According to Rule #107/0 there are only three valid votes YES, NO, and ABSTAIN. Elysion's votes in question were not of this nature. Thus they do not qualify as "valid votes", and hence it cannot be said that Elysion has yet voted on these Proposals. Though there is no reason for changing the votes in the manner suggested in the call for judgment, it is this judge's opinion that Elysion may submit a valid vote on any of the Proposals in question at any time during the Voting Period. The rule that "votes may not be changed once cast" does not apply to Elysion in this case for the same reasons as above (he has not yet cast a valid vote).

TeXnocrat's votes were indeed valid votes (He voted YES or NO on all the proposals -- check the Mailing List Archive) but were incorrectly recorded on the web page. His votes must remain as they were cast, since they were indeed valid to begin with, but should be changed on the web page to be accurately recorded.

I must admit that my first concern was the wording of the statement. In it's current form, it is impossible to call it a statement. It is more truthfully a compounded sentence. "Xylen's votes on proposals #300, 301, 303, 304, 306, and 307 are valid" is a verifiable statement. The phrase "even though such proposals have already passed" is merely extra information that does not apply to the truth of the statement. The extra phrase is merely repetition of the information given in the reasons section. On that basis, I will render judgment on the statement "Xylen's votes on proposals #300, 301, 303, 304, 306, and 307 are valid."

By Rule 107, Xylen is a Player, and voted in the proper manner, so Xylen's votes are valid votes. Rule 108 states "The voting period for a proposal shall be one week from its distribution. No votes cast after that time are valid." The implication of the second sentence is that valid votes cast during the voting period should be counted. Between these two rules, the votes themselves are valid, and thus they should be applied to the votes on proposals #301, 301, 303, 304, 306, and 307.

I hereby rule this statement TRUE.

Again, I dislike the form of the statement, but it is better than the statement in CFJ#3. The phrase "(which, if judged TRUE will deny Rule #307 rule status)" is commentary, and can be ignored when evaluating the statement. This is from basic grammar of sentences containing parenthetical clauses. So the Statement to be judged is "Rule #307 is in effect and enforceable until the outcome of CFJ #3."

In Terra Nomic there are very few rules that deal with activation of a rule. Once a proposal has received the proper number of votes, it becomes a Rule. However, there is nothing dealing with rules that are challenged.

Rule 211/0 states that "If a statement on which judgment has been called is judged to be true, and that judgment is not overruled, it does not thereby become a rule, or any part of a rule. It merely becomes an explicit part of currently accepted game custom." By this rule, the statement "Proposals 300, 301, 303, 304, 305, 306, 307, and 308 have all ready passed" does not have the force of a Rule, but merely is gaming custom.

As a Mere Mortal Judge, I must make my ruling in accordance with currently existing game customs when there is no specific rules to apply to a situation. In accordance with that directive, I judge "Rule #307 is in effect and enforceable until the outcome of CFJ #3." to be TRUE.

(Considering the difficulties of this ruling, it would make sense for a Rule to be proposed to deal with challenged rules.)