Judgements

Pokey Nomic Homepage * Cooperation and Defection * Current Rules * Other Nomic Sites * Players * Judgements * Conventions For E-mail Play * Score History * Turn History * Search the archive

1. How is the playing order determined among e-mail players?

It is established randomly by the host of the game before play begins.
Judge Ed, September 1, 1993 (pregame judgement)

2. Where do I post proposals, debate, votes, appeals and judgements?

The host of the game will establish an e-mail mirror. Post all e-mail to the mirror address. Private e-mail would probably violate Initial Rule 210.
Judge Ed, September 1, 1993 (pregame judgement)

3. Initial Rules 111 and 212 allow for time to debate proposals and invoke judgement. How is this done?

Wait for objections to be posted before calling for votes. Afterwards, wait for others to invoke judgement before posting your die roll.
Judge Ed, September 1, 1993 (pregame judgement)

4. Who maintains the Set of Rules? How is score to be kept, and how will die rolls be made?

The host keeps the Set of Rules and the standings, and posts them upon request. Players make and post their own die rolls.
Judge Ed, September 1, 1993 (pregame judgement)

5. How do we add players?

Consent of the other players is necessary and sufficient. This is accomplished by giving the other players a time period in which to object to adding the proposed player.
Ed, August 31, 1994 (consensus agreement)

6. How do we remove inactive players?

Consent of the other players is necessary and sufficient. Failure to perform an action required by the rules within a reasonable time period is prima facie evidence of forfeiture, so the player forfeits by default. This is accomplished by setting a deadline for the player to perform the required action. Deadline setting is a useful way to accelerate the pace of the game.
Ed, September 2, 1994 (consensus agreement)

7. Is it legal for a player to roll a 100 sided die?

My dictionary says a die is ``a small, marked cube used in games of chance.'' A six-sided die it is then.
Judge Mark, September 14, 1994

8. May a player's vote be changed before the votes are counted?

A person can not change their submitted vote.
Judge John, October 5, 1994

9. Is private disclosure of past desire to conspire different from an offer to conspire? Is a private agreement that one would have agreed to conspire in the past different from an agreement to conspire?

In the spirit of Rule 210, this Court hereby rules that discussions surrounding strategy and tactics of the game, including but not limited to bargaining on upcoming rule proposals and votes, are to be conducted only through email to <NOMIC@I2.COM>.
Judge Mark, October 25, 1994

10. Is Rule 304 void due to conflict with 109?

Rule 304 is wholly void and without effect.
Judge John, October 28, 1994

11. Is the game over under 213 because "required number of votes" is now undefined?

Ed's right. Play on. [(1) There need be no definition of "required number of votes," any more so than we need a definition of "player." The game can legally continue. (2) 213 does not apply, because further play is still possible.]
Judge Mark, December 13, 1994

12. Was rule 306 adopted after a vote of 2 yes, 1 no?

Rule 306 was not adopted becaus unanimous voting was still in effect. Rule 304 (which is mutable) was inconsistent with rule 109 (which is immutable), thereby making rule 304 "wholly void and without effect" by virtue of rul 110. Rule 304 is still in the books, but its value is void, and therefore does not affect rule 203 since doing so would mean that rule 304 "has affected" rule 203. From the moment rule 304 was declared void, then rule 203 was once more in effect.
Judge Mike, May 29, 1996

13. Was rule 307 adopted after a unanimous vote of 3 no?

Rule 203 can only mean that a rule change is adopted if and only if all eligible voters vote for the rule change.
Judge Mike, October 4, 1996

14. Is it legal to create or transfer points?

No to both.
Judge Dan, January 2, 1997

15. Does rule 208 change the state of affairs that constitutes winning from achieving n points to any other state of affairs, or merely describe the winner>?

208 merely describes the winner or winners.
Judge Dan, January 2, 1997

16. Must all players vote immediately when the proponent announces the time to end debate and vote, or may they time their votes as they wish?

No, you can't wait and see how other players vote.
Judge Dan, January 2, 1997

17. Did all players forfeit by default who did not declare their Deli status immediately upon announcement of adoption of rule change 305?

No, nobody did anything wrong about their Deli status unless they based their decision on information they couldn't have had at the time the vote was taken. (To the best of my knowledge, no one did.)
Judge Dan, January 2, 1997

18. Who is the sitting Judge in the current situation?

I am Judge.
Judge Dan, January 2, 1997

19. How do we apply rule 212 if multiple active turns were to result in multiple players being eligible Judges?

There is only one Judge. Here is what I understand to be the decision procedure for selecting the Judge. Identify the player who most recently started their turn. From that player, precede backwards through the player list until you reach a player who is not currently in a turn. That player is Judge.
Judge Dan, January 2, 1997

20. Is it lawful for a vote to be called now on 309, when no time was allowed for debate?

It's not a legal call for votes.
Judge Dan, January 16, 1997

21. Would 309 be lawful in itself if enacted, when it is both the enactment and the repeal of a mutable rule?

309 is legal, but would not have had quite the effect Allan was looking for had it passed. 309 is not both the enactment and the repeal of a mutable rule. It is the enactment of a mutable rule. Rule 309 tries to change the rules, and there is no rule that says rules can change rules. Since it is a mutable rule and in conflict with an immutable rule [116], it is wholly void and without effect (by 110). This is almost what Allan wanted, but it would still be a rule on the books and counting towards the limit imposed by 209.
Judge Dan, January 23, 1997 [revised judgement]

22. Was it lawful for me to invoke judgement on the interpretation of the rules in a hypothetical situation?

You can invoke judgement on "the interpretation of the rules in a hypothetical situation," but you cannot currently invoke judgement on "whether 309 would be lawful in itself if enacted."
Judge Dan, January 17, 1997

23. May a rule change enact more than one rule, or enact one rule and repeal another, or transmute two rules, or any other such combination?

Maybe.
Judge Dan, January 23, 1997

24. Is the language of rule 305 ambiguous with respect to the number of Deli titles a player may hold at one time? If so, how should it be interpreted to mean? Finally, is it legal for John to assume both the titles "Brick" and "Live Chicken?"

305 is not ambiguous. John's move was clever and legal.
Judge Dan, January 23, 1997

25. Was it legal to call for votes on 309 without debate after amending two words of the proposal?

The CFV was not legal. Try again.
Judge Dan, January 24, 1997

26. Players are currently engaging in debate of rule changes which are not currently proposed. Isn't this illegal, because rule 111 limits debate of a rule change to a reasonable time period between its formal proposal and the time the player chooses to end debate and call a vote?

Disputing parties agreed to this before judgement was rendered.
Judge Allan, February 5, 1997

27. Is my move to subtract 10 points from my score legal, illegal, or both?

Plaintiff's proposal fails adoption and it is ordered that the ten points be subtracted from the score.
Judge Allan, February 21, 1997

28. Was it legal for Mike to change his submitted vote on proposal 312 before votes were received from all eligible voters?

Players should have agreed to a clear voting procedure. Unless one is established, eligible voters may change their votes before votes are counted but may not delay final votes indefinitely, and votes may not be counted until final votes are in.

The court suggests the following procedure. Let a voting deadline be established by the proponent. The last vote received from a player shall be counted. Failure to vote without good cause shall mean forfeiture by default. This offers the fun value of jockeying to gain the 10-point bonus and avoids stalemate.
Judge Ed, March 11, 1997