Recommend
 
 Thumb up
 Hide
19 Posts

Nomic» Forums » Play By Forum

Subject: Proposed Rule 313 - Limitations on Judges rss

Your Tags: Add tags
Popular Tags: [View All]
David Vaughan
United States
Oklahoma
flag msg tools
mb
Assuming it is in fact my turn:

Proposed Rule 313 wrote:
1. Conflicts of Interest: A player cannot be the judge if any of the following are true: (1) that player invoked judgment, (2) the question pertains to that player's score, (3) the question pertains to the vote on a rule-change proposal made by that player.

2. Alternate Judge: When this rule bars a player from being a judge, the player preceding the barred player in the play order becomes the judge for that question (and only that question), but is subject to the first sentence of this rule. If this rule bars all players from judging a particular question, then this rule is temporarily ignored, and the original judge decides that question.

3. Legislative Intent: When interpreting a rule which is unclear, the next factor the judge should consider (after game custom and spirit), should be the intent of the legislation as expressed in the discussion posts leading up to the passage of the rule.

4. Precedence: To the extent of conflict, this rule takes precedence over other rules for determining the identity of the judge, the number of judges during a turn, and the jurisdiction of a judge.


The same rule Almafeta vetoed earlier, plus the Legislative Intent bit from the Sandbox.
1 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Kayl
United States
Seal Beach
California
flag msg tools
badge
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
thumbsup
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Ken H.
United States
Amherst
Ohio
flag msg tools
badge
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb

I like it too, including the addition of legislative intent.

I don't know if you want to complicate the rule further -- it's nice and simple at the moment. However, I was wondering whether it should have a catch-all category. I'm sure legitimate conflicts will arise that aren't addressed in the three enumerated conditions.

One possible method (this was used in a previous game I was in years ago): compare the "vested interest" of the judge with that of the other players (or perhaps majority of other players). "Vested" interest means clear gains would result from the judgment, as opposed to potential or speculative gains. So, if the judge stands to gain more than most other players, even though he isn't gaining points, he still shouldn't judge. Examples would be Action Points and any other game resources created in the future, questions on whether the judge has forfeited, or winning due to blocked play.

So, maybe:
Quote:
A player cannot be the judge if any of the following are true: (1) that player invoked judgment, (2) the question pertains to that player's score, (3) the question pertains to the vote on a rule-change proposal made by that player, (4) the player has a greater vested interest in the judgment than the majority of other players.


With that said, I will probably vote for it whether this is included or not.
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Drew Spencer
United States
Tucson
Arizona
flag msg tools
badge
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
thumbsup

It's a bit of a rider, but I would approve if you corrected my sloppy use of language in the Stare Decisis rule by making judgment appropriate for any question that "affects the completion" of a turn, rather than requiring that a question must be answered for the game to continue.
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Kieron Mitchell
United States
Indianapolis
IN
flag msg tools
Http:\\www.kieronmitchell.com
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
If I knew how to make a thumbsup sign, I would.

Having said that, may I humbly request that a clause be added that allows a judge to recuse himself for any reason (he might be biased against one player or another since he just doesn't like that player, or he might not feel like spending the time necessary to slog through pages and pages of legislative intent to find the reason that words before a comma can be ignored in rules, etc., etc.)?
1 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
David Vaughan
United States
Oklahoma
flag msg tools
mb
Proposed Rule 313 wrote:
1. Conflicts of Interest: A player cannot be the judge if any of the following are true: (1) tha t player invoked judgment, (2) the question pertains to that player's score, (3) the question pertains to the vote on a rule-change proposal made by that player, (4) the player has a greater vested interest in the judgment than the majority of other players (this can be determined by the majority).

2. Alternate Judge: When this rule bars a player from being a judge, or if a judge recuses himself, the player preceding the barred player in the play order becomes the judge for that question (and only that question), but is subject to the first sentence of this rule. If this rule bars all players from judging a particular question, then this rule is temporarily ignored, and the first judge to recuse himself decides that question, or, if no judge recused himself, the original judge decides that question.

3. Legislative Intent: When interpreting a rule which is unclear, the next factor the judge should consider (after game custom and spirit), should be the intent of the legislation as expressed in the discussion posts leading up to the passage of the rule.

4. Refusal to Judge: A judge may recuse himself for a question if that judge so desires.

5. Precedence: To the extent of conflict, this rule takes precedence over other rules for determining the identity of the judge, the number of judges during a turn, and the jurisdiction of a judge.


Banyan: Not sure how to work that into the proposal, suggestions?

Rubric: Good Idea.

Kieron: to make a thumbsup, you just have to... wait a minute... hey!
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Ken H.
United States
Amherst
Ohio
flag msg tools
badge
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
ChippyYYZ wrote:
Proposed Rule 313 wrote:
1. Conflicts of Interest: A player cannot be the judge if any of the following are true: (1) tha t player invoked judgment, (2) the question pertains to that player's score, (3) the question pertains to the vote on a rule-change proposal made by that player, (4) the player has a greater vested interest in the judgment than the majority of other players (this can be determined by the majority).

2. Alternate Judge: When this rule bars a player from being a judge, or if a judge recuses himself, the player preceding the barred player in the play order becomes the judge for that question (and only that question), but is subject to the first sentence of this rule. If this rule bars all players from judging a particular question, then this rule is temporarily ignored, and the first judge to recuse himself decides that question, or, if no judge recused himself, the original judge decides that question.

3. Legislative Intent: When interpreting a rule which is unclear, the next factor the judge should consider (after game custom and spirit), should be the intent of the legislation as expressed in the discussion posts leading up to the passage of the rule.

4. Refusal to Judge: A judge may recuse himself for a question if that judge so desires.

5. Precedence: To the extent of conflict, this rule takes precedence over other rules for determining the identity of the judge, the number of judges during a turn, and the jurisdiction of a judge.


Looks good. Might want add a sentence to the recusal section that says voluntary recusal is not permitted if there are no other possible judges.

 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
David Vaughan
United States
Oklahoma
flag msg tools
mb
I'll change the last sentence of part 2 to "...the first judge to recuse himself MUST decide that question..."
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Ken H.
United States
Amherst
Ohio
flag msg tools
badge
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
ChippyYYZ wrote:
I'll change the last sentence of part 2 to "...the first judge to recuse himself MUST decide that question..."


Oh... I didn't see you already had it in part 2. It's fine as is.
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Kieron Mitchell
United States
Indianapolis
IN
flag msg tools
Http:\\www.kieronmitchell.com
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
I call the question.

Also, I'll be on vacation next week from Tues-Thurs. Which may mean that I'll either have more or less time to play. I'm not sure yet. ;-)
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
David Vaughan
United States
Oklahoma
flag msg tools
mb
This is the Final Form
Proposed Rule 313 wrote:
1. Conflicts of Interest: A player cannot be the judge if any of the following are true: (1) that player invoked judgment, (2) the question pertains to that player's score, (3) the question pertains to the vote on a rule-change proposal made by that player, (4) the player has a greater vested interest in the judgment than the majority of other players (this can be determined by the majority).

2. Alternate Judge: When this rule bars a player from being a judge, or if a judge recuses himself, the player preceding the barred player in the play order becomes the judge for that question (and only that question), but is subject to the first sentence of this rule. If this rule bars all players from judging a particular question, then this rule is temporarily ignored, and the first judge to recuse himself must decide that question, or, if no judge recused himself, the original judge decides that question.

3. Legislative Intent: When interpreting a rule which is unclear, the next factor the judge should consider (after game custom and spirit), should be the intent of the legislation as expressed in the discussion posts leading up to the passage of the rule.

4. Refusal to Judge: A judge may recuse himself for a question if that judge so desires.

5. Precedence: To the extent of conflict, this rule takes precedence over other rules for determining the identity of the judge, the number of judges during a turn, and the jurisdiction of a judge.


I vote Yes.
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Drew Spencer
United States
Tucson
Arizona
flag msg tools
badge
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
You need to tell us your preferred method of voting.

I'm assuming it's by posting the vote in this thread. If so, then I vote Yes.
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
David Vaughan
United States
Oklahoma
flag msg tools
mb
Forgot that. Vote by posting as usual.
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Ken H.
United States
Amherst
Ohio
flag msg tools
badge
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb

YES
 
 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
Yes
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Kieron Mitchell
United States
Indianapolis
IN
flag msg tools
Http:\\www.kieronmitchell.com
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
ChippyYYZ wrote:
This is the Final Form
Proposed Rule 313 wrote:
1. Conflicts of Interest: A player cannot be the judge if any of the following are true: (1) that player invoked judgment, (2) the question pertains to that player's score, (3) the question pertains to the vote on a rule-change proposal made by that player, (4) the player has a greater vested interest in the judgment than the majority of other players (this can be determined by the majority).

2. Alternate Judge: When this rule bars a player from being a judge, or if a judge recuses himself, the player preceding the barred player in the play order becomes the judge for that question (and only that question), but is subject to the first sentence of this rule. If this rule bars all players from judging a particular question, then this rule is temporarily ignored, and the first judge to recuse himself must decide that question, or, if no judge recused himself, the original judge decides that question.

3. Legislative Intent: When interpreting a rule which is unclear, the next factor the judge should consider (after game custom and spirit), should be the intent of the legislation as expressed in the discussion posts leading up to the passage of the rule.

4. Refusal to Judge: A judge may recuse himself for a question if that judge so desires.

5. Precedence: To the extent of conflict, this rule takes precedence over other rules for determining the identity of the judge, the number of judges during a turn, and the jurisdiction of a judge.

[snip]


I vote yes.
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Kayl
United States
Seal Beach
California
flag msg tools
badge
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
thumbsup
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
David Vaughan
United States
Oklahoma
flag msg tools
mb
Declaration of Results

Proposal 313 was adopted with 6 votes for, none against.
I score (313-291) / (6/6) =22 points.

My turn ends.
1 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Ken H.
United States
Amherst
Ohio
flag msg tools
badge
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
ChippyYYZ wrote:
Declaration of Results

Proposal 313 was adopted with 6 votes for, none against.
I score (313-291) / (6/6) =22 points.

My turn ends.



And there are no score changes for any other player.

Score summary (unofficial, but becomes official in 168 hours due to What's done is done):

32 ChippyYYZ
31 Kieron
23 Malachi
15 Rubric
12 kayl
11 banyan

Starting score for any new players who join now: 19 (average of the two median scores, since there isn't a unique median).

Starting score for returning players who join now: 11 (current lowest score).

All players have gained 1 AP for voting. Chippy gained an additional 3 AP.

AP totals: banyan, chippy and kieron have 6. kayl, malachi and rubric have 3.

The edit grid on the wiki is apparently down so I can't update the scores. Can't recall whose turn is next either (kayl maybe?), but whoever it is, your turn started as of the time stamp on Chippy's post (or possibly as of the time stamp on my post, since Chippy did not address whether any other players' scores changed).

 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
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.