point penalty to that players score.''' --[[User:Tucana25|Tucana25]] 12:37, 5 January 2007 (EST) |
| | ---- | | ---- |
| - | ''Ruling AJF002:'' '''What is a "proposal?"'''
| + | ===Decisions requested by [[User:Wooble|Wooble]] === |
| | | | |
| - | This term is curiously undefined in the rules. The immutable rules do not generally use the term by itself, instead using such constructions as "rule change proposal", "proposed rule change", etc. Recent rules, however, have made significant use of the term "proposal" by itself, including basing points on proposals, offering guidelines for proper proposals, etc.
| + | ''Ruling TUC002:'' '''What shall be considered unanimous?''' |
| - | So there are two terms that need definition: "Rule-change proposal" and "proposal." '''A "proposal" is hereby defined as "any officially offered statement EXCEPT rulings of the Judge, which, if approved by processes outlined in the rules, would create a long- or short-term change in the way Nomicapolis is played."''' This currently includes rule-change proposals and nominations for office. It does not include statements made on any Discussion page, and improper proposals are not considered to be proposals. '''A "rule-change proposal" is a proposal that would create a change to the Nomicapolis ruleset - A new rule, an amendment to an existing rule, transmutation of an immutable rule to a mutable rule or vice-versa, or repeal of a rule. The term "rule-change proposal" is synonymous with "proposed rule-change."''' Thus, all rule-change proposals are proposals, but not all proposals are rule-change proposals. [[User:Applejuicefool|Applejuicefool]] 00:02, 1 December 2006 (EST)
| + | |
| - | ----
| + | |
| - | ''Ruling AJF003:'' '''How may points be gained and lost?''' | + | |
| | | | |
| - | This has been the topic of some controversy lately. To maintain a harmonious play environment, it is my ruling that '''points may only be gained or lost if a rule specifically allows for such a gain or loss.''' [[User:Applejuicefool|Applejuicefool]] 00:02, 1 December 2006 (EST)
| + | Rule [[109]] states that the vote must be unanimous among active members. |
| - | ----
| + | |
| - | ''Ruling AJF003:'' '''When does a newly elected Judge take office?'''
| + | |
| | | | |
| - | No rule specifically states a time frame for a new judge to take office. Rule [[321]] states that a new judge will be "voted for on the first of every month." '''Whichever candidate has the most votes by midnight of the 1st becomes the judge at 12:00.01 AM on the 2nd.''' In the event that no judge has been nominated or the election fails to meet quorum by midnight, a special election will immediately be held. The special election is not subject to the one-day limitations of a normal Judge election, instead following the voting rules set forth in [[326]] (unless further rules are adopted following this ruling). [[User:Applejuicefool|Applejuicefool]] 00:02, 1 December 2006 (EST)
| + | Rule [[336]] states that unanimous consent shall be defined as not having any Against votes. |
| - | ----
| + | :I see no rule that places a stipulation on 'active members' meaning at what phase in a proposals life per [[366]]. |
| - | ''Ruling AJF004:'' '''When does a judge's term end?'''
| + | |
| | | | |
| - | '''A judge holds office until he resigns, he is removed from office by a supermajority vote (per [[321]]), or until the next judge takes office.''' Assuming neither of the first two criteria occur, the incumbent judge will continue to hold office until the next judge is elected. There is assumed to be no gap between a judge who holds office until the end of his term and a new judge duly elected. [[User:Applejuicefool|Applejuicefool]] 00:02, 1 December 2006 (EST)
| |
| - | ----
| |
| - | ''Ruling AJF005:'' '''What happens to rulings requested of a judge who leaves office?'''
| |
| | | | |
| - | [[321]] gives a judge 7 days to make a ruling. It is my ruling that '''a judge whose term expires may continue to rule on any cases presented to that judge before the end of his term.''' So a player may actually make rulings up to 7 days after he leaves office as judge. The newly-elected judge may not use his powers as Judge to appropriate those cases. '''This does NOT apply to cases left over when a judge resigns or is removed from office by the players - those cases must be re-presented to the next judge.''' This is kind of a sloppy situation, and may be corrected by future legislation. [[User:Applejuicefool|Applejuicefool]] 00:02, 1 December 2006 (EST) | + | Therefore, I rule that '''Proposal to transmute rule [[378]] did pass legally. Furthermore, until a proposal is made to state otherwise, 'active members' shall refer to members active at Stage 1 of a proposals life.''' --[[User:Tucana25|Tucana25]] 00:18, 24 April 2007 (EDT) |
| | ---- | | ---- |
| - |
| |
| - | ===Decisions requested by [[User:TomFoolery|TomFoolery]]===
| |
| - |
| |
| - | ''Ruling AJF006:'' '''I request a Judgment concerning proposal 337. It is not proposed in the proper way per 326, no date and time is given for the end of debate, but rather the phrase "later date and time." I do not feel that this meets the intent of the rule.'''
| |
| - |
| |
| - | Rule [[326]] states: "Said person is responsible for setting a debate limit at the time of the proposal by including the statement: "Debate will end for this proposal at **date and time**" in the "Proposer's summary and declarations" section of the talk page for that proposal." The previous sentence provides the antecedent for "said person": "the person proposing the rule change." '''If the player making a proposal fails to fulfill his responsibilities in creating that proposal, then that proposal is made in an improper way.''' This is a general ruling, and it is in no way intended to address the facts in the current case. It is not the jurisdiction of the Judge to make a ruling on whether proposals are proper or improper. See rule [[306]], clause 2. This clause provides steps for contesting the propriety of a proposal. [[User:Applejuicefool|Applejuicefool]] 21:47, 1 December 2006 (EST)
| |
| - | ----
| |
| - |
| |
| - | ===Decisions requested by [[User:tucana25|tucana25]]===
| |
| - |
| |
| - | ''Ruling AJF007:'' '''I request a Judgement to determine what timezone shall determine the 'first day of the month'.'''
| |
| - |
| |
| - | This is not covered in the rules. However, it is in the best interests of Nomicapolis to have all players using a standard time frame, no matter their actual local time. Therefore, it is my decision that '''local time in the United States portion of the Eastern Time Zone shall be used as standard Nomicapolis time. This will include alterations for the Daylight Savings Time system, as long as a majority of United States territory in the Eastern Time Zone continues to use that system.''' This ruling will govern until such time as the rules of play specifically provide a different system. [[User:Applejuicefool|Applejuicefool]] 21:55, 1 December 2006 (EST)
| |
| - | ----
| |
| - | ===Decisions requested by [[User:Dayd|Dayd]]===
| |
| - |
| |
| - | ''Ruling AJF008:'' ''' In regards to 337 it was proposed before a vote passed rule 326 therefore "Said person is responsible for setting a debate limit at the time of the proposal" should not be binding for a proposal proposed before this rule was implimented. '''
| |
| - |
| |
| - | As Dayd points out, this is governed by [[107]]: "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." I find that the last vote on [[326]] was cast at 00:29, 28 November 2006 (EST); hence it was adopted at 00:29, 29 November, 2006 (EST). The History page of 337 places the time of its proposal at 16:17, 27 November 2006 at the earliest. According to [[107]], [[326]] cannot retroactively govern the proposal of [[337]]. Also, according to [[326]], it only affects what the proposer does "...at the time of the proposal" and has no effect on an existing proposal. However, '''I once again iterate that this court has no jurisdiction over whether or not a proposal is proper.''' Rule [[306]] places that authority solely in the hands of the voters. While it is the personal opinion of this judge that, in this regard, [[337]] is not improper, a claim of impropriety has been made and must either be voted on or withdrawn. [[User:Applejuicefool|Applejuicefool]] 14:12, 2 December 2006 (EST)
| |
| - | ----
| |
| - |
| |
| - | ''Ruling AJF009:'' '''TomFoolery or Tom Foolery is in violation of rule 302 "Players are limited to one Nomicapolis account in play" Proposal 326 was proposed by Tom Foolery who was not on the census at the time of the Proposal.'''
| |
| - |
| |
| - | It is the finding of this judge that there is a user page for [[User:TomFoolery]] and for [[User:Tom Foolery]]. In this case, I ask for testimony from three witnesses. Please answer the following questions narrowly and specifically:
| |
| - |
| |
| - | Admin:
| |
| - |
| |
| - | Do both of the above user accounts indeed exist?
| |
| - | : Yes.* --[[User:Admin|Admin]] 14:26, 2 December 2006 (EST)
| |
| - |
| |
| - | Are they both accessed from the same IP address?
| |
| - | : No. --[[User:Admin|Admin]] 14:26, 2 December 2006 (EST)
| |
| - |
| |
| - | Have they both been used for Nomicapolis game play?
| |
| - | : Yes.* --[[User:Admin|Admin]] 14:26, 2 December 2006 (EST)
| |
| - |
| |
| - |
| |
| - | TomFoolery:
| |
| - |
| |
| - | Did you also register the "Tom Foolery" user account?
| |
| - |
| |
| - | If so, have you used both accounts for Nomicapolis play?
| |
| - |
| |
| - | If either or both is correct, why did you feel the need to register and/or use two accounts, in violation of the rules?
| |
| - |
| |
| - |
| |
| - | Tom Foolery:
| |
| - |
| |
| - | Did you also register the "TomFoolery" user account?
| |
| - |
| |
| - | If so, have you used both accounts for Nomicapolis play?
| |
| - |
| |
| - | If either or both is correct, why did you feel the need to register and/or use two accounts, in violation of the rules?
| |
| - |
| |
| - | :I Registered as Tom Foolery and began play with that name until I found a problem linking with a name that contained a space, I then deleted Tom Foolery from the census and re-registered as TomFoolery. I have only ever used one account at a time, and believe that that is obeying the intent of [[302]]. No vote has ever been cast by both accounts on the same proposal, and you will find that there has been no activity from Tom Foolery since TomFoolery was created. --[[User:TomFoolery|TomFoolery]] 19:38, 2 December 2006 (EST)
| |
| - |
| |
| - |
| |
| - | Please place your testimony indented with one colon, immediately following the pertinent question. I withhold my judgment briefly while awaiting this requested testimony. [[User:Applejuicefool|Applejuicefool]] 14:12, 2 December 2006 (EST)
| |
