MeFiNo | The MetaFilter Nomic Game

Amend Rule 212 to read:

313. 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 or until after a period of 24 hours has passed from the time Judgment is delivered if there are no objections during that time.

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

Unless a Judge is overruled, one Judge settles all questions arising from the game until the next turn is begun, including questions as to his or her own legitimacy and jurisdiction as Judge. However, if the current Judge invokes Judgment, the player preceding him or her will become the Judge for that invocation. A Judge may never judge his or her own invocation.

New Judges are not bound by the decisions of old Judges. New Judges may, however, settle only those questions on which the players currently disagree and that affect the completion of the turn in which Judgment was invoked. All decisions by Judges shall be in accordance with all the rules then in effect; but when the rules are silent, inconsistent, or unclear on the point at issue, then the Judge shall consider game-custom and the spirit of the game before applying other standards.

This rule shall take precedence over all mutable rules.

Torn on this.

Why, gerry?

What happens when two conflicting rules say they take precedence?

#

The one with the lower number wins out.

I think the "a vote" language, while clever, could cause us trouble down the line. I'm also still not convinced that the possible conflict between the second paragraph and third paragraphs won't be a problem later. Lastly, though I didn't bring this up earlier, it occurs to me now that the self-invocation rule should really be that a self-invoking judge loses their judgeship entirely; as it's written now, we'll have dueling banjos, which could prove problematic.

If it looks like my no is the deciding vote, I may switch back, but I'd have to think some more. I'm pretty confident this'll pass without me.

So the last sentence won't have any effect unless / until 311 is modified. But at least it may be useful at some future point.

#

gerryblog, you only want to vote "no" if your vote won't count? Strength, good man, and steady on course!

#

gerryblog just won't cheat mosessis of points on a generally good proposal. Baiter baiter pumpkin hater.

AAA, it's not that I only want to vote no if my vote won't count, just that I'm a lot more comfortable voting no that way. I don't think I'll switch back though -- I think this rule doesn't quite get us where we want to be, and potentially makes a few things worse in the meantime.

Can I get a motion to have this placed on Aaron's profile?

Well, it certainly couldn't be placed on anyone else's profile, since only Aaron's name may be specially adorned.

Let's wikify his profile so everyone can embellish him with their adornments of choice. He'd feel really special.

You're seeming particularly frisky today jay.

#

If it looks like my no is the deciding vote, I may switch back, but I'd have to think some more. I'm pretty confident this'll pass without me.

Wouldn't have anything to do with +10 points, would it?

#

Sweet, sweet 10 points.

No, I'm just genuinely on the fence on this one, more and more on the "no" side the more I think about it. I want to see judicial reform, but not this.

That's 4 of 5 now.

#

shelleycat - 314 discussion thread?

It's been more than 48 hours. At this point, 12 players have voted.

9 Yes

Aaron A Aaronson
Chuck
ctmf
flatluigi
jay
jeblis
mosessis
shelleycat
ssg

3 No

backseatpilot
gerryblog
volkspider

2 Abstentions
1
tallus

I'll officially take my points now.

313 - 291 = 22
22 * 9/12 = 16.5
rounded to the nearest integer = 17

It's been more than 48 hours. At this point, 12 players have voted.

9 Yes

Aaron A Aaronson
Chuck
ctmf
flatluigi
jay
jeblis
mosessis
shelleycat
ssg

3 No

backseatpilot
gerryblog
volkspider

2 Abstentions
1
tallus

I'll officially take my points now.

313 - 291 = 22
22 * 9/12 = 16.5
rounded to the nearest integer = 17

Hmm, double posting from the Starbucks. Sorry about that.

Woot!

I WOULD HAVE VOTED NO, BUT I WAS AT A DESTINATION WEDDING.

OUTRAGEOUS.

1 is not being hypocritical, he did vote against the 48 hour abstention policy.