Call for Judgement from Eric Scheirer: (Mon Aug  2 23:39:17 GMT 1993)

"
  Whereas by rule 103, the Speaker is a player; and
  whereas the speaker acts as a randomizer and vote-tabulator; and
  whereas there is no mechanism in place for disputing the published
     result of a vote; and 
  whereas it is not possible to confirm whether the Speaker has 
     tallied the votes correctly; and 
  whereas a possible motive for corruption by the Speaker is the
     cyclical nature of multiple games of Nomic; and
  whereas there is currently no mechanism by which rules can be
     repealed due to a Judgement, it is therefore stated that

  All rules regarding the collection and tabulation of votes are
     nullified by 316; and further,
  The collection and tabulation of votes is therefore impossible;
     and further,
  There is no longer any method by which passage of rules is possible
     according to the correct application of the ruleset at this
     time."

I find this statement to be FALSE.

			 --------------------

Justification:

While the premises of this argument might be found TRUE, its first
conclusion is FALSE, as, therefore, is the rest of the (conjunctive)
conclusion. Proposal 316 can only nullify rules higher in number than
itself by default, and while it might be argued that it does claim
precedence over other mutable rules (this I find suspect; see below),
it certainly does not have precedence over immutable rules such as 106
and 109.

[Digression: why 316 doesn't have precedence over mutable rules of
             lower number than itself.

It doesn't say of itself that it takes precedence over other rules,
and the way it is phrased suggests that it is to be used as a criteria
for disallowing proposals as they are made, not to disallow existing
rules (which by their very existence are clearly 'possible').

NB: 316 doesn't prohibit 330 because although practice at the moment
has me determining the winning entry in the lottery on my own, there
are protocols which would enable me to select a random entry
publically in such a way that all witnesses would have to concede that
the number chosen was random. In general, the fact that current
practice is not checkable, does not mean that a rule is not
checkable.]