Recommend
1 
 Thumb up
 Hide
47 Posts
1 , 2  Next »   | 

Nomic» Forums » Play By Forum

Subject: Proposed Rule 306: Stare Decisis rss

Your Tags: Add tags
Popular Tags: [View All]
Drew Spencer
United States
Tucson
Arizona
flag msg tools
badge
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
Stare decisis et non quieta movere
Maintain what has been decided and do not alter that which has been established.

To establish greater reliance on the judgments made by judges and provide settled answers for questions of ambiguity, it is helpful to know that when a judge makes a ruling, that ruling is likely to stand. Therefore I propose the following:

Proposed Rule 306 wrote:
1. Whenever judgment is invoked, the judge shall publish their opinion in written form including (1) the question or questions presented, (2) the judge's surname or username, (3) the judge's ruling on all questions presented, and (4) any reasoning the judge deems helpful.

2. Whenever judgment is invoked, the judge may either (1) rule in a way consistent with all prior, non-overruled judgments or (2) overrule one or more prior judgments (in whole or in part) and rule in a way not consistent with those judgments. If the judge chooses the latter, they shall explicitly state which judgments they are overruling and both the current judge and the judge who issued the judgment to be overruled shall lose 10 points, unless the other players overrule the judgment by unanimous vote.

3. If the other players believe that a judgment is inconsistent with one or more prior judgments but the opinion does not explicitly say so, they may force the new judgment to explicitly state that it overrules the relevant prior judgment or judgments by unanimous vote only. This is not the same as overruling the new judgment; the new judgment will still stand. If this happens, a statement that the new judgment overrules the relevant prior judgment or judgments shall be added to the opinion, and the current judge (and only the current judge) shall lose 10 points.

4. Judgments can be overruled by new rules. The rule may, but need not, explicitly state the judgment it overrules to do so.

5. This rule takes precedence over Rule 212 in all matters where they contradict each other.

6. For purposes of scoring on the turn this rule passes, Rule 204 is ignored.


Some comments:

It may sound like section one makes work harder for judges; it does not. If you look back and the prior judgments, they all contain all of the necessary elements except the judge's name. No particular formatting is required, so judges won't even have to reference this rule once they know the basics. Of course, judges may take more care in crafting their opinions now that they know they will stand, but that is entirely up to them.

I will personally take care of tracking judgments in a new page on the wiki. My plan is to rewrite each judgment that takes place after this rule passes as if it were a new rule, so for example, I'd write "J01: Players may change their votes during the voting period," and link to the judgment which held that. Of course, these wouldn't actually be new rules, but it's a helpful shorthand so that judges can know when their decisions are consistent with prior holdings. This is the way it's done in the United States too.

If a judge makes a bad ruling, players should overrule him immediately by the normal method spelled out in 212. If there is insufficient will to do that, players may propose a new rule that would overrule their judgment. Overruling by judges should be very rare if it happens at all.

I'd like to get this turn through quickly. I plan on calling for a vote in no more than 48 hours, but of course I'll take extra time if it's needed to address concerns and make amendments. Obviously this rule will not go into effect until all calls for judgment regarding its passage are resolved.
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Malachi Brown
United States
Hermitage
TN
flag msg tools
It's turtles all the way down.
badge
“Questions are a burden to others; answers a prison for oneself.”
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
I would vote against this rule. I don't like the persistence of rulings because that creates another set of pseudo-rules that have to be remembered, referred to, etc.

I also don't like the drastic increase in scope of judgment because it has the potential to concentrate a vast amount of power in the hands of one judge.

As demonstrated by the prior debates, there is a wide array of opinions on some subtle and not so subtle aspects of how the game should work or be run. If I understand your proposal correctly, on any given turn, someone could call for a ruling on all of those issues and the current judge would:
a) be forced to rule on each and every one
b) be creating precedent that all future judges and players would be bound to, barring the creation of new rules in the future.

I think there is also an issue of ambiguous judgments. Since judgments aren't actual rules, would it be possible to call for judgment on prior judgments?
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Drew Spencer
United States
Tucson
Arizona
flag msg tools
badge
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
Malachi wrote:
If I understand your proposal correctly, on any given turn, someone could call for a ruling on all of those issues and the current judge would:
a) be forced to rule on each and every one
b) be creating precedent that all future judges and players would be bound to, barring the creation of new rules in the future.


This is not it's intent. It should always be the case that judges may only rule on questions for which (1) there is disagreement between players and (2) must be answered for the game to continue. I consider this to be implicit in 212 and not changed by 306, but I can see how 306 seems to require judges to answer all questions (actually it sorta does, but the answer can always be "I need not answer this question now"). Can you recommend any language to clarify this?

Malachi wrote:
I think there is also an issue of ambiguous judgments. Since judgments aren't actual rules, would it be possible to call for judgment on prior judgments?


You would be able to call for judgment on a question that was already decided, if that's what you mean. This is also currently legal. At least under my proposed rule, if it occurs, the judge knows exactly how to respond.
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Drew Spencer
United States
Tucson
Arizona
flag msg tools
badge
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
Malachi wrote:
I don't like the persistence of rulings because that creates another set of pseudo-rules that have to be remembered, referred to, etc.


This is the case already, only now we don't know have a neat place to refer to the prior decisions and we don't know if they'll be adhered to anyway. Ambiguities remain ambiguous until they're changed by new rules and we can either call for judgment every time they come up or we can refer to prior judgments. This rule assumes that we'll do the latter and makes it much easier to do so.
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Malachi Brown
United States
Hermitage
TN
flag msg tools
It's turtles all the way down.
badge
“Questions are a burden to others; answers a prison for oneself.”
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
banyan wrote:
Malachi wrote:
If I understand your proposal correctly, on any given turn, someone could call for a ruling on all of those issues and the current judge would:
a) be forced to rule on each and every one
b) be creating precedent that all future judges and players would be bound to, barring the creation of new rules in the future.


This is not it's intent. It should always be the case that judges may only rule on questions for which (1) there is disagreement between players and (2) must be answered for the game to continue. I consider this to be implicit in 212 and not changed by 306, but I can see how 306 seems to require judges to answer all questions (actually it sorta does, but the answer can always be "I need not answer this question now"). Can you recommend any language to clarify this?

You specifically say that the judge has to rule on all questions presented and that your rule takes precedence over 212 where they conflict. This would seem to override the scope limitations of 212.

I'm not sure how you might tighten up the language. Since I object to your proposal in principal, it doesn't seem like a good use of my time right now. Off the cuff, one way to limit scope might be to clarify what a judge's ruling can consist of and explicitly allow the deferral of unnecessary rulings, or you could just add language that defers or reimplements 212's limitations on scope.
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Malachi Brown
United States
Hermitage
TN
flag msg tools
It's turtles all the way down.
badge
“Questions are a burden to others; answers a prison for oneself.”
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
banyan wrote:
Malachi wrote:
I don't like the persistence of rulings because that creates another set of pseudo-rules that have to be remembered, referred to, etc.


This is the case already, only now we don't know have a neat place to refer to the prior decisions and we don't know if they'll be adhered to anyway. Ambiguities remain ambiguous until they're changed by new rules and we can either call for judgment every time they come up or we can refer to prior judgments. This rule assumes that we'll do the latter and makes it much easier to do so.

Maybe I'm missing something, but I don't think that is the case now. Since prior judges rulings are not binding to future judges, I assumed that if the same issue came up in conflict on a future turn, judgment would have to be called for again to clarify.

I don't recall a rule that says that a judgment becomes a rule, and the rules for invoking judgment specify that if the rules are unclear or ambiguous and the players disagree, then judgment can be called for. I could be missing something, though.
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Drew Spencer
United States
Tucson
Arizona
flag msg tools
badge
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
Malachi wrote:
banyan wrote:
Malachi wrote:
I don't like the persistence of rulings because that creates another set of pseudo-rules that have to be remembered, referred to, etc.


This is the case already, only now we don't know have a neat place to refer to the prior decisions and we don't know if they'll be adhered to anyway. Ambiguities remain ambiguous until they're changed by new rules and we can either call for judgment every time they come up or we can refer to prior judgments. This rule assumes that we'll do the latter and makes it much easier to do so.

Maybe I'm missing something, but I don't think that is the case now. Since prior judges rulings are not binding to future judges, I assumed that if the same issue came up in conflict on a future turn, judgment would have to be called for again to clarify.

I don't recall a rule that says that a judgment becomes a rule, and the rules for invoking judgment specify that if the rules are unclear or ambiguous and the players disagree, then judgment can be called for. I could be missing something, though.


As I said, we can either call for judgment every time they come up or we can refer to prior judgments. This rule would make the latter official policy. So far in this game we have done the latter unofficially rather than call for judgment every time. That seems to be evidence that people don't like the former option.

You seem to suggest that we should instead actually call for judgment every single time the same ambiguity comes up and leave it to player's rule proposals to make them stop coming up. That is a very slow and arduous process, and in the end you end up having more, not less, rules to slog through to know what to do. I can't believe anyone would prefer that rather than simply having judges make the call and abide by what they say. If they clearly call it wrong, we overrule them immediately or pass a new rule overruling them on our turns.

This rule would streamline the game greatly without any clear detriment. The alternative is repeated calls for judgment on identical matters and turn after turn of passing picky procedural rules to fill ambiguity gaps rather than rules that actually make the game interesting.

As a side note, I'm currently playing a game of Nomic in person around a table with players and we passed a rule basically identical to this one and it passed with unanimity and has shown its utility already. So far we've only had one call for judgment after its passage, but an identical situation came up after the judge had made his ruling and we immediately knew what to do without arguing about it and without the need for anyone to waste their turn passing a dull procedural rule clarifying the matter.
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Kieron Mitchell
United States
Indianapolis
IN
flag msg tools
Http:\\www.kieronmitchell.com
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
Malachi wrote:
[snip]
I'm not sure how you might tighten up the language. Since I object to your proposal in principal, it doesn't seem like a good use of my time right now. [snip]


Burn!
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Kieron Mitchell
United States
Indianapolis
IN
flag msg tools
Http:\\www.kieronmitchell.com
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
In principal, I like the idea of Stare Decisis for the reasons you just outlined.

The only objection I have that is strong enough to cause me to vote "no" is to the penalty for a later judge overruling a prior judgment.

Since:

0. Very bad (first time) judgments can be made "for free", and

1. The immediate overruling that players can do via 212 is unlikely to happen (since it must be unanimous, and almost always the disagreeing party would be voting), and

2. It is boring (and kind of a "waste" of my turn) to write a rule to overrule a judgment, and

3. My turn won't come up until three turns from the time of the judgment (on average) anyway,

therefore

4. Some bogus, stinky judgment is likely to remain on the books and only come off if some kind-hearted judge is willing to PAY 10 POINTS TO REMOVE IT. That is completely unfair.

=================================

Solution ideas:

A. to fix 0: Penalize a judge if they are immediately overruled (this is critical to fix 0, and should be done in any case). Instead of, or in addition to points penalties, I would recommend keeping them from being a judge in the future (maybe for three judgment calls or something).

B. to fix 4: Allow the reduction of the overruling judge's "penalty" (via voting by the rest of the players?).
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Drew Spencer
United States
Tucson
Arizona
flag msg tools
badge
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
kieron wrote:
1. The immediate overruling that players can do via 212 is unlikely to happen (since it must be unanimous, and almost always the disagreeing party would be voting), and


This has already happened once this game. If a clearly bad ruling is made, I don't think it's that unlikely. Stare decisis gives greater incentives for good judgments since a bad one that helps in the short term may just come around to bite you on a later turn. Players should also feel more willing to overrule a judgment knowing that it will persist.

kieron wrote:
2. It is boring (and kind of a "waste" of my turn) to write a rule to overrule a judgment, and


Right, so currently if there's an ambiguity judgment will need to be called every time it comes up. Some of those judgment calls may be good and some may be bad. Someone will have to pass a rule sooner or later. If this rule is adopted then a judgment call is only made once. If it's a bad call that doesn't get overruled for some reason, then someone will have to pass a rule later, just like they would have without this rule. If it's a good call, then no further action is necessary. This rule actually makes the situation much better for wasting your turn writing a boring rule.

kieron wrote:
3. My turn won't come up until three turns from the time of the judgment (on average) anyway,


If you're the only one who thinks the ruling is bad, a rule change to overrule it probably won't pass anyway.

therefore

kieron wrote:
4. Some bogus, stinky judgment is likely to remain on the books and only come off if some kind-hearted judge is willing to PAY 10 POINTS TO REMOVE IT. That is completely unfair.


As per above, this is highly unlikely. Furthermore, compare it to the alternative of a bogus, stinky judgment being made for one turn, then the situation comes up again, you call for judgment again, you get another self-serving judgment, and repeat. Bad judgments are less likely to come up under this rule and when they do there are still all the same mechanisms for correcting them.

What no one seems to be looking at is what happens when judges make good judgments under the current system. You have no idea if they'll be followed in the future. Instead we're left to the whim of whomever is in the right seating position and the rule might change every single turn. This rule gets a good ruling on the books and keeps it there.

kieron wrote:
A. to fix 0: Penalize a judge if they are immediately overruled (this is critical to fix 0, and should be done in any case). Instead of, or in addition to points penalties, I would recommend keeping them from being a judge in the future (maybe for three judgment calls or something).


This isn't a bad idea. I like the idea of docking points for being overruled, and I may incorporate it. Keeping them from being a judge in the future sounds annoying to keep track of. If someone reintroduces the jurisdiction rule, I would encourage them to incorporate it though.

kieron wrote:
B. to fix 4: Allow the reduction of the overruling judge's "penalty" (via voting by the rest of the players?).


The last thing I want to do is make it easier to overrule a judgment. The whole point is that once a judgment is made it can either be overruled immediately or by a rule change proposal. This is the way it's done in the real world for good reason.

I think the criticisms so far have been overly focused on far-fetched situations in which a bad ruling is made and then not overruled by the other players for some reason and then no one wants to pass a new rule to change it. Consider the much, much more common situation of a good ruling being made and how much easier it will be knowing that after that is made it will stick around and won't have to be cemented in place by a boring procedural rule on someone's turn.
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Drew Spencer
United States
Tucson
Arizona
flag msg tools
badge
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
Version 2.0

I've added headings to be consistent with the format of the most recently passed rule. I've added the requirement that judges may only answer such questions as need to be answered. I've also added a penalty of 5 points for being overruled by the other players to further help discourage bad rulings.

Proposed Rule 306 wrote:
1. Published opinions
Whenever judgment is invoked, the judge shall publish their opinion in written form including (1) the question or questions presented, (2) the judge's surname or username, (3) the judge's ruling on all and only those questions for which there is actual disagreement between players and which must be answered for play to continue, and (4) any reasoning the judge deems helpful.

2. Stare decisis
Whenever judgment is invoked, the judge may either (1) rule in a way consistent with all prior, non-overruled judgments or (2) overrule one or more prior judgments (in whole or in part) and rule in a way not consistent with those judgments. If the judge chooses the latter, they shall explicitly state which judgments they are overruling and both the current judge and the judge who issued the judgment to be overruled shall lose 10 points, unless the other players overrule the judgment by unanimous vote.

2.1. Player oversight of stare decisis
If the other players believe that a judgment is inconsistent with one or more prior judgments but the opinion does not explicitly say so, they may force the new judgment to explicitly state that it overrules the relevant prior judgment or judgments by unanimous vote only. This is not the same as overruling the new judgment; the new judgment will still stand. If this happens, a statement that the new judgment overrules the relevant prior judgment or judgments shall be added to the opinion, and the current judge (and only the current judge) shall lose 10 points.

3. Punishment for bad rulings
If the other players overrule a judgment by unanimous vote, the judge who made the judgment shall lose 5 points.

4. Legislative supremacy
Judgments can be overruled by new rules. The rule may, but need not, explicitly state the judgment it overrules to do so.

5. Precedence over prior rules
This rule takes precedence over Rule 212 in all matters where they contradict each other.

6. Rule 204 abeyance
For purposes of scoring on the turn this rule passes, Rule 204 is ignored.
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Drew Spencer
United States
Tucson
Arizona
flag msg tools
badge
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
I'd like to conduct a straw poll to see if my proposal, as it currently stands, has any chance of passing. I think a stare decisis rule the one I propose would make the game proceed faster and smoother and allow for more creative and interesting rules, but if I'm alone in that belief, I don't want to waste my turn finding that out.

This is NOT the final vote, and the proposal directly above may not be the final form of the proposal. However, please vote honestly so that I can be informed on how to proceed.

Poll
Would you vote yes on the rule change as proposed or something substantially similar to it?
Yes
No
      4 answers
Poll created by banyan
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Malachi Brown
United States
Hermitage
TN
flag msg tools
It's turtles all the way down.
badge
“Questions are a burden to others; answers a prison for oneself.”
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
It might be useful to clarify that when the other players are trying to unanimously vote about a judgment, that the judge is not one of the voters...
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Shanya Almafeta
United States
Kansas City
Missouri
flag msg tools
designer
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
I'll have to vote no on this one, for two reasons:

1) Complex rules should only be used in case of need. There is no pressing need to have judgements be subject to other judgements.

2) Having judgements be mandatorially subject to other judgements means that judgements can be invoked as to whether or not another judge correctly judged other judgements. The first player who did so would be able to end the game with an infinite loop, and thus win via rule 213.
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Kieron Mitchell
United States
Indianapolis
IN
flag msg tools
Http:\\www.kieronmitchell.com
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
Almafeta wrote:
[snip]
2) Having judgements be mandatorially subject to other judgements means that judgements can be invoked as to whether or not another judge correctly judged other judgements. The first player who did so would be able to end the game with an infinite loop, and thus win via rule 213.


Can you explain this more, please? I don't understand it.
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Drew Spencer
United States
Tucson
Arizona
flag msg tools
badge
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
Almafeta wrote:
1) Complex rules should only be used in case of need. There is no pressing need to have judgements be subject to other judgements.


Although I agree that there is no "pressing need" for this rule, I do think it would make the game better. Also, I do not think it's complex at all. Almost all of the complexity comes in when judges overrule prior judgments, which should not happen often if at all.

Almafeta wrote:
2) Having judgements be mandatorially subject to other judgements means that judgements can be invoked as to whether or not another judge correctly judged other judgements. The first player who did so would be able to end the game with an infinite loop, and thus win via rule 213.


This rule tells players what to do if they think a judgment is inconsistent with a prior judgment. If the proposal to force it to say it is fails and a player makes a call for judgment on the matter, the judge can simply say that the matter has been decided. I suppose they could then call for judgment on the question of whether that judgment overruled a prior judgment, but the answer would be the same. Ultimately it would amount to calling for judgment on the same question over and over, which would certainly not cause anything like an infinite loop, but would simply be stalling and being a jerk, and that's perfectly possible now too.
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Malachi Brown
United States
Hermitage
TN
flag msg tools
It's turtles all the way down.
badge
“Questions are a burden to others; answers a prison for oneself.”
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
banyan wrote:
Almafeta wrote:
1) Complex rules should only be used in case of need. There is no pressing need to have judgements be subject to other judgements.


Although I agree that there is no "pressing need" for this rule, I do think it would make the game better. Also, I do not think it's complex at all. Almost all of the complexity comes in when judges overrule prior judgments, which should not happen often if at all.

Since this also came up in a prior debate, it might be useful for Almafeta to tell us what she considers the criteria for a "complex" rule.
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Kieron Mitchell
United States
Indianapolis
IN
flag msg tools
Http:\\www.kieronmitchell.com
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
banyan wrote:
[snip]

Almafeta wrote:
2) Having judgements be mandatorially subject to other judgements means that judgements can be invoked as to whether or not another judge correctly judged other judgements. The first player who did so would be able to end the game with an infinite loop, and thus win via rule 213.


This rule tells players what to do if they think a judgment is inconsistent with a prior judgment. If the proposal to force it to say it is fails and a player makes a call for judgment on the matter, the judge can simply say that the matter has been decided. I suppose they could then call for judgment on the question of whether that judgment overruled a prior judgment, but the answer would be the same. Ultimately it would amount to calling for judgment on the same question over and over, which would certainly not cause anything like an infinite loop, but would simply be stalling and being a jerk, and that's perfectly possible now too.


1. Since it is up to the judgment invoking player to determine if there is a disagreement, this kind of stalling is possible now (without the proposed rule).

2. Banyan, you've made a convincing enough case that I would vote in favor.
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Kayl
United States
Seal Beach
California
flag msg tools
badge
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
I seem to be thinking along the same lines at Malachi. I do see the potential for several of the problems this proposal would fix; I just haven't seen the problems... yet. Why incur the overhead? Wouldn't it be better to leave the Judgments "fast and loose" until a majority notices a trend the majority doesn't like?

I didn't participate in the poll because, while I like the proposal's potential, I don't see its current need. So, "no" for now but I'm not at all ideologically opposed to it.
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Ken H.
United States
Amherst
Ohio
flag msg tools
badge
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
banyan wrote:
My plan is to rewrite each judgment that takes place after this rule passes as if it were a new rule, so for example, I'd write "J01: Players may change their votes during the voting period," and link to the judgment which held that.


While I am possibly leaning in favor of the overall idea of this proposal, I am not in favor of somebody rewriting the judgments. The judge's own exact words are important. If the judge fails to answer the question adequately, then he should be overruled, rather than arbitrarily rephrased.

The problem I have is that Rule 212 already includes language about following "game custom" and the "spirit of the game". That's basically the same as stare decisis (or close enough). 212 just doesn't make it mandatory, which is a problem.

Personally, I think persistent judgments are a good thing. They will help the game move more smoothly, and will shut down exploitation attempts without fear that will pop back open every turn. In many ways, judgments are nearly useless otherwise.

Re/ some of the criticisms: judges should take the effort to make their rulings as narrow as possible. Stick to the exact facts of the question presented. If the judge's ruling is too broad, it should be overruled. We just have to be watchful, and make sure judges aren't ruling on things that aren't relevant.

Unfortunately, I don't have time to go into the specific language of the proposal right now. I do want to say that parts of it are redundant. Specifically, Paragraph 1 part (3) just restates Rule 212, and is unnecessary.

Also, the last phrase of paragraph 2 probably isn't necessary. Rule 212 already explains that overruling needs to be done by unanimous vote, so there is no reason to repeat it here. In other words, end with "unless the other players overrule the judgment." Same issue with Paragraph 3 -- no need to say "unanimous", since we already know that is the only way a judgment is overruled.

There is also a a clarity problem here with use of the word judgment referring to both the current judgment and the past judgments that are being overruled. It's probably not too bad, though.

The rest of it looks okay, but I'm not sure if I want to vote for it or not. I think it could be simplified into an amendment of Rule 212. You could make the game custom and spirit of the game mandatory where it's relevant to the proposal. They're subject to interpretation, but then so is everything. We don't really need the 10 point penalty, I think. Mandatory is mandatory, whereas the existence of a penalty always implies that it's acceptable to not follow the rules.

However, I do like the 5 point penalty for getting overruled -- I'd limit it to one penalty per turn though, so that we can't make somebody lose 100 points by making 20 calls for judgment and repeatedly overruling him. Maybe this part could be the main focus of the proposal? What if the standard for overruling the judge is reduced to majority (instead of unanimous) for all judgments where the judge does not follow a previous judgment (or game custom)?


banyan wrote:
kieron wrote:
1. The immediate overruling that players can do via 212 is unlikely to happen (since it must be unanimous, and almost always the disagreeing party would be voting), and


This has already happened once this game.


No it hasn't. If you're referring to the judgment on my proposal, I voluntarily withdrew it in the interest of allowing the game to continue, and just accepted the (incorrect) conclusion that I was not actually the judge.
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Drew Spencer
United States
Tucson
Arizona
flag msg tools
badge
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
Rubric, your comments were very helpful overall. I'll plan on making another rewrite tonight if I have time. One quick comment though...

Rubric wrote:
banyan wrote:
My plan is to rewrite each judgment that takes place after this rule passes as if it were a new rule, so for example, I'd write "J01: Players may change their votes during the voting period," and link to the judgment which held that.


While I am possibly leaning in favor of the overall idea of this proposal, I am not in favor of somebody rewriting the judgments. The judge's own exact words are important. If the judge fails to answer the question adequately, then he should be overruled, rather than arbitrarily rephrased.


The restatements are meant to be for convenience only. Nothing in the rule proposal itself ever references them, and if a player does not trust my restatements they are always at liberty to ignore them and go to the original rulings. Their function is so that anyone making a new judgment can skim through them to see if anything is on point; if something seems relevant though, they should always read the original judgment to make sure their interpretation jives with mine.
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
David Vaughan
United States
Oklahoma
flag msg tools
mb
In response to some remarks concerning the present lack of a need for such a rule as this, I say this: Why not now? If the rule is good, why not seize the opportunity and pass it now while somone's proposing it? Better to prevent than clean up an upcoming judicial mess, which, given the rate of judgement calls, may not be so far off.
1 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Kieron Mitchell
United States
Indianapolis
IN
flag msg tools
Http:\\www.kieronmitchell.com
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
Rubric wrote:
[snip]

However, I do like the 5 point penalty for getting overruled -- I'd limit it to one penalty per turn though, so that we can't make somebody lose 100 points by making 20 calls for judgment and repeatedly overruling him. Maybe this part could be the main focus of the proposal? What if the standard for overruling the judge is reduced to majority (instead of unanimous) for all judgments where the judge does not follow a previous judgment (or game custom)?
[snip]


Banyan, if you are worried about not getting your rule-change passed, I second the above as a viable alternative (cut down the proposal to a penalty for overruling).

And/or amend 212 to beef up the language (with penalties attached for a bad judgment) where it says

Rule 212 wrote:
[...] when the rules are silent, inconsistent, or unclear on the point at issue, then the Judge shall consider game-custom and the spirit of the game before applying other standards.
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Drew Spencer
United States
Tucson
Arizona
flag msg tools
badge
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
Version 2.1

This is a more radical rewrite, meant to incorporate some of Rubric's suggestions. I make it version 2.1 rather than version 3.0 because when doing a more radical rewrite I run a greater risk of accidentally saying something really stupid or forgetting something obvious. Let me know if I have done so.

One thing Rubric suggested is that rather than just losing points for overruling something, a player could just risk being overruled more easily. I have incorporated this, along with the 5 point penalty for being overruled to make the rule more elegant. I keep the player oversight section to give an incentive for judges to be honest and admit that they are overruling a judgment when they are.

I acknowledge that some text in the proposal is not necessary. For example I think the rule in section 4 would be true even if it weren't in the proposal. Nonetheless, I think it's helpful to have it in there to prevent any ambiguity about the matter.

Proposed Rule 306 wrote:
1. Published opinions
Whenever judgment is invoked, the judge shall publish their opinion in written form including (1) the question or questions presented, (2) the judge's surname or username, (3) the judge's ruling on all and only those questions for which there is actual disagreement between players and which must be answered for play to continue, and (4) any reasoning the judge deems helpful.

2. Stare decisis
Whenever judgment is invoked, the judge may either (1) rule in a way consistent with all prior, non-overruled judgments or (2) overrule one or more prior judgments (in whole or in part) and rule in a way not consistent with those judgments. If the judge chooses the latter, they shall explicitly state which judgments they are overruling. Also if they choose the latter, a vote to overrule their judgment shall require only a simple majority.

2.1. Player oversight of stare decisis
If the other players believe that a new judgment overrules a prior, non-overruled judgment, but the decision does not explicitly say so, they may force the decision to explicitly state that it overrules a prior judgment by unanimous vote only. If they do, the judge shall lose 10 points and the statement shall be added to the decision. The decision may then by overruled by a majority vote as per above.

3. Punishment for bad rulings
If the other players overrule a new judgment, the judge who wrote the decision shall lose 5 points unless they have already lost 10 points this way since their most recent turn.

4. Legislative supremacy
Judgments can be overruled by new rules. The rule may, but need not, explicitly state the judgment it overrules to do so.

5. Precedence over prior rules
This rule takes precedence over Rule 212 in all matters where they contradict each other.

6. Rule 204 abeyance
For purposes of scoring on the turn this rule passes, Rule 204 is ignored.
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Kieron Mitchell
United States
Indianapolis
IN
flag msg tools
Http:\\www.kieronmitchell.com
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
1. I will be away from computers from Wednesday at 10am until Sunday at 7pm.

2. I like what you've done, and you can count on my vote if this proposal isn't fundamentally changed! Some suggestions:

a. posting username/surname isn't necessary since it HAS to happen...i know that you are putting in things that aren't necessary, but i don't see the utility here.

b. i would like that ANY time (even 10 turns later), that a player is dinged if his judgment is overruled via player vote (maybe 10 points if unanimous, 5 if majority only). I think this is the case, but wanted to make sure I was understanding correctly.
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
1 , 2  Next »   | 
Front Page | Welcome | Contact | Privacy Policy | Terms of Service | Advertise | Support BGG | Feeds RSS
Geekdo, BoardGameGeek, the Geekdo logo, and the BoardGameGeek logo are trademarks of BoardGameGeek, LLC.