MeFiNo | The MetaFilter Nomic Game

A player is one free-willed human Metafilter member voluntarily playing the game of MeFiNo Nomic, and this insuperable definition may only be changed by modifying this rule.

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. This rule shall take precedence over all mutable rules.

one free-willed human Metafilter member

So no zombies then?

I want to vote for paragraph 2 and most of paragraph 1, but I'm pretty confident that 1 is a real person. I don't want to kick him out of the game just for not being a MeFi member (anymore).

If some other current player gets banned, or hits the button on MeFi, do they automatically get removed here too?

Once a MeFi member, always a MeFi member, right? I think having ever had a MeFi account is good enough.

Smells like pending judiciary disambiguation to me.

Besides after this 2/3rds of you can fix that any time.

Every player is an eligible voter. Every eligible voter must participate in every vote on rule-changes.

If this passes and a player doesn't vote on 312, we can strip not only their Mefi account but their species.

Everybody gets banned every once in a while. Otherwise they're just lame. One doesn't cease to be a member of MetaFilter when one's account is temporarily or permanently "disabled." (See: that asshole Mark Kraft.)

Obviously I have to vote "no" on this just in case. This is what happens when the forces of division and divisiveness turn us against each other.

DONNA MARTIN GRADUATES

You are the cute widdle clownfish swimming in circles. gerryblog is the sixteen ton shark emerging from the shadows of the shipwreck.

As I have previously stated, I will vote against any proposal which imposes a requirement greater than simple majority which does not revert to a simple majority by the time the third round of play starts.

It should also be noted that I consider this poll nothing more than a straw poll, with no formal effect on the game, as turn 311 has not yet started.

This has been ruled on. Even flatluigi has agreed that 310 is over and 311 is current.

If you can get a majority of players to object to moving on to 311, then it will turn out to have been 310 all this time and none of my rulings will have had any effect -- which is to say that flatluigi's trashing of the game will still be the law of the land and we'll have to think up some other way around it. (Oh, and he'll be the judge, which means he can just throw us all out of the game if he likes.) I don't think you're going to have much luck in rounding up 8 people who want that.

Oops, I take back my previous comment, and I have cancelled my previous "NO" vote. I had failed to read rule 203 carefully: "If this rule is not amended by the end of the second complete circuit of turns, it automatically changes to require only a simple majority." In which case even if a proposal with this text were adopted, the requirement would still become that of a simple majority beginning with the third round of play.

MY VOTE

If this poll is merely a straw poll, I vote YES. This would be a good proposal.
If this poll is actually proposed rule-change 311, as specified in the rules, I vote NO in protest at having been disenfranchised on turn 310.

Please note there is game precedent for conditional votes and for votes which are cast by means other than clicking a poll option.

Chuck, did you read flatluigi's crazy shit? What would you have done to shut him down? This was quick and easy and it cost nothing as 310 was doomed to failure anyway. Last night was a crisis for the game, and I think you're being unreasonable.

If you can get a majority of players to object to moving on to 311, then it will turn out to have been 310 all this time

What makes you think this? If your argument is "a majority of players consented to moving on to turn 311 because they didn't object within 3 seconds of the judgments on turn 310 being issued," then I don't see how those players subsequently revoking that consent would change the fact, from your perspective, that turn 311 has started.

Because, as has been the case in nearly every turn transition so far, consent of the players is assumed to exist unless demonstrated otherwise. The rules do not require any sort of poll or vote -- the absence of a majority of players objecting is sufficient to move on. When a majority of players has objected, then we'll have reason to worry about whether it's 310 or not. So far a single player has objected.

I'm well within the lines here, and as I said, even if I wasn't, it's better than the alternative.

Chuck, did you read flatluigi's crazy shit? What would you have done to shut him down?

Yes I did. I probably would have done the same thing that you did, after all players had voted, in accordance with the rules and game custom. Or, if sufficent time for voting had passed (which, I would think, would be more than 13.5 hours), the same thing you did plus a ruling that players who had not voted by that time ceased to be players.

flatluigi's crazy shit is not license to ignore rules you find inconvenient.

Because, as has been the case in nearly every turn transition so far, consent of the players is assumed to exist unless demonstrated otherwise.

You didn't read my question carefully, as this is not an answer to what I was asking.

My question was not "why do you believe that consent to move on to turn 311 existed?"

My question was "why, if consent to move on to turn 311 existed, would you believe that subsequent objections would reverse that and make 'turn out to have been 310 all this time?'"

the same thing you did plus a ruling that players who had not voted by that time ceased to be players.

flatluigi was the only person who could have made this ruling, and he was more likely to declare himself the only player than to play sensibly. I could only have become judge once 311 was over, which means that 310 had to end before all the players had voted -- which it did, when I took my points in accordance with a very literal reading of 203 and a rather loose reading of what participation means in 305. If I had to wait until every player voted, the game would have been even more trashed than it was in the ten or so minutes flatluigi had to fuck around.

Because the presumption of the consent of the players to move on would have turned out to have been incorrect, and thus we would have never moved on to 311 in the first place. The presumption of consent isn't irrevocable; it just allows us to skip the useless straw poll when we have no reason to believe a majority of players object. In this case, only one player has objected thus far, so our presumption is looking good.

So, "presumption of consent" is not equivalent to "consent," because it's possible that a presumption of consent is inaccurate. Except that "presumption of consent" is good enough for rule 212, even though it requires not "presumption of consent," but "consent." Do I have your argument right?

Yeah, in a nutshell. 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.

If it's turn 311, I had/have the consent of a majority of the other players, and vice versa.
If I didn't/don't have the consent of a majority of players, then it was never 311.

I suspect the first is the case right now.

Very well. You have convinced me it is indeed turn 311.

I withdraw my previous conditional vote, as I now see that this is indeed proposal 311, and I will vote by the usual method. (I am voting NO in protest at being disenfranchised in turn 310.)

flatluigi: Can you tell us why you are voting no here?

This government obviously needs more firearms.

I feel that it's a combination of two separate rules: one being what a player is, the other being what's needed for majority.

Or I could mean something else entirely.

There's nothing against multiple concepts being defined by a single rule. Which part do you dislike?

I'm drafting a Shit List of players suspected of voting No to progressive legislation for fun or for points in the first three rounds. This document will survive into the era of majority voting. That is all.

I'm going to vote yes under the belief that: a MeFi member is one who has an account there. There is such a thing as a disabled member. Therefore, 1 is a MeFi member (albeit with fewer options for participating there than most other members).

My decision was made independently and ignorantly of jay's Shit List. Heh.

Can my name be blinking on the shit list?

So far they're all 72 point blinking.

Can mine be in hot pink?

Aaron's side offer specified that no player other than Aaron could have a "specially adorned" name. While the side offer is not part of the rules, I would think that it would at least be morally binding on anyone who voted for it, including jay. So your name could not be on jay's shit list in hot pink unless everyone's was; otherwise it would be "specially adorned."

The Shit List is not maintained on MeFiNo, to protect it from tampering, and is therefor not subject to that restriction.

Well, the exact interpretation of the side offer is up to those who are party to it. You and Aaron and the other people involved can interpret it however you like.

However, if I were Aaron, I would note that nowhere does the side offer's restriction of "no special adornment to any other player's name" specify "within MeFiNo only." And I would further note that the side offer itself is not part of MeFiNo, so saying it applies only to MeFiNo is counterintuitive at best.

The rules do not require any sort of poll or vote

As a judge who holds the deep respect for the office as I know you do, your honour, I am surprised to see such a weak interpretation here. Surely you are aware that your esteemed predecessor ruled that such polls / votes were illegal? And that since that time players have been ignoring that direct order from the court?

#

I am forced to vote "yes" here - that is 2 of 5. I object, though, and would have voted no, for the reason that this rule is actually two distinct rules - omnibus bills like this are not allowed. Otherwise, as independent rules, I fully support them both.

#

And I would further note that the side offer itself is not part of MeFiNo, so saying it applies only to MeFiNo is counterintuitive at best.

This would preclude me from filing Aaron's taxes, since such adornments do not fit the black or blue ink requirements of legal federal documents, if, you know, he asked me to some day. My understanding was that his stars were for this site only, reinforced by the fact he let me off the hook re implementing it in other themes.

Please note the following recent invocation affecting the completion of this turn.

reinforced by the fact he let me off the hook re implementing it in other themes

Huh? Check your mefimail, jay. I feel that implementing it only here in the meta theme is a breach of our agreement. I am continuing to uphold my side of this agreement in the hopes that you will come around to reason. In fact, when I saw my new star today (exactly as it was in my dreams, it is perfect), I assumed that it would also now be displaying across all themes.

#

Check your mefimail, jay.

I apologize for any messages I've missed. Mefi needs IMAP.

I will implement the gold star in the Foliage theme before taking points.

I still affirm that I am not required to put that star on any other site.

And another side offer: once it is implemented it in all themes I promise I will stop blathering on about it.

#

This would preclude me from filing Aaron's taxes, since such adornments do not fit the black or blue ink requirements of legal federal documents, if, you know, he asked me to some day.

So? As far as I know, entering a contract in which you agreed never to file Aaron's taxes, or which had the indirect effect of meaning you would never be able to file Aaron's taxes, is completely legal.

I look forward to being able to see Aaron's star within the foliage theme.

Surely you are aware that your esteemed predecessor ruled that such polls / votes were illegal?

Could you point to that prior judgment? Being a weak-minded gluesniffer, I was unable to find it in a cursory perusal of earlier judgments. I did find a few judgments which stated that such polls / votes were not required, but of course that's not the same thing as such polls / votes being illegal.

Sure, go have your Friday nights, leave me here to stand guard on my precious, precious proposal all alone.

What was that noise.

Since I have all this time, I'll address some important points missed upthread.

So no zombies then?

I'm not convinced zombies are under the control of an external force, so if they can register a Metafilter account I would assume they're eligible to play.

Once a MeFi member, always a MeFi member, right?

That is my stated intent, until a rule overrides it. If that causes 1 to have a change of heart, he will be removed from the Shit List.

I vote NO in protest at having been disenfranchised on turn 310.

Chuck is exempt from the Shit List, plus he's right.

The rules do not require any sort of poll or vote.

If there's one valid, legal, and dependable game custom we have, it's to open a poll to gain explicit consent to move to next turn.

Tallus is the last remaining voter.

I've voted now

1, flatluigi, and Chuck get ten points each for voting "no" on a passing proposal. It looks like jay gets

(311-291) * (11/14) = rounds to 16 points. jay, if you agree to that assessment, we'll say your turn is over.