Congratulations, Looney!

[Jef]

Well it looks like Round 10 has ended with Looney as the winner due to the ruling on Case 6013. Looks like we are officially in Convention now...

-Jef

["Looney" Lurie]

Technically I think we have another turn (per the Ruling during Interim clause), but fuck it. We all know that the round isn't going to continue.


--- On Sat, 5/9/09, Jef <j...@nomicron.org> wrote:

[metaloop]

I think for situations like these, we can introduce a "quick poll", which basically passes/fails as soon as all the active players vote on it or at the end of the turn. Then we don't have to wait like this.

-metaloop 

[Jef]

Well oops... I guess I jumped the gun on setting the web site to round-ended mode. I doubt anything would have come from the last turn, and nobody complained about not being able to submit a proposal, so I guess we just count it as a turn with no proposals? Anyway, now the round is most certainly officially over... and again I say Congratulations Looney!

-Jef

["Looney" Lurie]

I would have submitted a proposal to prevent future wasted turns, but I'll just submit it as a motion now.

Motion: Let this never happen again

Change Rule 211 to read as follows:
211 Victory by Inconsistency
If a player believes that the rules are such that further play is impossible, or that the legality of a move cannot be determined with finality, or that a move appears equally legal and illegal, then that player may submit an RFJ such that the statement to be judged explicitly specifies that there is a paradox. If such an RFJ is ruled true, the round will end after one full turn has elapsed from when the ruling was submitted, unless the ruling is changed by appeal during that turn. During this final turn, an appeal referendum that changes the ruling must be up for vote; if no player submits such a referendum, then the administrator shall create a referendum to change the ruling to false, with the argument field left blank.

If the round ends in the manner described, the following players are all winners: the player(s) who created the paradoxical situation by actions other than voting and the player who submitted the RFJ describing that situation.

[Jef]

I vote FOR.

-Jef

[Mike Carratt (Truthflux)]

I vote FOR.

-Truthflux

["Looney" Lurie]

Since I forgot to include it in my original email, I also declare that I am voting FOR my motion.

--- On Mon, 5/18/09, Mike Carratt (Truthflux) <trut...@googlemail.com> wrote:

[JediSquid]

I vote FOR.

On May 18, 8:21 am, "\"Looney\" Lurie" <comp_wizard11...@yahoo.com>
wrote:

> Since I forgot to include it in my original email, I also declare that I am voting FOR my motion.
>

> --- On Mon, 5/18/09, Mike Carratt (Truthflux) <truthf...@googlemail.com> wrote:

>
> > From: Mike Carratt (Truthflux) <truthf...@googlemail.com>
> > Subject: [Nomicron] Re: Congratulations, Looney!
> > To: nomi...@googlegroups.com
> > Date: Monday, May 18, 2009, 5:06 AM
> > I vote FOR.
>
> > -Truthflux
>
> > On Mon, May 18, 2009 at 3:26 AM,
> > Jef <j...@nomicron.org>
> > wrote:
>
> > I vote FOR.
>
> > -Jef
>
> > On Sun, May 17, 2009 at 2:11 PM,

> > "Looney" Lurie <comp_wizard11...@yahoo.com>

> > > metaloop <illo...@gmail.com>

>
> > > wrote:
>
> > > I think for situations like these, we can introduce
> > a
>
> > > "quick poll", which basically passes/fails
> > as soon
>
> > > as all the active players vote on it or at the end of
> > the
>
> > > turn. Then we don't have to wait like this.
>
> > > -metaloop 
>
> > > On Sat, May 9, 2009 at 7:30 PM,
>

> > > "Looney" Lurie <comp_wizard11...@yahoo.com>

[metaloop]

I vote FOR.

-metaloop

[Mike Carratt (Truthflux)]

This motion succeeded