MeFiNo | The MetaFilter Nomic Game

In light of the potentially controversial nature of the previous decision, I am ordering that the consent of the majority of players to move on to 312 be made explicit pending the close of voting on 311. (We are still waiting on two players.)

This is not a vote to remove those players from the rolls. They will have until Monday night to vote if it takes them that long, and current players will likewise have the right to change their vote on 311 until that time.

What about majority consent to skip the next three rounds of play and it's jeblis' turn?

The next three circuits, you mean, so we hit simple majority? That sounds like a good gambit for judge jay.

Yes, roughly pretend everyone submitted failing proposals three more times. I'm going to be judge next anyway.

Those statements are unrelated, I'm not going to unilaterally rule this myself next turn.

I object to these ongoing illegal consent polls, and am shocked that gerryblog would see fit to disregard the wise ruling of his predecessor on this matter. Shame on you gerryblog - I am on board for your judicial force-feeding, and yet here you are all coy about the rule of law? Bad, bad.

#

I'm ordering it as an emergency exception, AAA -- in light of the current crisis in the game it seemed necessary. If anything this is the exception that proves your rule -- we only need these explicit consent polls in extreme circumstances, not as a matter of course, as the transition from 310 to 311 proved.

I urge every player who is here to play a game, rather than take turns as judge over a bunch of chatter and meaningless polls, to withhold their consent.

That takes us into pretty sticky territory, ssg. What happens if I can't be overruled but we can't get a majority of players to consent to move on? Does jay win in accordance with 213? Do we wait until someone blinks?

And I would again add that my judgment, or something like it, is the only thing that will make the game actually possible. Once 311 passes, we have 2/3 majority requirement for both rule-passage and judge overrides, rendering 99% of the bullshit that's been slowing us down impossible for the future.

ssg: this is a part of the game. Judging is a part of the rules - and as we have seen, a crucial part of the rules for the viability of this game. What's your beef? gerryblog's magnificent judging has brought us to the point where the game of rule changing is actually playable.

#

If a majority of players withhold their consent, gerryblog, you will be in the position to either change your illegal judgement or stall the game. I hope you will choose well in that position.

gerryblog's magnificent judging has brought us to the point where the game of rule changing is actually playable.

Not at all. gerryblog's judgement has the result of making the rules, and thus the changing of rules, completely meaningless.

Since this fight is happening in two places at once, I'll repeat what I said over there here:

ssg, I'd be the last dictator, because next turn we'd have everything we've been trying to get for weeks now, including sensible rule passage and sensible judicial override. The principle you're defending is self-defeating -- the rules are exactly what allow me and every other rotating dictator to do this, and it's exactly what I'm trying to end with this unusual ruling.

If we end up being forced to end the game, how will we determine victory, ssg? Oh, by the way, how do you like my SHINING STAR OF GOLD? I'm quite partial to it, myself. Not that I want to rub it in or anything.

#

If we end up being forced to end the game, how will we determine victory, ssg?

There is nothing in the rules that requires the game to end with a victor.

Those who wish to overrule gerryblog's judgement should withhold their consent. If 311 passes, but consent to move on has not been given, then the judgement can be overruled by 2/3 of the players, assuming we are willing to give gerryblog's judgement far more respect than it deserves.

Wouldn't that overrule thereby nullify the passage of 311? That sounds like a rules paradox to me. And guess who gets to decide, if I'm overruled? That's right, the guy who deliberately tried to trash the game just last night.

And guess who gets to decide, if I'm overruled? That's right, the guy who deliberately tried to trash the game just last night.

Lay off the scare tactics. We ignored him yesterday and we can do so again.

On what grounds will you ignore him? Find me the passage in the rules that says you can just ignore a judge when you don't like his ruling. I'll expect it to be pretty explicit, given the shit you've given me.

Also, we didn't ignore him yesterday; I ended my turn and became the judge, thereby restoring reasonable judging to the game.

"Ignoring him" would have been a far worse crisis for the game than this has been, believe it or not -- a judge has total autonomy provided they can spin a halfway decent story and can get one person to go along with them.

a judge has total autonomy provided they can spin a halfway decent story and can get one person to go along with them.

All decisions by Judges shall be in accordance with all the rules then in effect

Right, that's the "spin a halfway decent story" part of it. flatluigi's only mistake was in being too honest about what he was trying to do. If he'd taken the time to read through the rules and use the weaknesses to his benefit he could have trashed the game in a much more thorough-going way.

The rules have a lot of gaps in them. You may not like the judgment I issued, and maybe you're right and maybe I am -- but it's not the only thing I thought of doing, and there are plenty of ways for a judge who can invoke their own questions and can never be overturned to ruin things all within the "rules."

Legality argument heard and disposed of completely according to the mechanism provided by the game.

If you don't feel that mechanism has served you well, why are you trying so hard to fight changing it? You're demonstrating perfectly the need for what you're fighting.

Update: There are 13 players eligible to vote on this (jeblis is excluded by the language of 212: 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.)

Consent still needs to be given or withheld by:

jay
flatluigi
shelleycat
tallus
volkspider

If two or more consent to move on, the question is passed.

gerryblog, since 212 is about the judge, the majority of other players refers to all the players except the judge. We currently have four votes for moving on and four votes opposed.

No, gerryblog is correct on this point. "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." "Other players" here clearly means "players other than the next player," not "players other than the Judge."

backseatpilot, volkspider: can we talk about why you're voting "no"? I'd like to have a chance to convince you that this irregularity is best for the game in the long-run. Hell, in the short-run.

If you don't like activist judges who disrespect the rules, you should be first in line to accept my ruling and let 311 pass.

flatluigi, you are wise...

Beautiful series of work, gerryblog. Can you be as effective in curtailing judicial power later?

In fact, if 311 passes, I want you to switch sides while I'm judge and curtail my powers so I can codify that into the shadow ruleset, passing along my restrictions onto future judges. Our judgment to proposal ratio needs flipping.

Playerhood, majorities and these "move on" polls should be enough for us to put judgments back behind the "break in case of emergency" glass.

I think I made a pretty clear argument in the judgment thread. The issue is that your ruling pretty clearing violates the existing rule set; that is, part of 212 states that the judge cannot simply overturn or amend existing rules as he wishes. Using a judgment to amend the unanimity rule seems to violate 212. We are still capable of playing the game according to the rule set - the rules aren't the problem at this point, it's the players.

Gerry, just to clarify, did you actually not know what the word "impermissible" meant, or were you just pretending to think it meant something else so that you could rule as you did?

backseatpilot, 1, these are weighty legal issues and it's no surprise to find reasonable people of good will coming down on either side. I feel gratified that my ruling, while admittedly controversial, has now been ratified by both procedures allowed under the rules of Nomic and shall therefore stand. I very much look forward to future debates with my esteemed colleagues, and I'm sure I speak for others than just myself when I say that it is impermissible to imagine a better set of Nomic players than the ones we have here at MeFiNo.

jay, as for future turns, absolutely. the judge frenzy has been certainly fun but we've seen that it leads us to a series of petty dictators legislating from the bench. 311's passage is a good first start, but jeblis's 312 really needs to be all about preventing judges from deciding their own invocations.

gerryblog, based on your interaction with flatluigi, I'm concerned you'd take my consent to move on as a vote to legitimize your judgment that was in violation of the rules. I said this during AAA's tenure as judge: A judge's rulings can't break the rules. I do not recognize illegal rulings.

I've said this before as well: If a judge can break the rules then there is literally no bounds to their power. If we accept that you have the power to alter the effect of 203, then we would also have to accept that you could alter 212. And that would let you remove the one flimsy check we have on judicial power.

What use is a lower overruling threshhold if the judge can remove the overruling option?

Given what I am hearing in this thread from gerryblog and jay, I have changed my consent. I hope the last couple to vote will also withhold.

What I strongly object to here is the double standard. Of course what I did as judge, or what flatluigi did, is wrong and bad. We should just ignore those obviously illegal rulings. But this new shadow ruleset, and these highly dubious rulings from gerryblog and apparently on the horizon from jay, are cool because the intentions are right and it will get us to where we need to be.

No. i want to hear what judge flatluigi thinks of gerryblog's decisions.

#

Changed mine as well. Gerry's basically admitted to violating its role as judge and is clearly not playing by the rules. At least AAA's ridiculousness was, imo, basically within the rules.

Also it was a lot more entertaining.

If we accept that you have the power to alter the effect of 203, then we would also have to accept that you could alter 212.

No, that's his point. That he in fact, could alter 212, and there isn't a damn thing you could do about it. You have a slightly higher than zero chance of overruling any illegal judgment, zero if he can convince just one person to go along.

Power like that is tempting. One might abuse it to rule that the game is over, and everyone wins. Or one might abuse it to give himself exactly 200 points.

He's chosen to abuse his power for good. To prevent future abuses. To eliminate the problem. Not for his own gain, but for the benefit of all MeFiNo and mankind in general.

Now you might be thinking to yourself, "Yeah, that sounds right. I want to give gerryblog a medal. I have to overrule the illegal decision, though, otherwise I'm condoning that behavior." Not true. There is no obligation on any future judge to consider precedent. There is also no obligation on your part to allow rulebreaking in the future, just because you allowed this to happen. It's an extreme situation facing our game, and extreme situations require extreme action.

Judge gerryblog will deliver us into the beautiful future, where rogue judges get the punishment they rightly deserve. The nomic we all imagine in our wildest dreams, where rules get debated intelligently and wisdom prevails. Everyone gets ice cream.

Don't stand in the way out of misplaced principle. Don't block the one step back that allows the ten steps ahead. Vote for good. Vote for happy. Vote for Ice Cream. Vote for gerryblog.

ctmf: No, that's his point. That he in fact, could alter 212, and there isn't a damn thing you could do about it.

But then why does he need my consent for anything? Why are we even having this conversation?

Judge gerryblog will deliver us into the beautiful future, where rogue judges get the punishment they rightly deserve.

In my beautiful future the players respect and obey the authority of the wise and powerful judiciary. Which is why I am so conflicted here. I'd be behind gerryblog if he didn't make is so blatantly clear that his way out of bounds rulings are designed to castrate the office in the future.

#

volkspider, others: We are only having this conversation because I've gone out of my way to do what I'm doing in a fair and aboveboard way. I haven't tried to hijack the game for my own benefit or my own amusement, I've tried to take the bull by the horns to fix what has been a serious problem in our game: the unanimity requirement for rule passage and judicial override.

Which is to say that we're having this conversation precisely because I've tried to avoid the sort of bad, unfair judging we've seen in the past, not because I exemplify it.

Please read ctmf's comments above and think it over. The bad consequences you fear, the bad precedent you think is supposedly being set, is exactly what the passage of 311 is designed to prevent. Once we have 2/3 voting and 2/3 overruling, judges won't be able to run roughshod over the rules *the way they can right now, when there's nothing we can do about it.* If you think this ruling is bad, you should vote to accept it and vote to move on, because if you accept it now this is the last time it can happen.

If you allow 311 to fail:
a) how will we deal with sockpuppets?
b) how will we pass non-unanimous voting?
c) how will we pass non-unanimous judicial overrides?

Haven't the last few turns proven that there are enough people determined to scuttle these improvements? As it stands right now, we only need *one* each turn to make the passage of anything impossible.

311 is set to pass right now by a vote of 9 to 3. Is our Nomic better without 311? Think it over.

If you think this ruling is bad, you should vote to accept it and vote to move on, because if you accept it now this is the last time it can happen.

See gerryblog, that's the problem. In principle I am all for gutsy, pushy judging. But you are only pretending - you are actually a fifth columnist with a (not so) hidden democratic anti-judge agenda that goes against everything I feel is right.

Which is why you didn't address that last comment to me - I am sure you can see that arguments like the one above only strengthen my resolve to take a stand against you.

[sarcasm] Thanks so much for making me jump in bed with ssg and volkspider.[/sarcasm]

#

I understand the struggle in your soul, AAA, and I respect it. But it should clarify matters for ssg and volkspider to find themselves in bed with you.

Just what are you trying to accomplish here, people? Whose turn do you want it to be?

If gerryblog isn't judge yet, 310's not over yet, and I likely win the game as we go through another thousand judgment invocations under flatluigi's rule until everyone's bored.

If gerryblog is judge, there is a current process to overrule his decisions. It failed.

Let me remind everyone, gerryblog's proclamations don't mean squat to the next judge, if the next judge doesn't feel those decisions were true to game custom.

As things stand now, 311 is passing per majority vote per gerryblog's unreversed judgments. I will collect my points, and we won't move on, and jeblis wins, as the next player unable to move.

Molotov and Ribbentrop were able to see that they had common interests, too.

#

Let me remind everyone, gerryblog's proclamations don't mean squat to the next judge, if the next judge doesn't feel those decisions were true to game custom.

Except, of course, that YOU are the next judge and your end-run strategizing with gerryblog is out in the open for anyone who knows how to use the scroll wheel, jay.

#

I'm asking people to think about results.

A) Let the ruling stand, let 311 pass (as an overwhelming majority of us support), and we go forward into future turns with a judiciary that can be controlled and a democratic process that is actually functional.

B) Overturn the ruling, let 311 die, and we go into future turns with a judiciary that can still not be controlled, a democratic process that is still not functional, and the constant threat of a return to sockpuppet mania hanging over our heads.

That's the situation in its entirety. There's no such thing as precedent in our Nomic (yet), so this decision stands for nothing and counts for nothing other than a stopgap emergency measure to allow 311 to be passed.

Well, jay's right that we're sinking into a pretty strange morass if I can't be overruled but players won't consent to move on. Given that my judgment explicitly vacates itself when 311 passes, I'm not even sure what it would mean to overturn it -- would 311 be overturned as well, or would it stand as passed and I'd just have a demerit in the history books? Is this a question you really want flatluigi answering, given that his answer to the last question he was asked was to award everyone 1337 points and shout GAME OVER?

I enjoy this game and I'd like to see it move onto a stage where additional rule changes can actually be passed. That happens if 311 passes; I'm not sure how it happens otherwise.

Re-reading 212, it seems that if consent is not granted we will indeed be at an impasse and jay will win. Only a unanimous overturning of the decision allows us to fall back to Judge flatluigi, and that hasn't happened. We will be locked and unable to move on.

#

AAA: I think we've read 212 wrong this whole time. The process goes like this:

Player invokes judgment
A majority of players can vote to have the judgment ignored and just move on.

Once the question has actually been judged, though, then it takes an unanimous vote to overturn.

I think that's what was actually intended in the original rules; I don't think a judgment is supposed to still be said to be 'invoked" once it's been ruled on.
--
I'm not going to rule on this, though, because I think our game custom has been pretty clear on this matter and I don't want to overturn the applecart anymore than I already have.

If 311 passes, then it takes a 2/3 majority to overrule me. I don't think we'll have that.

Chuck won't be a player anymore because he won't reveal his MeFi usename.
Everyone else has a MeFi username, so that's 13 players.
The threshold for overruling becomes 13 * 2/3 rounded up = 9.
I can't vote.

Maybe 9 players would vote to overturn the law that they just passed by at least 9 to 3, but I don't see why they would do that. If they won't overturn, but we can't move on, then yeah, I think jay wins.

Well, actually, I think jay's right and it'd be jeblis who wins. jay would have completed his turn when he took his points -- the question at that point would be whether jeblis is allowed to begin his turn.

I think non-consent to move on means non-consent to the judicial fiat, which means I can't take points till all players have voted, and if one doesn't then I win by paradox again. Getting a consensus on exactly which of the gerryblog proclamations are acceptable to the community and which aren't is, let's say, permissible but impossible.

So like, vote Yes please.

gerryblog: The bad consequences you fear, the bad precedent you think is supposedly being set, is exactly what the passage of 311 is designed to prevent. Once we have 2/3 voting and 2/3 overruling, judges won't be able to run roughshod over the rules

If we accept that judges can break the rules then we must accept that they can forbid overruling. (That procedure is only possible because of a rule.) And 311 does nothing to fix that problem.

I'm in favor of the things you're trying to do. But breaking the rules to do them is contrary to the very fabric of this game. Nomic is fundamentally about rules. If they're not sacred, what matters?

If we could somehow guarantee that these violations were a one-time thing I might be able to accept them. But I'm not sure that's possible.

How could a judge forbid overruling? Overruling is regulated by the rules. A judge that attempted to forego overruling would surely be overruled by the community, if not ignored outright, and the question at issue would revert to the previous player to decide.

Now, what I've done regarding the definition of impermissible is not breaking the rules; rather I maintain it is a controversial interpretation of the rules, subject to override by the will of the people as all judgments are.

However, it's not about agreeing with me on that. Look at what you wrote:

If we accept that judges can break the rules then we must accept that they can forbid overruling. You're acting as if you or we or judges or anyone is bound by precedent. We aren't. We can be happily inconsistent in accordance with what's best for the game at any given moment. There's absolutely nothing at all prohibiting you from accepting my judgment, illegal though you think it may be, and then turning around and voting to overrule the next time something like this happens.

Precedent doesn't exist. We take each question as it comes, tabula rasa. So the idea that accepting this judgment constitutes an "acceptance" of a certain philosophy of judicial activism is wrong; accepting this judgment means accepting this judgment, and that's all.

I'm starting to see the sense in your arguments, gerrblog. Did you see the open invocation that requires your ruling?

#

A judge that attempted to forego overruling would surely be overruled by the community, if not ignored outright, and the question at issue would revert to the previous player to decide.

Well that's the crux of this whole issue, isn't it? If you have no regard for the rules then our game becomes about what the community chooses to acknowledge. And right now the consent poll (6 noes, 5 yeses) seems to indicate that people don't want to recognize illegal actions.

Now, what I've done regarding the definition of impermissible is not breaking the rules; rather I maintain it is a controversial interpretation of the rules, subject to override by the will of the people as all judgments are.

ssg already laid out a sensible refutation for that ruling and I agree with it.

You're acting as if you or we or judges or anyone is bound by precedent. We aren't. We can be happily inconsistent in accordance with what's best for the game at any given moment.

That's true for Nomic, yes. But you're asking us to recognize something illegal. You're pushing us into an area outside the rules where the rules don't matter. And precedent matters there. If we break the rules once, why not again? "Heck, we did it before," someone will say.

I think, maybe, that breaking the rules in Nomic sets up a paradox you can't recover from.

Again, this doesn't have to be an argument about whether the rules were bent or broken, or whether or not we'll have the collective will to stand up to some hypothetical rulebreaker at some hypothetical point in the future.

It's entirely and only a question about whether the consequences of allowing 311 to pass, right now, are better than the alternative. The vote on 311 is 9 to 3 with 2 votes outstanding; you voted for it, as did ssg and backseatpilot. It's a good rule, it makes the game better. We should have a game where good rules that are supported by overwhelming majorities can be passed.

blink If this passes I'll be judge and we'll be able to officially tell gerryblog how full of shit he is.

These poll results are like watching last month's Clinton/Obama spread.

How about we just pass 311 legally? You could, for example, kick out the people voting no and have next turn's judge re-add them. My only reason for opposing the current course is that it breaks the rules.

And kicking people out of the game for no other reason than you don't like the way they vote is halal, volkspider? Come off it.

#

MeFiNo: As least illegally as possible.

How about we just pass 311 legally? You could, for example, kick out the people voting no and have next turn's judge re-add them. My only reason for opposing the current course is that it breaks the rules.

What legal grounds would I have within the rules to kick people out of the game just for voting no on a proposal? That strikes me as far more extralegal than anything I've done, which was (if you'll read my decision again) to simply rule that two full circuits is too long to wait to switch to majority vote in a by-computer or by-mail game, and that on a practical level a 9-month delay makes rule changes impermissible in every sense that matters insofar as the game won't be here in 9 months if we don't fix this situation soon. There's an actual interpretive, legal argument there, even if you or some other players don't agree with it, and it's one that has been tested by our overrule process and found worthy.

Arbitrarily throwing people off the voting rolls just because I don't like the way they vote? Such an action would violate the letter of I don't know how many rules, as well as the whole spirit of the game itself. No, I really don't like that plan.

But it sounds as though we both agree that 311 needs to be passed, even if we need to get imaginative and push on the limits of the law to do it -- and so I hope you'll come to the conclusion by Monday night that my way of "pushing" is at least as good as any other.

I think non-consent to move on means non-consent to the judicial fiat, which means I can't take points till all players have voted, and if one doesn't then I win by paradox again.

I disagree with this interpretation. I see nothing in the rules that indicates that the judge's ruling doesn't come into force immediately. Our consent is merely move on to the next turn after the judge's ruling.

Also, gerryblog is free to back down and make another judgement reversing his previous judgement, changing back everything that has changed, if we don't consent to move on. Surely, he who protests so much of the pureness of his motives and his love of this game would be willing to back down to save it.

Tough to say. Maybe I'm jay's sock and I've been playing the long con all this time.

Are you the tan and burgundy Argyle? I wondered where you went. Blasted smartclothes.

I've been without internet all weekend. I don't have time to read everything but it looks like gerryblog is trying to subvert the vote. Right now we need a unanimous vote for something to pass. There were legitimate votes against changing to a majority. Therefore the judge has to no right to go against that.

So I don't give my consent or agreement for anything and am in favour of having all judgements for turn 311 overturned.

shelleycat, you've been one of the strongest voices advocating for strong player definitions that cannot be overturned by judicial fiat. 311 gives us that. I hope you reconsider.

tallus, the world waits for you. Is a game with 311 better than a game without it? Should we knowingly hurl ourselves back into a world without any checks on judicial authority, a world where we have not passed a proposal for 5 weeks and will not pass another for 36? Or should we accept that the law is flexible and can be stretched for the good of the community as a whole, indeed that it must be stretched if we hope to keep this game running for more than a few more turns?

will not pass another for 36?

You know this, because you have promised to vote no on every future proposal until then.

ssg: dude, ignore the legal fiction for a moment and look at the group we have. shelleycat won't vote for a time limit for voting less than 48 hours. AAA won't vote for a time limit as long as that. 1 randomly shows up to torpedo rules *he advocated.* Chuck voted against 311 out of spite, as did flatluigi.

Face it, we're stuck. We are not going to get rid of unanimity without bending a rule somewhere. volkspider wants me to throw people off the voting rolls if they vote against unanimity. Would you prefer I had done that? Would that pass the purity test?

If this game doesn't implode become some judge decides to trash the game, it'll stagnate and die. Why shouldn't we take the 2/3-majority-rules voting that all the serious players want and get on with it?

Have you not been paying attention, gerryblog? You seem pretty certain about how everything will work out, but you don't seem to have been paying attention to what has happened.

AAA won't vote for a time limit as long as that.
AAA has promised to vote yes on the next 4 proposals or until unanimity is gone.

Chuck voted against 311 out of spite
Chuck voted against a proposal that would deprive him of his player status.

dude, ignore the legal fiction for a moment and look at the group we have.

I'd be happy to do so in the proper way, which would be a new game with different starting rules. The legal fiction is the game, so why should I ignore it?

ssg, how in the hell would we ever agree on new starting rules? You have never addressed this. We currently have a framework for decision making and we can't get anywhere. Why should any of us believe that we will work more effectively as a group without any framework at all? How is this grand Constitutional Convention going to function, under what parameters, and under what initial rules?

Meanwhile, in the real game, AAA promised to vote yes on certain proposals, not all, and Chuck specifically said that the only reason he voted no on 311 was out of spite for not having the chance to vote on 310.

1 has scuttled the last two proposals for reasons that literally make no sense, seemingly for his own amusement. Tell me, please, how unanimity gets passed if this continues, and what you think we should do about it in the meantime. Just keep beating our heads against the wall?

And if your answer is to do it "legally," as volkspider said, by throwing out players who vote no, I say again: not only is this not in the rules, but what I've done is a cleaner version of that same move. volkspider wants us to negate the veto of dissenting players by declaring them non-players; I've negated their veto by removing the unanimity requirement. It's at best the cleaner move and at worse exactly the same move.

What is your solution to a situation where players who don't take the game seriously can hold us hostage as long as they want?

(PS: you were right about the terms of AAA's side deal; my bad. What do you do about 1, or Abron, or whoever next decides they want to have the spotlight? What is your solution to a situation where players who don't take the game seriously can hold us hostage as long as they want?)

This frank question from the current Judge bears repeating.

What is your solution to a situation

  where players

    who don't take the game seriously

  can hold us hostage

    as long as they want?

And before you say the words "fork" or "mulligan", we did that already, and thanks, it's going great, the chess board got a Tank today. Come join, we're ganging up on gerryblog.

First of all, I don't think that everything is as doom and gloom as gerryblog would have it. We very nearly passed 310, with 1 being the only vote against (Chuck's vote against came after the close of voting, which was a mess). There are probably many better ways forward than just deciding to break the rules. One idea, that I hope that a future judge will follow is that we need a very strict definition of who can be a player while we require unanimity. You'll note that what qualifies a person to be a player is not defined by the rules and is thus clearly an issue that can be decided by the judge. Since a) any player can veto every proposal and b) we have reasonable doubts that all the current players correspond to real people, and c) this game is MetaFilter Nomic, I would argue that we should limit those we are players to MetaFilter members until we have removed the unanimity requirement and we do not require such a high degree of certainty about players. Given that we have already had judgements limiting the list of players and removing those we were unsure about (for instance, SubWolf), I think this would be entirely reasonable. This will remove from the game (temporarily) 1, Chuck, and AAA, which will most likely allow us to achieve unanimity, unless gerryblog intends to keep his promise to vote no on future proposals.

I also think a new game with slightly changed rules would be easy enough to start. We don't need unanimity to start a new game. We simply need a reasonable number of players who are willing to play by a mutually agreeable set of rules. If one person doesn't want to play by those rules, they certainly don't have to, though I hope that we can retain as many players as possible. I'm not in favour of a big change to the initial rules. In fact, I'd suggest that the only two changes needed would be a 2/3 requirement to overrule the judge and a 2/3 requirement to pass proposals (or even higher thresholds). However, I'd be happy to play a number starting with a pretty wide range of different rulesets and I think most other players would be too.

I voted no because it also affected judicial rulings, which I never advocated. I'm fine with a 2/3 majority rule thing, and even a simple majority rule thing. or even a 2/5 minority rule thing. just stop trying to curtail our judges' freedoms. and stop lying about my record!

ssg, you say it's not doom and gloom yet call mulligan. This game can be fixed in-place.

Image courtesy whitehouse.gov

No, I'm not calling mulligan. As I've said many times before, if we believe that we cannot fix the game within the rules of the game, then I'd rather we start a new game rather than break the rules. I don't think we should give up on this game yet, but I don't think it would be the end of the world if we eventually decided to.

Are you suggesting that 1 is GWB?

I just noticed that 1 has indicated the he will vote for a 2/3 majority proposal as long as it doesn't include a change to judicial overrides. I think we have a pretty good chance of passing a simple 2/3 majority proposal next turn, if jeblis is willing to propose it. Why don't we forget this and move on?

I think we have a pretty good chance of passing a simple 2/3 majority proposal next turn.

I want my bill passed. I threaten veto on such a thing.

I'm only saying it first.

This may be out of my system now.

gerryblog: volkspider wants us to negate the veto of dissenting players by declaring them non-players

That's incorrect. I simply gave an example of a legal way you could accomplish what you're trying to do. I don't endorse it (I wouldn't do it myself if I were a judge), but I wouldn't fight it in this instance.

I think the compromise ssg suggested is a good idea.

I've voted on 311 now so this maybe moot. (I've been on vacation and fairly incomunicado, I'm back now, but have a lot of work to catch up on, contact detail are on the relevant page if votes come up.)

gerryblog, I voted against one proposal out of spite.

You have promised to vote against proposals for the next thirty-six weeks out of spite.

I tend to choose my words very carefully, and you'll note that in my initial invocation I promised to vote against every proposal for the next 36 weeks "until such a time as proposals can be passed by a method other than simple majority" -- a condition that was met within five minutes by the consequences of my own Judgment.

I can't wait for the next judge to rule that you're not a player.

That would prove my point too, just in a different way. The idea that de-playerizing people is legitimate, but de-unanimousing the game is not, is just crazy.

1, I see you've voted to overrule me. Is that because you believe that 311 can't be overturned, even if I'm overruled, and that therefore you'll get to keep your delicious, delicious points? Or did you not see yet that you got ten delicious, delicious points?

...don't take the game seriously...

For fuck sakes, jay, it is a GAME. If you are taking it seriously, something is wrong. I think that my style of play has worked out really well so far*, and I think the majority of us here are having a great time overthinking and arguing over this completely non-functional ruleset.

*It might have slipped your attention, but did you notice that... no, I won't go there, after all I am sure that you of all people, the actual artisan who lovingly crafted it, has spent plenty of time noticing and reflecting on my SHINING STAR OF GOLD.

#

You call what I'm doing in this thread serious?

And I stole your star from an icon gallery.

Clearly, the masterful artisan foresaw that a gold star would one day be needed to adorn the name of the benevolent and wise Aaron A Aaronson, to remind otherwise forgetful gluesniffers of Aaron's rightful place as prius inter toyota within MeFiNo. One cannot fault the nameless craftsman if he found it necessary to release the radiant figure to other uses in advance of its true, destined usage, to pay the bills. In any case, such prior usage does not diminish its glory here, as other usages are just shadows of shadows of its adornment of Aaron's name here.