|
Round
10
(ended)
Turn
10 - 15
(ended)
2009-09-20
20:29 CDT
Not logged in
Home
About
Calendar
Players
Public Forum
¤
Report Bug
¤
Rules
Books
Game Activity
RFC
Proposals
Judgments
Random Number
Rings ¤
Statements of Principle ¤
Static List ¤
The Afterlife ¤
The Grid ¤
Wiki ¤
History
Round 1
¤
Round 2
¤
Round 3
¤
Round 4
¤
Round 5
¤
Round 6
¤
Round 7
¤
Round 8
¤
Round 9
¤
Current
|
|
|
Previous
Next
Index
6013.2
I can't believe we missed this...
|
RFJ
Case
|
|
|
|
Creator
|
Looney
|
|
Create Date
|
2009-05-01 23:43
|
|
Statement
|
It cannot be determined with finality whether the transmutation proposals Proposal 373 and Proposal 367 were adopted. This constitutes a paradox per Rule 211.
|
|
Arguments
|
From Rule 106: "Rule-changes that transmute immutable or convention rules into mutable rules may be adopted if and only if all the players who vote on the rule-change vote in favor of it."
From Rule 203: "A proposal to enact, amend, or repeal a mutable rule is adopted if and only if it receives more votes in favor of it than against it."
Neither these nor any other rules specify the conditions under which a proposal to transmute mutable rules into immutables is adopted. Therefore, we have no way of knowing when such a proposal can be said to have passed. As there have been such proposals, we're screwed.
|
|
Decision
|
True
|
|
Judge
|
Metaloop
|
|
Reasoning
|
Rule 102 says: "All rule-changes proposed in the proper way shall be voted on during the turn in which they are submitted. They will be adopted if and only if they receive the required number of favorable votes."
As Looney has pointed out no rule specifies the number of favorable votes required to adopt a proposal seeking to transmute a mutable rule into an immutable rule.
Therefore, it cannot be determined with finality whether the transmutation proposals Proposal 373 and Proposal 367 were adopted and this constitutes a paradox.
|
( 10 - 14: Create [6013.1] by Looney)
( 10 - 14: Ruling [6013.2] by Metaloop)
|
|
10_34
|
| |
|
