Decisions of the Judge/Dec06
From Nomicapolis
m |
|||
| Line 1: | Line 1: | ||
| - | |||
=='''Judgments of [[User:Applejuicefool|Applejuicefool]], first Judge of Nomicapolis.'''== | =='''Judgments of [[User:Applejuicefool|Applejuicefool]], first Judge of Nomicapolis.'''== | ||
Current revision as of 16:36, 5 January 2007
Contents |
Judgments of Applejuicefool, first Judge of Nomicapolis.
Decisions requested by Applejuicefool 00:02, 1 December 2006 (EST)
Ruling AJF001: Can there be more than one judge at a time?
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. Applejuicefool 00:02, 1 December 2006 (EST)
Ruling AJF002: What is a "proposal?"
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. 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. 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. Applejuicefool 00:02, 1 December 2006 (EST)
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). Applejuicefool 00:02, 1 December 2006 (EST)
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. 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. Applejuicefool 00:02, 1 December 2006 (EST)
Ruling AJF010: Did player Simulacrum change the article page of proposal #342 while the vote on that proposal was being conducted, in violation of Rule #303?
Examining the discussion page of 342, I find that Simulacrum's time stamp when he started the voting process was "15:12, 6 December 2006 (EST)". Turning next to the history page of that proposal, I find that an unlogged user "71.86.117.173" added the text "as indicated by the server" to the article page of 342 at 20:08, 6 December 2006. This addition is followed by another post at 20:10, 6 December 2006, this one by Simulacrum, with the notation "forgot to log in".
These facts create the appearance that Simulacrum violated rule 303, which states in clause 2: "No player may modify the article page of a proposal while a vote is being conducted on that proposal, except to place a protection on the page."
However, I am aware that there is some discrepancy extant in the timestamp/server time setup. Therefore I ask the following question of player Simulacrum: Did you in fact violate rule 303 by changing 342 after voting had begun, or is this seeming violation a product of the server time/time stamp discrepancy?
- I believe that it is a server-side error. I offer the following as an explaination: I request that the Judge do the following to verify and ultimately determine that my actions were legal.
- Make a timestamp edit to User:Applejuicefool and save.
- Open the history tab of User:AppleJuicefool in a new window.
- The time difference indicated on the timestamp and the revision history is the amount of lag that we have to account for. I have attempted to edit my preferences to minimize the lag and from what I can determine is at: 15:12, 6 December 2006 (EST) I have declared an end to voting, thusly no further edits to the proposal is allowable. The last edit to the proposal was at 14:58, 6 December 2006. A full fourteen minutes before debate was ended. --Simulacrum 13:27, 7 December 2006 (EST)
Please place your answer, indented with one colon, between this paragraph and the preceding paragraph. Thank you for your cooperation. Applejuicefool 09:10, 7 December 2006 (EST).
After conducting the test suggested by Simulacrum, I discover an exact 5 hour difference between the time on my timestamp (13:50) and the history time (18:50). Since Simulacrum and I live in the same time zone (we're both Texans, as has been documented on Game-direction), we should have the same time discrepancy in this regard. Since Sim closed voting on 342 at 15:12, the latest the history page should have modifications listed is 20:12. I don't know where Sim is getting his time of 14:58, but my finding of 20:10 is still within the realms of a legal change. I therefore find that Simulacrum committed no violation of rule 303 in his modifications to proposal 342. Applejuicefool 14:39, 7 December 2006 (EST)
Decisions requested by 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. Applejuicefool 21:47, 1 December 2006 (EST)
Decisions requested by 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. Applejuicefool 21:55, 1 December 2006 (EST)
Ruling AJF011: I would like to request a Judgement regarding rule 317. I beleive that play is impossible from this point forward. Dayd has the most points and should be declared winner. The following rules per 356(as pointed out by Mike Rosoft in his vote) must be repealed. "Any current mutable rule that repealed another rule is hereby repealed." 308 311 317 326 334 336 349. These are all amendments that caused the repeal of another rule...thusly they must be repealed as well. These are fairly essential rules and the loss of them would, I believe, make the game unplayable.
According to rule 356: "Any current mutable rule that repealed another rule is hereby repealed." According to rule 103: "A rule-change is any of the following: (1) the enactment, repeal, or amendment of a mutable rule; (2) the enactment, repeal, or amendment of an amendment of a mutable rule; or (3) the transmutation of an immutable rule into a mutable rule or vice versa." By the rules, an amendment is different from a repeal. An amendment has the effect of repealing a rule and replacing it, but in actuality, to amend a rule is to change it, where repealing a rule is to do away with it. We keep the rules that have been "changed" through amendments in the "All Rules and Proposals" list as 'repealed' - that is really a misnomer. I find that changing and replacing ("amendment") is not legally equivalent to repealing a rule. The only rules I find that are affected by the "Any current mutable rule" clause of 356 include 307, 312, 315, and 316. Applejuicefool 01:47, 27 December 2006 (EST)
- Dayd has brought to my attention rule 349, which is an interesting case because it essentially encompasses more than one rule change, something the original ruleset frowns upon (cf 111) but does not prohibit. Rule 356 does not make allowances for such multi-function rules; it simply says "Any current mutable rule that repealed another rule is hereby repealed." I therefore judge that rule 349 is repealed by 356. Applejuicefool 13:14, 27 December 2006 (EST)
Decisions requested by 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. 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.* --Admin 14:26, 2 December 2006 (EST)
Are they both accessed from the same IP address?
- No. --Admin 14:26, 2 December 2006 (EST)
Have they both been used for Nomicapolis game play?
- Yes.* --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. --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. Applejuicefool 14:12, 2 December 2006 (EST)
--
After reviewing the above testimony and conducting some personal research, I went back and read the entire text of 302: "Players are limited to one Nomicapolis account in play. A new player may join by registering an account and then adding themselves to the census. A player may leave be removing themselves from the census. If a player who has left the game wishes to rejoin, they may do so, but they will start as a brand new player."
This appears to be what this player did, albeit in an accelerated fashion. He left the game briefly, and rejoined as a brand-new player. As there is no way apparent to this judge to delete an account from the game system, it is my judgment that holding a second account without using it is not a violation of 302. I would suggest that Admin create some way for players to delete their player account.
I find that User:Tom_Foolery was added to the census 21:33, 22 November 2006 and created three proposals: 325, 326, and 328. The earliest of these, 325, was added with the timestamp 13:16, 23 November 2006 (EST). The middle proposal, 326, was created with the timestamp 13:49, 23 November 2006 (EST). The latest, 328, with the timestamp 08:56, 24 November 2006 (EST).
User:Tom_Foolery was deleted and User:TomFoolery was added to the census in one edit at 21:41, 23 November 2006 by a user who was not logged on: 76.178.224.33.
Therefore, I find that User:Tom_Foolery was still on the census rolls when 326 was created. However, I also find that User:Tom_Foolery had been deleted from the census prior to the creation of 328. So, while this user did not violate Nomicapolis rules in his proposal of 326 as alleged by this CFJ, e did violate 306, clause 1c: "1. In order for a proposal to be 'proposed in the proper way' and thus satisfy rule 104/105, it must contain the following elements: c) The user name of the proposer. This should follow the proposal number and precede the text of the proposal in the format used in the proposal of this rule."
Instead of his current user name of TomFoolery, this player used the user name Tom Foolery on his proposal for 328. However, no "improper proposal" claim was forthcoming during the debate period on that rule. As 306 clause 2a states: "A claim of improper proposal must be made before the proposal is declared to have passed or failed." This was not done, so 328 stands.
And, yet one more "however". Although "improper proposal" claim was made and so the rule stands, it is the finding of this court that the user now known as User:TomFoolery did in fact make use of his User:Tom_Foolery account while listed on the Census as TomFoolery. I rule that this does, in fact, constitute a violation of rule 302.
I also find that the Judge of Nomicapolis currently has no power to levy penalties for violations of the rules; I do rule, however (last one, promise!) that the 10 points gained from the passage of this rule, as well as any other points this user had gained or lost prior to the switch from Tom Foolery to TomFoolery, rightfully belong to Tom Foolery. Since 302 specifies that the user must "start as a brand-new player," TomFoolery doesn't possess these points. The only points TomFoolery (as opposed to Tom Foolery) has earned are those he gained for voting against the passing rule 332.
I therefore order that User:TomFoolery's score be set to 10 points. Applejuicefool 21:05, 2 December 2006 (EST)
