Re: spoon-business: Proposal 276 again...

[Jonathan David Amery <jdamery@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

 Hmm, that was supposrd to say:

`Revise proposal 642 to read:'

> {{
> Revise Rule 126 to read:
> 
> {{
> __Call For Inquiry__
> 
> If a player has any question or complaint regarding the rules or how
> they are (or have been) applied, e may issue a Call For Inquiry (CFI,
> or for antique [[and Roman]] reference, CFJ).
> 
> A CFI may be issued by any player by posting eir intention to a public
> forum together with a Statement in question and, should they wish, an
> arguement. That Player shall be known as the Plaintiff with regard to
> the CFI. While submitting CFI the Plaintiff may also specify a player
> or the Admin as Defendant for that CFI. 
> 
> CFIs are given a serial number as if they were an object that can be
> revised. Once submitted a CFI can only be modified by:
> 
>  a) Otherwise allowed Admin action.
>  b) The Plaintiff rescinding the CFI.
> 
> A CFI may, at any point between its submittance and its judgement, be
> "rescinded" by the plaintiff by posting eir intention to do so in a
> public forum. If this occurs, the CFJ no longer requires judgement and
> shall not affect the state of the game in any other fashion. If the
> plaintiff rescinds their CFJ, e may not then resubmit the same CFJ in
> another form. If a player believes that this has occurred, e may
> submit a CFJ on those grounds. If a plaintiff rescinds eir CFJ, e
> loses 1d3 points. 
> }}
> 
> Revise Rule 127 to read:
> {{
> __Judges__
> 
> When a Call for Inquiry has been made, the Admin shall randomly select
> one player among the allowed players to be the Judge. Allowed players
> for the purpose of this rule are all players excepting the Defendant,
> the Plaintiff and players on the LMJ. If that leaves no players
> allowed to be the Judge, then out of the players on the LMJ, the
> player who was placed on the LMJ first shall be the Judge.
> 
> In the event of a CFI naming the Admin as defendant, the duty of
> randomly selecting an Judge shall fall to the player with the highest
> Score. That player will also not be allowed to be a Judge for the CFI.
> }}
> 
> Revise Rule 128 to read:
> {{
> __Judgement__
> 
> A Judge shall, within seven days of eir selection, give one of the
> following responses to the Call for Inquiry to which e was assigned,
> with by an Argument:
> 
> 1. Refused: A Judge may refuse to hear the CFI if it lacks a clear
> Statement or is not germain to the game.
> 2. True: The Statement is true.
> 3. False: The Statement is false.
> 4. Undecided: It could not be determined at the time the CFI was made
> whether the Statement is true or false.
> [[not quite completly ripped off from A Nomic]]
> 
> This response constitutes the Judge's Judgement on that CFI and has
> the same serial number of the CFI.
> 
> The Argument of the Judgement is the reasoning that the Judge used to
> arrive at the Judgement, and must be a direct rendition of the
> rules. A Judge may not make a Judgement which contridicts one
> or more rules, e may however refer to precedent, game custom, and the
> spirit of the game in making eir Argument. [[A ruling against one or
> more rules results in another Call For Inquiry, or we need an
> appealate court]]
> 
> Should it happen that a Judge has not issued a Judgement within seven
> days of eir selection, that Judge shall be recused and a new player
> shall be selected in the ways prescribed by the rules as Judge for the
> CFI. When a Judge is recused in this manner, e shall lose 10 points
> and, if the LMJ exists, eir name shall be added to it.  
> }}
> 
> Divide the points gained by Wild Card as a result of this proposal
> equally between Bean, Scoff! and Wild Card.
> 
> }}