MeFiNo | The MetaFilter Nomic Game

Judgment: Holy crap. I'm issuing a few emergency injunctions while we get things sorted out.

#1) ctmf's invocations are rendered void. He's no longer the judge.
#2) flatluigi's judgments were, regretably, legitimate. All players are awarded 1337 points.
#3) However, this is not a victory condition.

In mail and computer games, the winner is the first player to achieve 200 (positive) points.

No one has yet achieved this condition. 1337 does not equal 200.

Therefore the game continues.

Please address all further invocations to gerryblog.

gerry, I think everyone hit 200 on their way past it from 0 to 1337.

and, if you're ruling that way, there is absolutely no way to win the game except by trying to pass horrible rules and losing (many) points.

flatluigi, that is an interesting argument, but that isn't what happened. You awarded everyone 1337 in a single instant, not adding every point in succession one after the next. No one has yet achieved 200 points. Play continues, it is jay's turn.

That would be interesting, actually. We'd have to vote yes to crappy proposals to keep other players from winning. Lo-Ball Nomic!

Hm. This works for me, except for one thing: gerryblog, didn't you violate 305 by ending your turn?

I'm saying this again, gerry: You are not the judge. The rules say that "when Judgment has been invoked, the next player may not begin his or her turn without the consent of a majority of the other players." We did not have such consent to move on from 310, therefore we are still on your turn and my rule.

If you're invoking, I'll be happy to rule that those players who did not vote chose to abstain.

Gerry, if I'm invoking, I'm invoking the judgement of myself. We did not have consent to move on, therefore you're not the judge.

flatluigi, are you invoking judgment, or are you just asking me? Once again, I'll be happy to rule, if the question is invoked, that our long-standing game custom holds that explicit consent is not necessary to move on to the next turn. Rather, it is the raising of objections from a majority of players that demonstrates that the threshold of the next turn has not been reached.

When a majority of players have objected to moving on, we will know it is still 310. Until then, it is 311.

I believe a past judgment (which may still be in effect according to one interpretation of the rules) defined majority consent as a lack of majority objection.

flatluigi, you do not have standing to rule on whether or not you are the judge. I am the judge. Play continues, it is jay's turn.

I don't overrule. Also didn't object to moving on, way back there in turn 310. That turn that is over, now.

I object to moving on to turn 311. At least two players (one of which was myself) had not even voted at the time 311 allegedly started, nor were those players expelled from the game. Thus, 311 cannot yet have started.

As far as I am concerned, I have always given my consent to move on implicitly. I agrere that is 311, and thank god we are in the sane and decisive reign of esteemed judge gerryblog.

What with all this craziness regarding points, they sort of seem meaningless now, don't they? We should brainstorm some other method of determining victory. Hmm, let me think, what player has achieved some unique and special milestone that no other players will ever be able to attain? By the way, did you notice my SHINING STAR OF GOLD?

Oh, and thanks so much jay, this one is much sexier.

#

By the way, did you notice my SHINING STAR OF GOLD?

Nope, because I view this site with the "foliage" theme, and as jay has already announced, the gold star has not been implemented on this theme.

Nobody seemed to mind, or even notice, that a vague question resulted in a bunch of very specific judge decisions and actions not directly specified in the initial invocation question.

That is right and good, as it follows the precedent set down here:

2. Can the judge use his powers of logic and reason to define the scope of the invocation as he sees fit, and to answer related questions he feels are relevant to the invocation?

2. The answer is YES. It is not the job of mere players to debate and question and reinterpret the ruling in a way that suits them, or that they feel better reflects our written laws. Players DO NOT HAVE THE AUTHORITY to debate and interpret and accept / reject rulings of judges. There is only ONE clearly defined remedy for a player who wishes to challenge a judge, and that is by opening a (unanimous) vote to overrule.

At this point, finally, this is something that we all agree on. We have seen similar wide-ranging judgments from ctmf and others. I am sure no-one will bring up this silly "only answer the specific question, and nothing else or we'll ignore it" nonsense again.

#

I will. It's in the rules.

Well, gluesniffers such as me have poor memories, so while your logic seems impeccable now, I'm sure I will have forgotten it and make such an argument again at some point in the future.