I invoke judgement on the following statement: The assignment of Walker as Judge for the statement "The selection of a Judge for this statement is a move whose legality cannot be determined with finality" is a move whose legality cannot be determined with finality.
Reasoning: same as before. This is just to cover the possibility, as omd brought up, that "move" in the context of Rule 219 might mean only an actual or at least attempted move, and not merely a hypothetical move (as the assignment of a Judge was at the time of the previous CFJ). Chuck -----Original Message----- From: agora-discussion [mailto:agora-discussion-boun...@agoranomic.org] On Behalf Of Fool Sent: Wednesday, June 26, 2013 9:10 PM To: agora-discussion@agoranomic.org Subject: DIS: Agora XX: CFJ assigned to Walker On 26/06/2013 10:09 AM, games...@chuckcarroll.org wrote: > I invoke judgement on the following statement: The selection of a > Judge for this statement is a move whose legality cannot be determined > with finality. By rule 331, I must randomly select from myself or those who voted on the last proposal, excluding Chuck. The last proposal was 341 (...OR WAS IT??) My virtual 8-sided die comes up...... Walker again. You have 24 hours. > > Reasoning: Rule 331 reads, "The Speaker shall choose Judges randomly > from the set of qualified players. The players qualified to judge a > statement are the Speaker and those Voters who voted on the rule > change whose voting period most recently ended, except for the player > who invoked judgement, and the player (if any) most recently selected as the statement's Judge. > > The voting periods on proposed rule changes 331 through 341 all ended > simultaneously. However, the set of Voters who voted on these rule > changes is not identical, but varies by proposal. (Specifically: > Steve, Chuck, Walker, Yally, omd, and ehird voted on all eleven > proposals; FSX and Blob voted on proposal 340 only; Murphy and Roujo > voted on proposal 341 only.) Rule 331 demands that qualified players > are the Speaker and Voters who voted on *the* rule change whose voting period most recently ended. > Singular. Not the last listed or highest numbered among simultaneously > ending proposals, and neither the union nor the intersection of Voters > who voted on simultaneously ending proposals. There is no method by > which to select *which* proposal's voters, from simultaneously ending > proposals, are eligible, and thus the selection of a Judge from the > Speaker and Voters who voted on any specific one of Proposals 331 > through 341 is a move whose legality cannot be determined with finality. > > [Aside: one might argue that a "rule change" is different from a > "proposed rule change," and Rule 331 refers to the former, but that > does not resolve the situation, as 331, 332, 333, and 340 were all > adopted and thus became rule changes.] > > Chuck >
