|
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
|
|
|
Index
207.1
Requests for Judgment
|
Keywords
|
Judicial Process
|
|
Mutable
Rule
|
|
|
|
Text
|
The Judicial Review Period shall consist of the present game week and the previous game week.
If there is disagreement among the players about the legality of a move made within the Judicial Review Period or the interpretation or application of a rule within the Judicial Review Period, then an active player may seek a Ruling by submitting a Request for Judgment (RFJ) to the administrator, who shall assign it a case number. The submitting player shall be considered the Petitioner for the RFJ. The RFJ shall take the form of a statement to be judged TRUE or FALSE. The Petitioner should also assign a title to the case, and may optionally include arguments regarding the RFJ statement. Disagreement, for the purposes of this rule, may be created by the insistence of any player.
When an RFJ is invoked, it is a duty of the administrator to, as soon as possible, select a Judge as described in the rules and publish the RFJ, along with the identity of the Judge. The Ruling on the RFJ, including comments by the Judge, shall guide game play in regard to the issue addressed by the RFJ. If two or more rulings conflict on an issue, the latest Ruling shall take precedence. The Ruling shall only guide game play during or after the Judicial Review Period that was in effect when the RFJ was first submitted; the game state in turns prior to that Judicial Review Period shall stand as originally reported (after taking into account the effects of any prior RFJs).
|
( 10 - 0: Initial [207.1])
|
|
10_34
|
| |
|
