Statement:

Those that have declared emselves Players are not Players.

Ruling:

false

Plaintiff's Analysis:

This is the same statement that Ed RFJed earlier this evening. Why (you may ask) am I submitting it again? For good reason, actually. As Admin, I am responsible for recognizing RFJs (R235/0). Before I can recognize an RFJ, I must ascertain whether it meets the criteria for recognition. If the RFJ originates from some non-agentic entity, it is unclear whether it should be accepted. Recognizing Ed's RFJ would, through that very action, make its statement true, since no one is disputing the ability of Agents to become Players. Because I was a Player when the game started, it is clear that I can make this RFJ, and as Admin, there is no doubt for me that it can be recognized under the rules.

I claim the statement to be false, by virtue of the definition of Agent in R105/0:

"An Agent is an entity capable of action."

Certainly everyone who declared themselves to be Players would be an Agent by this definition, since they are all (1) entities, and (2) the act of declaring oneself to be a Player is an action in the broad sense.

Furthermore, the next sentence of the Rule:

"The status of entities as Agents may be altered only as specified in the rules."

in no way impinges on the Agency of anything that was an Agent when the game started. Presumably no one who declared emself to be a Player failed to fit the definition of Agent when the game began, and there is nothing explicit in the Rules to lead us to believe that anyone's status in that regard has changed since. Thus, it follows that those who declared themselves Players were Agents when they did so, and, having done so in the proper fashion as per R209/0, are now Players.

Judge's Analysis and Orders:

The Plaintiff does not dispute one's right to become a Player if e is an Agent; the heart of the matter is whether there are any Agents at all.

By R105/0, "Agent" is defined as an "entity capable of action." As neither entity nor action are defined within the Rules, and there is no tradition of regarding them as having meanings other than their common ones, I understand them in the broad sense as referring, respectively, to beings and events caused by them. Furthermore, the limitation on arbitrary alteration of Agentic status in R105/0 does not come into play in this case. Of all the individuals who have thus far aspired to Playerhood, all met the definition of Agent (as construed above) when the game started, and none have since ceased to qualify.

Thus, a negation of the statement is true: those that have declared emselves Players *are* Players.

Statement:

Those that have declared emselves players are not players.

Ruling:

false

Plaintiff's Analysis:

Since rule 105 prohibits people from making emselves Agents, and rule 209 requires an entity to be an Agent before making emself a Player, those that have declared emselves players are not players. [[And, among other things, I probably can't make this RFJ.]]

209 states:
During the first nweek of play, any Agent otherwise qualified as a Player may become one by publicly declaring eir desire to be so.

105 states:
An Agent is an entity capable of action. The status of entities as Agents may be altered only as specified in the rules. An entity may cause emself to lose eir Agency, but may not, solely on eir own authority become an Agent.

Judge's Analysis and Orders:

A ruling on this statement has already been made. I concur with that ruling and see no need to add to the statements made in Judgment 1.

Statement:

There is no player by the name of Ed.

Ruling:

true

Plaintiff's Analysis:

Only the spoon-business@nomic.net mailing list has been declared public by the Administrator. Since no Agents called Ed, Benjamin Bradley, or DW expressed their desire to be players in a public forum, then there certainly are no players Ed, Benjamin Bradley, or DW. By rule 112, "Actions may be taken only in public Fora, unless otherwise specified in the Rules." I believe that this means that actions are prohibited in non-public fora. Since actions in non-public fora are explicitly prohibited, they are not allowed. Since spoon-discuss@nomic.net has not been declared a public forum by the Administrator, it is not a public forum. Since spoon-discuss is not a public forum, no actions may be taken in that forum.

Note: Nothing personal guys, I just think it would be bad if we noticed several nweeks down the road that we had nonplayers voting and such. This is more of a test of the validity of actions taken in the non-public fora and whether a forum which has been not been declared either public or private by the Administrator is a public forum.

Judge's Analysis and Orders:

This judgement is based on the same reasoning as Judgement RFJ5.
[[and I'm a slacker]]

Statement:

There is there a player by the name of Benjamin Bradley.

Ruling:

false

Plaintiff's Analysis:

[See analysis for RFJ 3 -- Admin]

Judge's Analysis and Orders:

I am basing this judgment on the previous judgment made by XnJester on RFJ5.

My reasoning: no agent named Benjamin Bradley ever sent a post to a public forum expressing the intention of becoming a player, therefore there is there no player by the name of Benjamin Bradley.

Statement:

There is there a player by the name of DW.

Ruling:

false

Plaintiff's Analysis:

[See analysis for RFJ 3 -- Admin]

Judge's Analysis and Orders:

I am basing this judgment on the assumption that the second 'there' in the statement to be judged refers to a place within the boundaries of this Nomic game. This assumption is made by taking the statement within it's context.

The Agent Dan Waldron has sent no posts to the business list. E did send one post to the discussion list indicating a desire to become a player. This post does not qualify em as a Player.

Rule 106:
"A Player is an Agent who...has become a Player in the manner proscribed in the Rules."

makes it clear that an Agent may only become a Player as proscribed in the Rules. The only rules that allow an Agent to become a player are these two.

Rule 209:
"During the first nweek of play, any Agent otherwise qualified as a Player may become one by publicly declaring eir desire to be so."

Rule 210:
"Any Agent otherwise qualified as a Player may become one if a Motion to Add naming em is adopted..."

In regards to the public state of each list I'm going to be lazy here and paste into this judgement the revelant sections of a post from J.

Rule 218 deals with the designation of fora as public or private, here quoted in its relevant parts:

"The Administrator may designate a Forum public if it is reasonably accessible to all Players. . . . Only the Administrator may redesignate
Fora."

And Rule 219:

"If at any time there exist no public Fora, the Administrator shall take such steps as are necessary to designate one. Designation of a Forum as public when there are no extant public Fora need not [[and cannot!]] be done
publicly."

In the first message I sent to the business list, I reported the designation of spoon-business@nomic.net as a public forum, in accord with R218 and R219. This designation is not enshrined in the rules because the rules concerning fora not only do not require it to be so, but explicitly provide a process for changing the publicity(?) of a forum.

So, any actions sent to the discussion list need not be recognized because they are not public. Go ahead and send actions to the discussion list if you want, but the rules seem to require everyone to ignore them.
The Agent Dan Waldron has not met the requirements of the Rules to become a
Player.

Statement:

A forum not declared to be a public forum by the Administrator is not a public forum.

Ruling:

true

Plaintiff's Analysis:

[See analysis for RFJ 3 -- Admin]

Judge's Analysis and Orders:

Rule 218/0(l) : Redesignation of Fora

The Administrator may designate a Forum public if it is reasonably accessible to all Players. The Administrator may designate a Forum private only if it is not the sole extant public Forum. Only the
Administrator may redesignate Fora. The Administrator shall
maintain a list of public Fora.

Rule 218 makes it pretty clear that only the administrator can declare a forum to be public. The only time I think this rule might be at all vague is if someone claims to have created a new forum, and that it was public from the very beginning. Even in that case, however, the rules seem to imply that a new fora would start off as neither private nor public and could only be declared as one or the other by the administrator. Therefore, I rule TRUE.

Statement:

Actions taken in a forum that is not a public forum are invalid.

Ruling:

true

Plaintiff's Analysis:

[See analysis for RFJ 3 -- Admin]

Judge's Analysis and Orders:

Rule 112/0 states:
Fora are the means by which Players communicate. All Fora are either public or private. A Player using a Forum is considered to be "in" that Forum at the time of its use. Actions may be taken only in public Fora, unless otherwise specified in the Rules.

According to the rule, actions cannot occur in non-public Fora. This RFJ does not seem to be necessary because the required circumstances can never exist. However, to provide any additional clarification, I judge that the statement is to be interpreted as true.

Statement:

Agents may not communicate via public fora.

Ruling:

false

Plaintiff's Analysis:

Rule 112:
Fora are the means by which Players communicate. All Fora are either public or private. A Player using a Forum is considered to be "in" that Forum at the time of its use. Actions may be taken only in public Fora, unless otherwise specified in the Rules.

Does this rule mean that Agents can't communicate in public fora? It doesn't appear to explicitly prohibit it, and since there are no other rule which prohibit Agents from communicating via public fora, then I would think that Agents can communicate via public fora, and those Agents who have expressed their desire to become players in the public forum, spoon-business, have make legitimate actions and are players by whatever rule it is that says they are. If it is judged that Agents may not communicate via public fora, then clearly Joel is the only player and thus the only entity that may vote in the first nweek since the rules currently do not explicitly allow any Agents to vote (see Rule 118, only players and designated agents may vote). This RFJ is simply to clarify the point.
Oh, and since I am an Agent, then by Rule 234, I, God, may make a Request for
Judgment.

Judge's Analysis and Orders:

Rule 116 allows whatever is not limited by the rules.
None of the rules limit who may communicate via public fora. Therefore, Agents are allowed to communicate via public fora.

In this judgement, I take the first sentence of the rule, "Fora are the means by which Players communicate." to be a qualifying statement and not a restrictive statement.

This is basically what God said in his RFJ.

Statement:

Joel is the only player.

Ruling:

false

Plaintiff's Analysis:

[See analysis for RFJ 8 -- Admin]

Judge's Analysis and Orders:

Judgement on RFJ 8 rules that agents can communicate via public fora. Therefore at this time, all the players of this game that have become players in the ways prescribed by the rules are players. Ergo Joel is not the only player.

Statement:

No Agent is an eligible voter unless a rule other than Rule 118 explicitly allows that Agent to vote.

Ruling:

false

Plaintiff's Analysis:

Rule 118: Eligible Voters
Every Player is an eligible voter on each Ballot Issue. Other Agents may be eligible voters, if allowed by the Rules.

Since the rules do not deny any Agent the right to vote, then by rule 116, all Agents may vote.

On the other hand, Rule 118 could be interpreted as saying that the only Agents eligible to vote are Players or those explicitly allowed to vote by some other rule.

Judge's Analysis and Orders:

Rule 118/0 : Eligible Voters

Every Player is an eligible voter on each Ballot Issue. Other Agents may be eligible voters, if allowed by the Rules.

0. Initial Rules adopted, 02 Oct 2000 00:00:00

Players, a subclass of Agent are allowed to vote by rule 118, therefore I rule FALSE.

I do not feel that the RFJ statement matched the arguments provided. Rule 118/0 is interpreted as making players eligible to vote, but that other agents are not eligible unless specifically allowed elsewhere. While not consistant with the logical "if", this interpretation is consistant with the use of the word "if" in the English language; it implies an "if and only if" in this context.

Statement:

The english verb "to be" is considered reflexive [ie 'x is y.' implies 'y is x.'].

Ruling:

false

Plaintiff's Analysis:

{{as a side note, this problem would never happen in spanish, since there are two different verbs for "to be", one of which indicates a (permanent) characteristic and the other indicates a (temporary) state}}

Judge's Analysis and Orders:

I rule this as false. [[There isn't enough grounds to rule that "to be" is reflexive. ]]

And thus I have spoken.

Statement:

An agent needs to be a Player to be selected as a judge.

Ruling:

false

Plaintiff's Analysis:

Rule 236 seems to be the only one governing selection of a judge. While the wording presupposes that you must be a Player to be selected as a judge it doesn't explicitly state it. Hence I request a judgement.

If ruled true this judgement will affect the game state in regards to the judgements made by Benjamin Bradley. So Judicial Orders should be made to clarify the game state.

Judge's Analysis and Orders:

Rule 236/0 states:
------
The following are excluded from serving as Judges on a Request
for Judgment:

1. the Plaintiff
2. Judges previously recused from the Request

If these exclusions leave no Players eligible to serve as Judge, exclusions may be waived from highest-numbered to lowest until
at least one Player becomes eligible.
------
Agents who are not players are not specifically exempted by requirements 1 or 2. Thus by 116/0, Joel could select, say, Tomjack's Mom.
The last paragraph of the rule seems to imply that the only case in which a non-player could be selected would be if there were no eligible players. This is not made clear, however, and I suggest that we deal with the matter on a pragmatic basis until such time as the rule can be modified appropriately.

Statement:

Benjamin should not be listed on the Roster.

Ruling:

true

Plaintiff's Analysis:

Looking at the roster I find that Benjamin is listed. However, R203 and Judgment 4 indicate that he should not be on the Roster.

Judge's Analysis and Orders:

In the message of Tue, 3 Oct 2000 00:18:00 -0500 (CDT) by the entity Benjamin Bradley , I find the following text.
"I desire to be a player in this game of nomic. I wish to be known as Benjamin." Since Benjamin has declared eir desire to be a Player on a public forum in accord with Rule 209 and Rule 112, e is a Player.

Statement:

spoon-discuss@nomic.net is not a public forum.

Ruling:

true

Plaintiff's Analysis:

[See analysis for RFJ 3 -- Admin]

Judge's Analysis and Orders:

On Sunday, the first of October, Joel sent the following to spoon-business@nomic.net

>At 00:00:00 UTC today, the nomic served by this list began. At 00:30:00, >the Administrator declared this list, spoon-business@nomic.net, to be a >public forum as per R219/0. As such, public business may be conducted >here.

I was unable to find any simmilar post to the business list that game the discussion list public status. Since the forum has not been decalred public by the administrator, it is not. For the list spoon-discuss@nomic.net to be a public forum, Joel would have had to designate it as such before he designated the spoon-business@nomic.net to be public. If this had been the case, the above post to the business list would have no weight because the designation would have had to be posted to spoon-discussion.

This judgement was requested and designated in spoon-business@nomic.net. On the assumption that this is a valid RFJ, I must rule TRUE. I do, however, issue a judicial order to Joel Uckleman, to post to the public forum a statement of all fora he has to this point designated as public, even if done so privately. This should clear up the issue once and for all.

Statement:

The ruling for Judgment 13 should be "false".

Ruling:

false

Plaintiff's Analysis:

Analysis: In light of God's analysis on Judgment 13 and his immediate post attempting to correct it, it is obvious that e did not intend to rule "true".

Judge's Analysis and Orders:

The ruling for Judgment 13 "should be" "true" because it was originally ruled "true". With that ruling, the RFJ was answered, and no further ruling on the matter was possible, without further RFJs which speak directly to the matter addressed by RFJ 13.

If the Plaintiff wishes to change history, e should make a more careful RFJ. What e has attempted is akin to trying to correct
an incorrect answer on a test which has already been handed in,
by telling the professor that the answer "should be" the correct one.

Furthermore, even if I am to read the Plaintiff's RFJ as a statement of fact - "the judgment for RFJ 13 was in error" - that statement alone is not enough to cause me to issue a Judicial Order to right the perceived error, because I have not been asked to judge in the matter of Benjamin's place on the Roster.

Statement:

Benjamin was a Player immediately before Judgment 13 was issued, and as such, must still be a Player since e has not forfeited and no Orders have been executed (or even issued) to remove em, and thus should by definition be on the Roster.

Ruling:

true

Plaintiff's Analysis:

R124/0, dealing with legal precedent, indicates that a "Judgment shall guide interpretation of the Rules until such time as a subsequent Judgment contradicts it". Note that this says a "Judgment" and not the "statement and ruling". What this means is that the Judge's analysis is part of the Judgment, and must be taken into consideration.

Judgment 13 concluded that the statement "Benjamin should not be listed on the Roster." is true; however, the analysis submitted with it is at variance with its ruling, something which the Judge confirms as an error. If J13 is to "guide interpretation of the rules" how are we to apply it? Plausible arguments with diametrically opposed conclusions could be fashioned from the statement and ruling on one hand and the analysis on the other. The contradictory nature of J13 should weakens its strength as a precedent to practically nil.

Furthermore, J13 does not affect Benjamin's status as a Player. Clearly he was a Player prior to the Judgment, and the Judge did not issue a Judicial Order removing him. Ergo, Benjamin is still a Player.

R203/0 defines the Roster to be the "list of all Players". If Benjamin is a Player, then he must be on the list.

Judge's Analysis and Orders:

I concur with the Plaintiff's now-more-carefully-thought-out
analysis.

Statement:

You guys are out to get me.

Ruling:

false

Plaintiff's Analysis:

did I say meh yet?
meh.

Judge's Analysis and Orders:

[[
I rule True!

Obviously "me" is me. I think you guys are out to get me because I retardedly didn't proofread my judgement.

Oops, by Rule 8, this is a comment. Here, let me try again...
]]

On the truth of the statement:
"You guys are out to get me."

I rule false.

Since this RFJ came from Benjamin, I will assume that "me" referers to em. I will also assume "You guys" refers to all Players in this nomic, since "guys" is commonly used to address groups of same or mixed gender. I rule that The Players of this nomic, except for Benjamin, are out to get Benjamin is false because [[ while I, God, am out to get Benjamin >:-> ]] clearly the other Players are making an effort to resolve the issue of whether or not Benjamin should be on the Roster[[ and because that leaves me as the sole Player out to get Benjamin, there are no "guys" in the plural sense]].

[[ Sorry, Benjamin. I'm not really out to get you. ]]

Statement:

This nweek began at 00:00:00 UTC on October 2nd.

Ruling:

true

Plaintiff's Analysis:

According to the archives, the post which stated that the game began at 00:00:00 UTC that day was sent on October 2nd, the web page itself states that the game started at 00:00:00 UTC on October 2nd. Yet J14 claims that the game began on October 1st. We should clear this up as it will affect all our nweeks from now on.

Judge's Analysis and Orders:

[[none -- Admin.]]

Statement:

All Active Proposals at the beginning of the voting period became Ballot Issues at the beginning of the voting period.

Ruling:

true

Plaintiff's Analysis:

As I said, I believe we need to be absolutely certain when items became Ballot Issues. I refer the judge to R202 & R111.

Judge's Analysis and Orders:

As I see it, the appropriate reference is rule 202/0 as displayed below:

Rule 202/0 : Ballot Issues
The following become Ballot Issues at the start of a nweek's voting:

1. Proposals then active
2. Motions requiring a vote introduced since the previous nweek's voting
3. Elections to replace elected Officers whose terms expire that nweek
4. Elections to fill vacant elected Offices

The rule says that Proposals active at the start of a nweek's voting become Ballot Issues. Therefore all active proposals [[automagically]] become Ballot Issues at that time.

Statement:

Alterations to Active Proposals or Motions which are not recognized by the start of an nweek's voting do not alter any Ballot Issues.

Ruling:

false

Plaintiff's Analysis:

R221 seems fairly clear on this point.

Judge's Analysis and Orders:

For a proposal to be amended it must not be on the Ballot, if a proposal is on the Ballot it may not be amended. There seems to be a minor unconistency here between the Ballot ( which I take it to be the list of all Ballot issues posted by the admin ) and the property of proposals to be a Ballot issues. At the start of an nweek's voting period all live proposals become automatically Ballot issues, but they are not on the Ballot until the administrator posts it. So the administrator CAN decide to recognize a proposal alteration after the official start of the nweek's voting period and then post the Ballot, containing the alterated proposal. Therefore I rule the statement to be FALSE and since I am such a good judge that I deserve a win.

Judicial orders:
1) The administrator shall credit the player Zagarna 500 points.

Statement:

Any post sent after an nweek's voting commences which purports to recognise changes does not alter any Ballot Issues.

Ruling:

true

Plaintiff's Analysis:

I think we need to decide whether rules take precedence over 'recognition'. If recognition takes precedence then the Officer charged with recognition holds even more power than I thought.

Judge's Analysis and Orders:

The Ballot is constituted of Ballot Issues which are determined by the game state at the start of voting (R202/0). Obviously, any revisions of Proposals that are Ballot Issues would necessarily occur after they became Ballot Issues; thus the revisions would not be reflected on the Ballot, nor does the Rule concerning Ballot Issues provide for Proposals to become Ballot Issues at any other time.

If we take "Proposals then active" in R202/0 to mean "the active Proposals themselves" instead of "the then-current revisions of active Proposals", this statement could plausibly be ruled false, since the Proposals themselves could be ballot issues without respect to their revisions. However, this makes little sense given our tradition, albeit short, of distinguishing between individual Proposal revisions, and Proposals, which are collections of revisions, and could not sensibly be taken as objects of voting. Furthermore, when we type "Proposal" we generally mean to refer to a particular revision rather than the whole collection.

These two lines taken together lead me to believe the statement should be ruled true. A true ruling on this statement, however, means that P311/1, P312/1, P314/1, and P315/1 should not have appeared on the ballot; instead, their original versions were the actual Ballot Issues, and the Ballot failed to accurately reflect this.

It would appear that RFJ 24 addresses the interpretation of the voting on these; however, its wording seems to exclude just the cases in question. "A revision of an item which has not become a Ballot Issue" is not an object the status of which is in question--if it isn't a Ballot Issue at all, of course we wouldn't consider counting votes on it. The important case, "a revision of an item made since the item became a Ballot Issue" are excluded.

Since some sort of decision needs be made, and this Judgment supports their being a disparity between the actual Ballot and the Ballot as it should have been, I issue the following Judicial Order, directed to the Administrator:

Votes cast for P311/1, P312/1, P314/1, and P315/1 are not to be applied to the unrevised versions actually under consideration during the last voting period.

In effect, this means there was no quorum on these votes, and the Proposals are pushed, active, to this nweek, with no point changes, etc. Hopefully this corrects the problem with as little disruption as possible.

Statement:

Motions requiring a vote introduced during an nweek's voting will not become Ballot Issues.

Ruling:

false

Plaintiff's Analysis:

R202 point 2 "Motions requiring a vote introduced since the previous nweek's voting" seems to indicate that these Motions will only become Ballot Issues if introduced after completion of the voting, while also limiting it to the current nweek. Maybe I should have looked for ways to exploit this loophole, but I'd rather not.

Judge's Analysis and Orders:

According to Rule 110/0, "Voting on a nweek's Ballot opens at the start of the eighth day of that nweek, and closes at the end of the tenth day of that nweek." The voting period lies entirely within the nweek during which the proposals on that ballot were made; and the termination of the voting period is concurrent with the end of its nweek.

Rule 201/0 states that, prior to the end of the voting period, the Adminstrator shall "distribute to all Players the Ballot for that nweek. Each nweek's Ballot shall list all Ballot Issues for the nweek." This rule may seem to imply that only proposals initiated or activated during the current nweek are eligible for the ballot, but it does not explicitly make the point. Also, there exists precedence, in rule 227/0, for proposals active in one nweek to remain active into the next nweek. So, it would appear that it is possible for an active proposal to remain active into subsequent nweeks, though this can only occur through specific instances outlined in the Ruleset, from dirty pool by the Administrator, or by an undesirable coincidence of timing and Ruleset semantics.

The requirements for a Rule to be included in a ballot are given in Rule 202/0. The first is "Proposals then active," which includes all active proposals, regardless of how they came to be active. This requirement is not explicitly limited or modified by other rules.

Rule 222/0 states that all proposals are live, unless they are declared dead. A proposal can only become dead by being voted on in a weekly Ballot, or by being withdrawn. All live rules are active unless they have been deactivated by their owners, according to rule 221/0. This rule does not explicitly deactivate proposals which are active prior to the issuing of the Ballot, but not included in the Ballot and not voted on. Thus, proposals remain active--and as such, eligible for the ballot--until they are withdrawn, deactivated, or voted upon.

As such, proposals made or activated after the issuing of a Ballot, but before the end of an nweek, remain active into the subsequent nweek. Since the Ballot for the following nweek includes all active proposals, and does not exclude proposals that 'should' have been voted on in previous weeks, they are eligible for that Ballot and should be voted on. I rule False.

Statement:

Inaccurate, late, or no publication of Ballot Issues does not affected the actual state of Ballot Issues.

Ruling:

true

Plaintiff's Analysis:

Does a published revision of a Proposal take precedence even if that revision was not legally made ?

Judge's Analysis and Orders:

It is entirely possible for the Ballot to be grossly incorrect (as the Ballot unfortunately was for the first voting period). R202/0 provides that active Proposals become Ballot Issues at the start of voting. R201/0 defines the Ballot as "list[ing] all Ballot Issues for the nweek". Thus, the Ballot is defined in terms of Ballot Issues, not vice versa. Moreover, is entirely possible (as we unfortunately saw during the first nweek) for the Ballot to be grossly incorrect. The Ballot is an Administrator-created document, and thus directly subject to error. Being a Ballot Issue is a Proposal state; the Administrator cannot directly affect it as e can the Ballot.

Statement:

A vote which names a revision of an item which has not become a Ballot Issue can not be counted.

Ruling:

refused

Plaintiff's Analysis:

If I vote on P301/0 and P303/1 is the Ballot Issue, does my vote count ?

Judge's Analysis and Orders:

The statement is not very clear, what is it that has not become a ballot issue? the item or the revision?

Statement:

Motions requiring a vote introduced during an nweek's voting will not become Ballot Issues,

Ruling:

false

Plaintiff's Analysis:

R124 would allow for a new judgment to change the precedent set by J22.

I draw to the judge's attention R202 point 2:

"Motions requiring a vote introduced since the previous nweek's voting"

This seems to indicate that these Motions will only become Ballot Issues if introduced after completion of the voting, while also limiting it to the current nweek. Maybe I should have looked for ways to exploit this loophole, but I'd rather not.

Judge's Analysis and Orders:

Firstly, I don't really want to overrule established legal precedent, but the rules do allow for it and I think the Plantiff has presented a valid argument rather than just disagreeing with the ruling, so I won't just 'refuse' this as was my initial thought.

The Plantiff's argument is based on Rule 202:
"The following become Ballot Issues at the start of a nweek's voting:
2. Motions requiring a vote introduced since the previous nweek's voting"

The Plantiff is also keen to point out that Proposals and Motions are not neccesarily equal.

Rule 202 states that at the start of the nweeks voting, Motions that at that time are requiring a vote, and have been introduced since the previous nweek's voting, shall become Ballot Issues. It does not state that items not on the list shall not become Ballot Issues, nor does it state that Motions may not become Ballot Issues at other times. However, I would not be happy to rule on this basis alone.

To come to a conclusion on this matter I asked myself the following question:
"When does the voting occur?"
My answer is:
"The voting occurs at the start of the eighth day and continues for three days."

Therefore I find that the phrase "since the previous nweek's voting" should be interpreted as "since the start of the previous nweek's voting" and not "since the end of the previous nweek's voting"