MeFiNo | The MetaFilter Nomic Game

By an overwhelming margin of 11 to 3, 311 passed last night. The passage of 311 grants us several necessary game corrections:

* an insuperable player definition;
* a 2/3 threshold for bill passage;
* a 2/3 threshold for judicial overrides.

Going forward into future turns, the passage of 311 gives us protection against rogue judges and against those who would arbitrarily throw those who disagree with them out of the game, as some of my opponents have astoundingly argued is totally legal. 311 will also make it finally possible for us to enact new legislation, thereby fulfilling the initial promise of a game in which we take turns changing the rules which drew us all to MeFiNo in the first place.

311 is a good bill.

But there are those who feel I should have thrown the players who didn't agree with me out of the game, rather than simply removing their veto -- and there are those who feel like we should just end this game and start over -- yes, start over, now, in our very moment of triumph!

I ask that those who find themselves in this camp please feel free to vote YES to override me and return our game to a state of total judicial anarchy, with confidence that I probably won't take their advice and remove their player status for disagreeing with me.

Yes, you are free to vote against 311, even though 11 of you just voted for it, and even though it is the passage of 311 itself that allows this poll to happen in the first place.

But I ask that those who voted for 311, who recognize how much better it will be for the game that 311 has passed, to please follow my lead and vote NO.

As those who have been reading the consent to move on thread will know, 1 has indicated that he will be willing to vote for a change to 2/3 majority for proposals. Since 1 was the only player who voted against 310, I think we have a very good chance of passing a 2/3 majority rule next turn (if jeblis will propose it). If we overrule this judgement, we can move forward to the next turn and do what we want legally.

We don't need gerryblog's rule-breaking judgement, we don't need his threats (with confidence that I probably won't take their advice and remove their player status for disagreeing with me), and we don't need his lies (no one has, as far as I am aware, proposed removing anyone for disagreeing with them). Finally, we aren't voting here on 311, as gerryblog would have us believe, but on his judgement. Vote for the sanctity of the rules! Vote to overrule!

ssg: 1's promise to vote for 2/3 majority but not for a 2/3 judicial override returns us to precisely the state of total judicial anarchy I mention above. This is not a good situation for the game.

And check the consent thread again: volkspider explicitly says that the problem here is that we're not passing 311 legally, because the "legal" method would be to remove the player status of dissenting players and return them to the game afterwards. I disagree fundamentally with volkspider about the legality of such a move, and you will note I haven't done anything like that. All I did was remove the veto power.

volkspider and those who agree with him are essentially mad at me for using a scalpel for surgery when I might have used a machete.

And this has all been legal, by the way. There is no procedure I have not followed to the letter.

And look: 311 is now in effect, and we're using it to determine whether a judge stepped over the line. The sky has not fallen, the Nomic police have not raided jay's house. 311 is a good bill and it works. Overturning my decisions threatens to negate 311, and that would be much worse for the game than just going forward from here as we are.

Okay, just one more comment:

Since 1 was the only player who voted against 310, I think we have a very good chance of passing a 2/3 majority rule next turn (if jeblis will propose it). If we overrule this judgement, we can move forward to the next turn and do what we want legally.

I knew that the perfect was the enemy of the good, that's been in evidence all weekend here at MeFiNo -- but apparently it turns out that "maybe getting something slightly worse than what we already have right now" is also the enemy of the good. That part surprises me a bit.

As those who have been reading the consent to move on thread will know, 1 has indicated that he will be willing to vote for a change to 2/3 majority for proposals. Since 1 was the only player who voted against 310, I think we have a very good chance of passing a 2/3 majority rule next turn (if jeblis will propose it).

No, sadly we would not pass it, as gerryblog has promised to hold the game hostage for the next thirty-six weeks if we don't accept his judgment.

1's promise to vote for 2/3 majority but not for a 2/3 judicial override returns us to precisely the state of total judicial anarchy I mention above.

Think it through. Once we have a 2/3 majority for proposals, we can much more easily pass whatever checks we want on judicial authority.

Chuck, as I said in the other thread, that promise was made very carefully. Here's the actual, direct quote:

To clarify matters, I personally guarantee here and now I will vote no on every proposal that comes before me until such a time as proposals can be passed by some means other than unanimous consent.

This condition was met within five minutes by the consequences of my own Judgment. It also is currently met, as we have a time now where proposals can be passed by some means other than unanimous consent.

So my promise has been fulfilled, it's no longer in effect, even if we do (foolishly) go back to unanimous-consent crazy-judge super happy fun time.

Though it's true that I'm thinking very seriously of torpedoing 312 just to prove the point that we should have let 311 stand.

Chuck: gerryblog has wavered on that commitment. Let's hope he isn't going to vote no out of spite.

Think it through. Once we have a 2/3 majority for proposals, we can much more easily pass whatever checks we want on judicial authority.

Well, that "think it through" flows both ways -- we just passed a 2/3 check on judicial authority and we have a 2/3 majority for proposals right now. You say "Let's undo it so we can do it again in a manner I prefer!" but I just don't see the point in that.

ssg, get out of my head!

Wait did I miss something? How could 311 pass with an 11-3 vote?

The judge had ruled that, due to a conflict between 114 and 203, until overruled by law or later Judge proposals could pass by a simple majority.

This has now happened, so 311 was legally passed, and we're now going through a second round of challenges because some players are unhappy that a rule they voted for that makes the game better is now in effect.

Ok the judgement seems fair. Why are you asking to override your own vote (or is this just to give everyone a chance to do so)?

Yeah, there's been significant opposition, and I want the will of the people to be respected.

If this passes, doesn't the crowd loses the ability to override the Judge by 2/3rd majority and this becomes self-unratifying?

jay: I think that's a pretty interesting question. But I'm more focused now on the question of whether a legally passed measure like 311 can be undone by judicial overrule. That sort of possibility isn't listed anywhere in the rules, and 116 doesn't allow for it.

I'd be happy to take any sort of "Official Demerit" the crowd wanted to give me as long as 311's passage remained intact.

Just to clarify that: if I'm overruled, then my judgment is overruled. But my judgment has already been overruled by 311. Does overruling my judgment really "undo" everything my judgment made possible, including legal rule passage, or does it simply turn my judgment "off" and record me as a bad judge for posterity?

The rules don't say that a rule can be retracted or annulled in this way.

It's academic; you are not going to be overruled.

#

I'd rather have a little loose judgment than deal with 36 weeks of AAA (or anyone else) holding the game hostage.

I'd rather have a little loose judgment than deal with 36 weeks of AAA (or anyone else) holding the game hostage.

Thank you god. I've been waiting for that concept to finally dawn on someone besides myself, jay and gerryblog.

You put it very succinctly. That's exactly why I'm for it.

With this all but settled there just remains the question of whether or not we have consent to begin jeblis's turn. If tallus comes back and votes "yes," we definitely do without reservation.

If tallus comes back and votes no, or if he/she doesn't come back, then we need to convince one of the following people to consent:

1
backseatpilot
Chuck
shelleycat
ssg
volkspider

Or else I need to take volkspider's advice and temporarily ban (say) 1 and Chuck, with jay to re-add them immediately afterwards, once jeblis begins his turn.

Or maybe there's some other solution I'm missing. I'm not a big fan of the temporary ban thing, but I don't want the game to stall either.

BTW I like that you put up a poll after a judgment. It would be nice for each judgment if we put up a vote immediately. Once the required votes to make the outcome clear, we could move on.

I guess if tallus doesn't come back to vote soon, it's actually easiest -- consent to move on implied in accordance with game custom. It's mostly if tallus comes back and votes no that we need to do some negotiating or (sadly) more strong-arming.

I offered the "Official Demerit" thing above as a kind of compromise -- would any of the Nonconsenting Six be satisfied if I were to take on some sort of side-deal goat-status as a result of my blatant disregard for the law? I'll wear a dunce cap, any size.

Plus: jay, take your points.

Now you have me completely confused, gerryblog. By voting "no", I am saying "no, I do not override gerryblog", right?

That is what my "no" means, and it is in complete accordance with the language of the poll. Am I missing something here?

#

I guess if tallus doesn't come back to vote soon, it's actually easiest -- consent to move on implied in accordance with game custom.

You can't have it both ways, gerryblog, this is the second frigging poll we have had to vote on this round. If consent is implied (and I think it is), enough already with the frigging polls. At least you could let an objector post one, if he sees fit. Sheesh.

#

AAA, yeah, I stupidly copied the "Nos" from the consent poll. I just edited the earlier list so it makes sense in this context.

I provisionally take 16 the aformentioned points, which I plan to revisit at a future date.

There are currently 7 No votes on this, preventing a majority Yes. It is jeblis's turn.

jay: The way we've been playing thus far, the consent poll is a separate matter from the override poll.

212. If players disagree about the legality of a move or the interpretation or application of a rule, then the player preceding the one moving is to be the Judge and decide the question. Disagreement for the purposes of this rule may be created by the insistence of any player. This process is called invoking Judgment.

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.

The Judge's Judgment may be overruled only by a unanimous vote of the other players taken before the next turn is begun. [See 311.] If a Judge's Judgment is overruled, then the player preceding the Judge in the playing order becomes the new Judge for the question, and so on, except that no player is to be Judge during his or her own turn or during the turn of a team-mate.

It so happens that I think this interpretation is wrong -- I think the majority poll is to block the question from even being heard by the judge, while the unanimous-now-2/3 poll is to overrule the judge. If I'm right, it really is jeblis's turn.

Maybe jeblis should just start and see if a majority of players object to it.

ps: jeblis: I think your proposal should absolutely block the ability to judges to rule on their own questions.

jeblis: I think your proposal should make gerryblog the permanent judge.

#

I'm thinking of proposing a change to the definition of what a "gold star" is.

Unless you intend to make a SHINING STAR OF GOLD even more awesome than it already is, you will find my people ready to crush any such idea quick and fast.

#

After much consideration, I have decided to vote against overruling gerryblog.

First, let me note that this vote is largely symbolic, as there are already enough votes against overruling the ruling to ensure that it will not be overruled. Also, under some theories of MeFiNo jurisprudence, judgments delivered on turn 311 cease to have applicability anyway once turn 312 begins (and if such a theory is correct, I am now free to edit the player list to remove any special mention of any prius inter toyota status, but that's neither here nor there). However, were the outcome of this vote still in doubt, I would vote the same way.

A vote in favor of overruling a judge only sends the invocation to the previous player on the list. And although it may implicitly be taken as a rejection of the judgment which was delivered, an overrule only sends the message that the judgment given was wrong--it cannot say what judgment is right, nor is there any guarantee that the next judge would not deliver an even worse judgment.

The correct way to proceed, in my opinion, would be to continue to attempt to work out rule changes which could be adopted by unanimous vote, without coming up with weak, vaguely rule-inspired excuses to expel existing players. Although this has proven difficult, it is not impossible (indeed, we have already passed one rule change unanimously), and I believe Judge gerryblog overstates the unlikelihood of that happening again when he declares it impossible from a practical standpoint.

However, I cannot guarantee that overruling gerryblog would result in my preferred interpretation being adopted. Indeed, some have suggested that the proper way to proceed is to require unanimous adoption of rule changes, but with a manufactured excuse to expel difficult players. As I have been mentioned by name as one of those players who ought to be expelled, I cannot risk having this interpretation adopted, so I must reluctantly accept the judge's ruling here.

It has crossed my mind that ssg may secretly want to see the judge's ruling implemented, and is using reverse psychology to get me to support it. If this is the case, he has succeeded admirably.

I'd rather have a little loose judgment than deal with 36 weeks of AAA (or anyone else) holding the game hostage.

I'd much rather have the game held hostage for 36 weeks than having a little loose judgement. As I demonstrated during my turn, I can be quite patient. It is the threat of an even looser judgment, not the threat of the game being stalled for 36 weeks, that convinced me to support this poor judgment.

Chuck is so fussy. Today I'm on gerry's side.

gerryblog willfully misread the letter and spirit of 114 and, subsequently, violated 203 and 101. His breach will stand if enough people buy into his nonsense arguments agree to ignore the rules.

Chuck is so fussy. Today I'm on gerry's side.

Then change your No to a Yes on the Consent To Move On poll and this turn is over.

The fact that I sometimes disagree with gerryblog, and sometimes agree with him, and sometimes support his actions as a tactical move even though I disagree with him, makes me fussy?

I guess 1 would only be satisfied if I either agreed with gerryblog 100% of the time, or disagreed with gerryblog 100% of the time. I guess I'll have to somehow manage to proceed with the terrible knowledge that 1 thinks me fussy.

I don't think you're fussy, Chuck, I think you are rad and bitchin'.

#

Thanks, Aaron. That means a lot to me, coming from the only player with a SHINY GOLD STAR.

This theme would be rad and bitchin' with a repeating shiny gold star background.