102:1 Thu, 5 Nov 1998 19:33:12 +0100 Garth Rose ---------------------- Yes, it's that time of round again! The Judge of FRC-land is ending eir term, and can not serve a consecutive one. So, the inhabitants, the Players of the FRC, set about selecting a new Judge in their own curious fashion. Being, as we were told ad nauseam in round 100, a very fair society, FRC-land is a democracy. However, it is a rather peculiar democracy, reflecting the inhabitants' love of style and desire for interesting lives. Each Player has a number of votes equal to the sum of all style points e has received in this round, with a minimum of one. A Player's votes may only be cast by that Player in a VALID rule, and every VALID rule must contain a statement casting some or all of its framer's uncast votes. (Integral or half-integral values only, to preserve the Judge's sanity!) Votes must be cast for other eligible Players, and no Player may vote for emself. If a Player becomes ineligible, votes previously cast for em are freed up and may be cast again. Should a Player's total of votes become smaller than the number of votes e has cast, eir most recently cast votes are discarded until eir total is correct. The Player who at any given time has the most votes cast for em is the Front-Runner. The Front-Runner is forbidden by election fairness laws from submitting rules that restrict the way other Players vote. However, in view of the mandate e has from the people, the Front-Runner has a 24 hour grace period after the last VALID rule to submit rules of eir own. Rules submitted by Players other than the Front-Runner during this grace period are not VALID. I hereby cast 0.5 votes for Stein Kulseth. ---------------------- Judgement - VALID Style - (-1) On theme: +2 Longish: -0.25 Considerate of the Judges sanity: +0.25 Allows for limiting participation in 1st week : -1.5 Compounds this problem by actually naming a FR (e could have voted for 2 players equally: -1 Did not consider ending the grace period after submission by the FR: -0.5 -- Status of 102:A The voting period expired on Sun, 8 Nov at 20:46:23 +0100 Final voting: FOR: TWJ, Anton, Charles, Nick AGAINST: (Garth's vote arrived over an hour late) The measure passes. >***** 102:A ***** > >Time periods during which a player is prohibited from >submitting a VALID rule (such as the grace period in 102:1) >shall not be counted against that player's eligibility >period. Upon passage, this measure shall be applied retro- >actively. > >***** 102:A ***** -- 102:2 Fri, 6 Nov 1998 22:42:55 +0100 Nicholson Neisler ------------------------------------------- Absentee Ballot The Runner-Up (RU) is defined as the the player(s) who at any given time has the second greatest number of votes. A Runner-Up is required by election competition laws to submit in their rules some restriction on the way other Players vote. There may be more than one Runner-Up. Furthermore, a voter my write "Absentee Ballot" on their Rule submission. If a rule is submitted by a player during the Front Runner grace period, with "Absentee Ballot" written on it, the rule is not considered legally submitted until the grace period ends. Multiple Absentee rules will be judged in the order received. Absentee Ballots may need to be renumbered by the Judge. I cast .5 vote for Garth Rose. ------------------------------------------- Judgement - INVALID This rule is inconsistent with itself. If this rule were valid Nick would be one of the Runners-up and thus would have been required to have included a restriction on the way other players vote. The restriction found here is on what runners up must include in their rules, not on how they must vote. Due to this problem, I do not feel any compulsion to comment on the VALIDity of the “Absentee Ballot” concept one way or the other. Style - +0.5 Positive because I like the “Absentee Ballot” concept very much. Status: Player Eligible Until Style Uncast Votes Cast Votes Votes For ^^^^^^ ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ ^^^^^ ^^^^^^^^^^^^ ^^^^^^^^^^ ^^^^^^^^^ Garth 13 Nov 19:33 -1 .5 .5 (Stein) 0 Others 13 Nov 19:33 0 1 0 0 Stein 12 Nov 19:33 0 1 0 .5* Nick 12 Nov 19:33 .5 1.5 0 0 *Current Front-Runner -- 102:3 Tue, 10 Nov 1998 13:51:38 +0100 Anton G Cox >>>>>>>> Rather than vote for a player by name, votes may also be cast for players who perform a certain function in a round (these are known as post-al votes). In this spirit I ask you all to VOTE FOR ME! As Judge I may be annoying and opinionated - but I hereby cast 0.5 votes for each player (up to a maximum of 2) who votes for me in the next 3 days, and 0 votes for all other eligible players (excluding myself of course!). These votes will not actually be allocated until this can be done unambiguously. Bribery is a common feature of every FRC election, and each future rule must either give some inducement for players to vote in a certain way, or accept a previous inducement. >>>>>>>> Judgement - INVALID 102:1 states: “...every VALID rule must contain a statement casting some or all of its framer's uncast votes” and “Votes must be cast for other eligible Players.” This rule does not explicitly cast its votes for any other eligible players (casting zero votes does not constitute ‘some or all of [...] uncast votes’). One could argue that the Judge need only wait until someone votes for Anton and then Judge the rule VALID. This is equivalent to Judging the rule CONDITIONALLY VALID right now -- and you all know how this Judge feels about that! To summarize, the R.O.’s require _and limit_ the Judge to consideration of only a rules consistency with itself, prior rules in the round and the R.O.’s, NOT future rules. Any rule which would require the Judge to consider future rules in making a judgement is inconsistent with the R.O.’s and is thus INVALID. The reason that this state of affairs is wise in the R.O.’s is that conditional rulings almost invariably result in troubling causal paradoxes. In this case, if no one votes for Anton within three days, I guess the Judge would be free to rule INVALID, BUT if the Judge has not ruled within three days, the rule becomes VALID by timeout. Now, if this is what Anton had in mind, then he is truly a nefarious individual and bears watching! Style - +1.5 +0.5 for his vote in favor of my proposal +1.0 for incorporating bribery and being on theme +0.5 for being nefarious (I’ll give him the benefit of the doubt) +0.5 for allowing me to get on my soap-box re: conditional validity -1.0 because he should have known my opinion about the above. Status: Player Eligible Until Style Uncast Votes Cast Votes Votes For ^^^^^^ ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ ^^^^^ ^^^^^^^^^^^^ ^^^^^^^^^^ ^^^^^^^^^ Garth 13 Nov 19:33 -1 .5 .5 (Stein) 0 Others 13 Nov 19:33 0 1 0 0 Stein 12 Nov 19:33 0 1 0 .5* Nick 12 Nov 19:33 1 1 0 0 Anton 12 Nov 19:33 1.5 1.5 0 0 *Current Front-Runner -TWJ -- Considering that we only have one VALID rule so far, I offer the following temporary R.O. Proposal: ***** 102:B ***** All players will have their eligibility extended by seven days effective the moment this proposal passes. These extra days will be added retroactively, at a time to be determined at the Judge's discression, such that after application of the days to every player all players remain eligible. No other temporary proposals may extend eligibility days in this round, and this temporary proposal, if passed, may not be repealed or amended in this round. ***** 102:B ***** My offer of +0.5 SP's for voting in favor of my proposals still stands. I vote FOR this proposal -TWJ -- 102:4 Thu, 12 Nov 1998 11:56:05 +0100 engels@win.tue.nl (Andre Engels) -------------------- As in other elections, the candidates try to win the popularity of the audience. To do so they state their policies. However, a strange thing of FRC-land is that other candidates will never agree with these policies, however reasonable they are. For example, Garth Rose has stated that part of his policy is that "the judge should judge fairly." I do not agree with that. The bible says "Do not judge lest thou be judged." I don't want the judge to be judged, so he should not judge at all, let alone fairly. Every rule starting with this one should state a policy of the candidate submitting the Rule, and every rule starting with the next one should explain why the candidate submitting the Rule does not agree with the policy in the last valid Rule. Part of my policy is that people should be allowed to breathe. I hereby cast 0.5 votes for Chuck Carroll -------------------- Judgement - VALID Style - +1 Status: Player Eligible Until Style Uncast Votes Cast Votes Votes For ^^^^^^ ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ ^^^^^ ^^^^^^^^^^^^ ^^^^^^^^^^ ^^^^^^^^^ Andre 19 Nov 11:56 1 .5 .5 (Chuck) 0 Garth 13 Nov 19:33 -1 .5 .5 (Stein) 0 Others 13 Nov 19:33 0 1 0 0 Chuck 13 Nov 19:33 0 1 0 .5 Stein 12 Nov 19:33 0 1 0 .5 Nick 12 Nov 19:33 1 1 0 0 Anton 12 Nov 19:33 1.5 1.5 0 0 There is presently no Front-Runner -TWJ