MeFiNo | The MetaFilter Nomic Game

The rules are not clear on how many players must vote to overrule a judge.

313: The Judge's Judgment may be overruled by a vote of the other players taken before the next turn is begun.

This rule doesn't tell us what the threshold for overruling the judge is. 311 seems relevant here, but it doesn't answer the question either.

311: Unless otherwise demanded by an immutable rule, no game decision shall require more than a two-thirds majority of players in agreement (rounded up) to take effect, including the adoption of rule changes and judicial overrides.

We know that the override will take no more than 2/3 of the players, but that doesn't tell us that it must take 2/3 of the players. Perhaps it takes only a majority of players.

I'd urge judge gerryblog to err on the side of caution in this case and judge that overruling takes only a majority of voting players, given that the end of the game may well hinge on this decision.

Currency: Any player may transfer any number of points to any other player at any time by posting a notice to that effect in the Point Transfer Forum established for this purpose, provided said point transfer would not leave the receiving player within 51 or fewer points from the victory condition.

In order to determine the legality of 1's transfer of points to gerryblog (giving him 458 points in total and resulting in a victory claim), we need to know what exactly the definition of the victory condition. "Victory condition" does not appear anywhere else in the rules. The only hint we have is that:

The total number of points required to win the game will be 300.

I read this to mean that the way to win the game is to have any number of points equal to or greater than 300. In other words, the victory condition is to have any number of points equal to or greater than 300.

Judge gerryblog, is this the victory condition?

Rather than assume all current players will be active in the next round, let's explicitly sign up here.

To kick off discussion of the format, here are a few things we can do:

- Continue with the current ruleset, after patching it to fix transfer wins.

- Constitutional quorum: start with a new complete ruleset.

- Minimalist: start with a single rule (worked well for Spork.)

- Themed: start with an existing game (e.g. chess) and expand from there.

... or wot? We're wide open but need some sort of consensus in the end.

The recent rule says, "provided said point transfer would not leave the receiving player within 51 or fewer points from the victory condition"

If the result of a transfer is that the recipient wins, the transfer has obviously obviously left that recipient within 51 points of a victory condition, having surpassed it.

By analogy, the prison guard says, "Do not come within 10 feet of the south fence."

Burrowing down 30 feet then south 30 feet then up 30 feet does not bring the prisoner within 10 feet of the south fence, but the directions have certainly been violated.

(unless you take the left at Alberquerque)

Are these recent point transfers legal?

Two victories for the Super Cool Victory Fellowship. Let me tell you, losers, it doesn't get any better than this.

"How were we so easily defeated?" I hear you all asking yourselves. The answer is simple. Selfishness.

Now it's all for one and all for love.
(It's all for love.)
Let the one you hold be the one you want,
The one you need,
'Cause when it's all for one it's one for all.
(It's one for all.)
When there's someone that should know
Then just let your feelings show.
When there's someone that you want,
When there's someone that you need
Let's make it all, all for one and all for love.
-The Bryan Adams

Victory has been claimed.

Please pronounce this the poppycock that it is.

I think he chose that name just for the alliterative effect - he had this planned all along, surely.

Current state of the game: finished.

Proposed proposal: Make rule 103 mutable.

Quoted for reference:

103. A rule-change is any of the following: (1) the enactment, repeal, or amendment of a mutable rule; (2) the enactment, repeal, or amendment of an amendment of a mutable rule; or (3) the transmutation of an immutable rule into a mutable rule or vice versa.

Esteemed judge ctmf,

This issue effects the current turn, in that it seems many players feel the need to vote "yes" to obtain the special 50 point bonus.

Is gerryblog's proposed rule self-contradictory?

It says:
"All players voting YES on this proposal will also receive an additional one-time bonus award of 50 points."

But then, in the very next line, says:
"After the passage of this rule no points shall be awarded on the basis of how a player has voted for a particular piece of legislation, including the 10-point bonus outlined in 204 for voting NO on passed proposals."

So, judge ctmf, am I right that players will NOT be getting 50 bonus points by voting yes to this proposal?

I invoke judgment on the passage of 320. Rule 311 states:
no game decision shall require more than a two-thirds majority of players in agreement (rounded up) to take effect
which means you need 2/3 of the eligible player base, not 2/3 of whoever voted. 2/3 majority is currently at 8, and this proposal only received 6 votes.

Judge ctmf,

Rule 312 states,

312. Every player is an eligible voter. Every eligible voter may participate in every vote on rule-changes or judicial overrides.

An abstaining player will be considered a non-player for the purpose of calculating whether a rule change or judicial override passes. Any player may voluntarily abstain from a vote. A player who does not vote within 48 hours of a vote opening is considered to have abstained.

Please note that that the rule does not state that these are the *only* situations in which an abstaining player will or should be considered a non-player. Accordingly, I argue that

(a) flatluigi's failure to cast an explicit vote on 320 constitutes strong evidence that he is no longer "voluntarily playing the game of MeFiNo Nomic" (per 311's definition of a player);
(b) likewise he has not yet posted any discussion points for 321, nor any comment in any thread since May 27;

I know it's early, but we've been having serious difficulty in getting things passed and I'm hoping an early conversation will work.

I'd like in 322 to establish "points" as the currency of MeFiNo, fully transferable. This would help mitigate the "always voting NO for points" issue as people could be bribed by other players to vote YES. I think it would also add a nice dash of spice to the game.

As a side issue, I'd like to amp up the points required to win to 300 and inflate the currency, so to speak, by giving people money to bribe with.

I'm looking now for input on implementation.

PROPOSAL TEXT:

321/322. Currency

Not to steal the thunder of 319, but I can't plan my available time for now. So here's my proposal for discussion early:

Absentee voting
A player may specify his/her voting behavior in advance. His/her vote will be cast in accordance with his or her instructions based on the conditions existing at the time the vote is called. If the instructions are unclear, a judgment may be invoked (if it matters to the outcome of the vote) or an abstention entered. The judge, if judgment is necessary, must consider abstention the preferred option when the instructions are ambiguous. A player's explicit vote always takes precedence over a vote by standing order

Furthermore, a player may designate another player, or combination of players, to cast his/her vote, analogous to a MeFiNo power of attorney. Such designation must have a stated reason for absence and a reasonable expiration date.