The Judge has decided that digitalscreams is assumed to have voted for his own rule change. Thus all votes are now in and we can consider the voting closed.

There were two votes for rule 303, three against. Since votes on rule-changes currently must be unanimous to pass, this proposal fails. In accordance with rule 206, digitalscreams loses 10 points. In accordance with rule 202, he also gains 5 points [(303 - 291) × 2 ÷ 5]. Thus he ends the turn with -5 points.

I am the next player.

My rule-change (304) is also a new rule. The proposed text is as follows:

All votes must be explicit. Every vote must clearly indicate whether the vote is for or against the issue being put to a vote. Exception: A player who offers up an issue to be put to a vote will be assumed to have voted for that issue, unless the player immediately and explicitly states otherwise.

Votes on an issue count only when cast during the final call for votes on that issue. Players may make remarks on their voting intentions at any time, but such remarks are not considered equivalent to casting votes. (The exception in the preceding paragraph still applies.)

A large part of the confusion during the previous turn centered on whether digitalscreams had voted for his own rule change. He assumed that he had, simply by virtue of proposing the rule change. This new rule makes such an implicit vote permissible; it also specifies that such an implicit vote is considered to be a vote in favor. But the new rule also requires that votes in all other cases be explicit.

I have intentionally avoided referring to votes as votes on rule-changes, in order to allow for the possibility of voting on other matters.