307 (Alex) (rejected)

[oafcmetty]

I'm thinking of proposing a transmutation. I want to make the following rule immutable:

"213. If the rules are changed so that further play is impossible, or if the legality of a move cannot be determined with finality, or if by the Judge's best reasoning, not overruled, a move appears equally legal and illegal, then the first player unable to complete a turn is the winner.

This rule takes precedence over every other rule determining the winner. "

Thoughts?

[ariich]

Hmm, any particular reason that you want to make it immutable? Not that I'm especially against it, I just can't quite see what difference it would really make. It's not like it couldn't be made mutable later on still.

[oafcmetty]

Mainly because of 110 and 211.

[oafcmetty]

Btw rule 214: "214. For timely progression of the game:
The period of discussion and amendment of any proposal shall not exceed 48 hours from the posting of the last vote which decided the previous amendment."

Given votes are by PM, and hence not visible, this rule is broken. I can fold in an amendment to this proposal, or it can be fixed outside the scoring process. Suggest something like:

"214. For timely progression of the game:
The period of discussion and amendment of any proposal shall not exceed 48 hours from the posting of the result of the voting on the previous amendment, or 72 hours after the previous proposal vote was called if no result is posted."

[Neil]

I've read 110 and 211, feel free to call me a ninny-head, but I don't really see where you're going. How is this worth more to me than you losing 10 points?

You're right on 214 and a very reasonable offer, but that would have be a second proposal, for which I'm not giving you 17 points.

[oafcmetty]

110. In a conflict between a mutable and an immutable rule, the immutable rule takes precedence and the mutable rule shall be entirely void. For the purposes of this rule a proposal to transmute an immutable rule does not "conflict" with that immutable rule.

At the moment, I don't see an immutable rule around win conditions. We have 208 (The winner is the first player to achieve 200 (positive) points) and 213 (above). Hence we're bound by 211:

211. If two or more mutable rules conflict with one another, or if two or more immutable rules conflict with one another, then the rule with the lowest ordinal number takes precedence. If at least one of the rules in conflict explicitly says of itself that it defers to another rule (or type of rule) or takes precedence over another rule (or type of rule), then such provisions shall supersede the numerical method for determining precedence. If two or more rules claim to take precedence over one another or to defer to one another, then the numerical method again governs.

As 213 does indeed state it takes precedence over every other rule determining the winner, it'd take precedence over 208. This proposal just firms that up a little - I don't think it actually changes anything, but I like it as a rule, hence wanting to make it immutable - particularly when we leave unanimous territory, and start messing with the number of votes each person has.

Take your point around 214 - I'll leave it for someone else (or do it on my next turn).

So - I'm calling the vote as per post 1 in this thread.

[Neil]

My theory is you really want 2 votes.

[oafcmetty]

Very cynical sir!

[oafcmetty]

Me: For
Neil: Against
Dom: No Vote (for)
Michael: Against
Robin: Against
Rich: Against

[Robin_C]

Ouch - post your score, edit the thread name to include (failed) and move on...

[Neil]

Just posting here to put the threads in order.

[Sponsored content]