spoon-business: Er...that last proposal

["Donald Whytock" <dwhytock@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

That last proposal I sent in...Kindly give it the name Appeal Clause and replace it with the following (grumble)-delimited text:

(grumble)
Append to the end of rule 128 (regardless of whether proposal 166 has passed) the following text:

If a player Insists on objecting to the judge's Response to a Call for Judgment, and this Insistence is seconded by at least two other players, a vote shall be held on whether the Response should be overturned.  If 3/4 of the then-current players vote yea, that the Response should be overturned, then the Response is thrown out, and a new judge is selected for the Call for Judgment, excluding any ineligible players (as per rule 127) and players who have already served as judge for the Call for Judgment in question.  This process shall be repeated until a given Response is not overturned, at which point it is applied, or until there are no more eligible judges for the Call for Judgment, at which point the Call for Judgment is thrown out.
(grumble)