304 (Robin) (Passed)

[Robin_C]

I think there's a problem with just three of us around the Judge role, as (nearly) evidenced by Mike last round. Thus I propose the following for discussion, as an amendemnt to Rule 212. It stops a player Invoking Judgement (which can be done at any time), and then becoming the Judge. Admittedly, their Judgement can be overturned, but only by unanimity - this requirement does not change, unlike the voting rule which changes to majority. As it stands, there's always one player that can make themselves Judge simply by Invocation, and become more powerful as a result.

Original:

212. If players disagree about the legality of a move or the interpretation or application of a rule, then the player preceding the one moving is to be the Judge and decide the question. Disagreement for the purposes of this rule may be created by the insistence of any player. This process is called invoking Judgment.

Amended:

212. If players disagree about the legality of a move or the interpretation or application of a rule, then the player preceding the one moving is to be the Judge and decide the question, unless this player Invoked Judgement, in which case the player preceding this player is to be the Judge. Disagreement for the purposes of this rule may be created by the insistence of any player. This process is called invoking Judgment.

[Neil]

I prefer this to prohibiting invoking judgement as the preceding player.

This is a way of solving the problem, but the game is also lacking randomness and interesting conflicting incentives, how about transferring risk to a person who invokes judgement? Like, losing points if judgement is in favour of the original play.

[Robin_C]

Sounds good. Two things:
1) It may give an incentive for the judge to uphold the status quo; perhaps it should be balanced by giving points to the original player as well as subtracting points from the objector, such that net points for people who aren't the judge is unaltered?
2) I think that probably consititutes a new rule (you're not allowed two-rules-in-one-rule), so it may have to wait for another proposer

[Neil]

You're right, 111. OK. It's not very exciting but I'd back it :/

[Robin_C]

Mike - any thoughts from you?

[michaelenstone]

I feel that perhaps we're over complicating things by having a Judge role in game involving three players.

Perhaps the role of judge should be scraped entirely and replaced with a statement on legality i.e.

In order for a move to be considered legal all players must agree it is legal. The default position shall be in favour of legality except where a player explicitly states that the move is illegal.

Where a player states a rule is illegal play shall pause and debate on the legality of the move shall begin. If consensus cannot be reached in 24 hours then the move shall be considered illegal and the player making the move shall retract the move and be given the opportunity to make the move again.

[Neil]

If we play to a spirit of the game, this works, but it encourages gamesmanship, as it functionally encourages blocking any move you don't like.

[michaelenstone]

I think you're right but that's the choice presented in the game. Do we codify everything in the hope that we can avoid gamesmanship or do we play in the spirit of the game. I suspect that it will be very difficult to codify the rules such that gamesmanship is eliminated but that a general commitment to the spirit of the game would be better for both the flow of the game and the enjoyment of all of us.

Maybe I'm just being an idealist

[Robin_C]

I think the Judge is both required and good for swift resolution. Besides, your solution doen't work:

P1: proposes something P2 does not like
P2: calls it illegal, and thus 24hrs for consensus starts
P2: says nothing for 24hrs and move is blocked

Anything that requires consensus either to pass or to be blocked is open to abuse, hence the need for a Judge in some cases. My proposal simply diminishes the opportunity to abuse the power to become Judge, and for the person who is neither the active player nor the Invoker to arbitrate

[michaelenstone]

As I said perhaps I'm being an idealist. Evidently Robin thinks as a group we're likely to abuse the rule as I proposed it.

[Neil]

He's not the only one. As far as I'm concerned, Robin stepped through what I alluded to!

[Robin_C]

Mike - you happy with the rule as tabled above?

[michaelenstone]

Yes, I can vote in favour.

[Robin_C]

Right - I call the vote, and vote in favour

[Neil]

+1

[michaelenstone]

I also vote in favour
amendment passed

[Sponsored content]