MeFiNo | The MetaFilter Nomic Game

Issues with this rule as I see it:
Conditions from 311: do we need to have new players prove they meet these conditions? If so, how?

Turn order: should new players go at the end of the turn list (as written) or slot in alphabetically? I like the idea of putting them at the end so that they have to play at least a little before proposing a rule. Does my wording make it clear what I intend here?

When to start playing: I've said that a new player can join in on the current turn and start voting immediately after they put their name on the list. I think the 48 hour from start of voting time limit (rule 312) means having new players join won't affect the end of the current turn - any new players that don't vote in time just abstain for their first turn. I could change it though so that someone new only becomes an eligible player at the start of the next turn.

Four abstentions: this was aimed at having an easy way to remove players who have not been voting recently I call it the "make up your mind" clause as I specifically put in that even an active abstention counts. I figure if you've gone four turns without an opinion then you're not really playing.

Rejoining players: we could remove all their previous points but I figured this could be used as a loop hole to remove negative points so figured that a person's history should stick with them if they want to keep using the same username.

Am definitely looking for input into this rule but am also happy to put it up as is if there isn't any.

And can someone redirect the link in the sidebar to go here? I realised today that yesterday's thread title was a bit misleading and I'd really like to have some focussed discussion around this proposal. Cheers.

Heh, thanks for the sidebar change!

No problemo. This is an awesome conversation starter.

I wonder if I shouldn't change that sidebar block to instead include a normal page than any joe (or shelleycat) can edit.

So quitting and rejoining can get you an extra turn, if you are somewhere near the end of the player list. I don't see why they can't join in alphabetical order - sure people might game it, but so what? Letting new players get a turn quick might help keep them motivated and interested.

Also, the language for the two types of joining is nearly identical, must be some way to combine those lists into one.

But overall it is just fine, and I'll be voting yes. I am REALLY GLAD you didn't create some difficult approval / vetting process for new people, shelleycat, as I think that would also be gamed and would be one more barrier to entry.

#

Good points. Unidling players should get put back in order. Alphabetical order was a meta-rule, I don't see any problem with using that instead of at-the-end -- except for users that would sign up to Metafilter with a specific username for specific player list placement.

Speaking of which, wouldn't Aaron be in the M's for Meatbomb? Is there any other shuffling necessary to make us Mefi-alphabetical?

And I just realized, shelleycat, there is an earlier rule that defines turn order (alphabetical), so this aspect of your rule would be superseded anyways.

#

Show me the rule that says we use our handles. I am actually the only one following the rules as written, using my (ahem) name.

#

So quitting and rejoining can get you an extra turn, if you are somewhere near the end of the player list.

Totally did not think of that. Very good point.

So there are two options: new players at the end and rejoining wherever they were before or everyone slotting alphabetically. The second one is probably easier. If I did go for at the end as I am now would I need to put in explicit wording to make it superceed the previous rule? Keeping it alphabetical would avoid this problem of course. (FWIW this is the one part I'm really ambivalent about, I don't care where they go in the list as long as the rule makes it clear where to go).

I agree that the two sets of things to do (joining and rejoining) could be combined, I was just trying to be really clear. It's also an artifact of my thinking process, the rejoining bit was tacked on after I wrote the whole rule and most of my first comment.

I'm really against any kind of vetting procedure and have always been for inclusiveness.

AAA's right on the handles thing. I fantasized about making a stink over it not too long ago. THIS WHOLE GAME IS ILLEGAL.

There's not a rule, Aaron. As I said, it was meta-rule as we formed the game. I found your phrase in question, "players shall alternate in alphabetical order by surname," which is going to require a Judgment now that it's in the spotlight.

This whole game is indeed illegal. Judgment is required to validate current gamestate.

I am actually the only one following the rules as written, using my (ahem) name

That's invalid. I'm using my real first name, shelleycat may be a Shelley, other than that we're all nebulous. I'll go first: CAMPBELL

Blah. Now it'll just take even longer until a new voting system comes into effect.

What new voting system are you hoping for?

I'd like to see something outlawing sock puppets before we open the gates.

I tried to cover that in the passage of 311, "A player is one free-willed human Metafilter member voluntarily playing the game of MeFiNo Nomic," which seemed to me enough to invoke Judgment on anyone suspected of not being one free-will human Metafilter member, but I would support further codification of this standard.

there is an earlier rule that defines turn order (alphabetical), so this aspect of your rule would be superseded anyways.

Make 314 an amendment of 201 instead of a new rule. Just make sure you get the parts of 201 you want to keep in there.

My last name is much higher in the alphabet than my first, but I've kind of got used to the username by now (although I still much prefer being called Shelley) so I figured I'd stick with it. If I make it a new version of 201 then I can just change that wording to be alphabetical by username right? Then that fixes all those problems.

Anyone have a problem with new and rejoining users all adding in alphabetically? I can add something about new or rejoining players not becoming eligible (i.e. able to participate) until the start of the next turn to help prevent pushing in. For example if someone with the username sallycat joined right now they'd be next to propose a rule even though I'm expecting to be next and we're all discussing my idea. But if they can't officially join until after my turn starts then they wouldn't usurp my turn (and instead should call themselves sillycat to avoid waiting for a whole round).

I could also be even more rigorous and add a clause about not being allowed to propose a rule or be the judge during their first turn. That way a new player has to sit through one turn as a voter before they get to propose a vote, giving them a learning period. This part could be waved for returning players.

The referral to 311 is designed to prevent sockpuppets. I can put in something stronger about how a new player can prove they fit the definition but I'm not sure what that would be. A link back from the mefi profile page would be the obvious one, a comment over there about this would probably be another. However I'm not entirely convinced it needs to be in there since we do have 311 already and I don't want to add something here if it reduces support for my rule.

I think the original point of using surnames is that it's out of the player's control. The player can't join in whatever order they want by cleverly choosing their name. The near-equivalent of that for us would be to require the usernames here match MeFi usernames and play alphabetically that way. We could allow current players to keep their names, or course, to minimize the admin headache.

Someone could still game the system, but it would cost them five bucks.

Which was, of course, part of the original premise of starting the game in the first place. It wasn't written down anywhere and didn't catch on.

I'd remove the quote from 311. What happens if we amend 311?

* create an account at http://blogshares.com/mefino/ (using an existing account is OK).

Someone who wanted to bend the rules could read the part about using an existing account in a different way. Why not remove that part, since anyone who already has a account must have created it at some point?

Any player who has abstained from four votes in a row, either directly or by non-voting, shall be removed from the player list regardless of join date.

Why must we remove a player who explicitly abstains from four votes in a row?

I agree with those calling for alphabetical ordering my MeFi username.

What ctmf said.

OK. Here's a new draft of the rule. Let me know if I should update what's at the top also. I like the idea of seeing the history but also want to be as clear as possible.

314 is an amendment to 201 and as such replaces rule 201.

Players shall alternate in alphabetical order by http://blogshares.com/mefino/ username. Turns may not be skipped or passed, and parts of turns may not be omitted. All players begin with zero points.

New players may join the mefi nomic via the outlined procedure as long as they fulfil the conditions described in rule 311. A previously removed or resigned player who fulfils the conditions of rule 311 may also rejoin the mefi nomic at any time with their existing http://blogshares.com/mefino account, in which case all previous vote history and points scored shall be reinstated upon rejoining.

The procedure to join (or rejoin) the mefi nomic is as follows:
* create an account at http://blogshares.com/mefino/
* add their username to the official list of players (section marked "Players"), slotting their username into the list alphabetically
* update the total number of players and total needed for majority vote listed on that page

The new or rejoining player will become an eligible player (and thus allowed to participate in the game) at the start of the next turn after the procedure has been completed.

Any player who has abstained from four votes in a row, either directly or by non-voting, shall be removed from the player list regardless of join date.

I haven't put anything in there about mefi username. It seems to be getting pretty complicated and I'm not sure how to best word it, plus I still don't think it's entirely fair making new players follow rules that current players don't have to (i.e. telling us their mefi name).

If someone can come up with really good wording and everyone agrees I'll put it in, but so far I'm happy to let 311 do all the heavy lifting as far as sockpuppets go and don't care too much about a new person pushing in as long as they have to wait a turn first.

ssg I explained the abstain thing further up. Given that a person rejoining keeps all their old points and turn order I can see it doesn't have much teeth. I'm mainly trying to get across the idea that a player is expected to participate if they have joined.

This will pass as is, shelleycat, no changes required.

#

A few responses:

311 sockpuppet quashing isn't enforceable without some sort of proof of identity. Server logs and honor aren't enough. Requiring cross-links from mefi accounts seems to be the most conclusive way of establishing that identity. Current pseudonyms could be grandfathered in, but I'm highly in favor of requiring future players to prove they're qualified to join as long as the rules say this is a Metafilter nomic.

A hundred explicit abstains are A-OK in my book and shouldn't be treated as a non-participation, else we're sometimes forcing an uninformed Yes or No vote.

In the same theme, you should be able to skip your turn if you're on vacation, versus being forced to post something in haste.

The phrase "majority vote" isn't completely accurate and should be broadened to take future changes to the voting process into account.

I like the re-joining stuff.

Anyone who wants to game the system to add a sockpuppet will do so. Five dollars and a new account at MeFi is nothing. And even if someone does as jay wishes, and registers for example "Acron Acronson at MeFi and here, my guess is that players will anyways complain that a sockpuppet is among us. Any barrier to entry or vetting process will only deter people. And what about lurkers at MeFi? They are not welcome here?

#

Personal opinion - long time lurkers on MeFi should probably give Matt the five bucks anyway. You do have a point that a determined sock puppeteer will succeed one way or another, and sock-puppetry is already against the rules.

I'm for matching MeFi names (active account or not, e.g., 1) with a grandfather clause for current players. Not for sock puppet screening, just for turn order standardization and previously mentioned alignment with the intention of the original rule.

I'm not that concerned about it that it would change my vote, though. I like the latest version, with the last "shall" changed to "may".

The phrase "majority vote" isn't completely accurate and should be broadened to take future changes to the voting process into account.

Good point, I'll definitely change that.

I still think that abstaining from four turns is not really playing, that's quite a long period of time to have no opinion. I put the explicit part in there as the 'make up your mind' rule as I personally think a higher level of participation should be required. I can remove that word though and make it only non-voting abstentions, as that's the important part. Actively inviting new players increases the potential for people to sign up and not be able to keep up with play, just like we saw at the beginning when we were all new. I do want to keep something in there to get across the idea that players should be here to play, particularly as it affects the game for the rest of us if they don't (e.g.someone signing up then flaking just before their turn, do we wait for them or skip to the next person?).

Also the number of turns (four) is kind of arbitrary, it could be made longer or shorter. I just figured that was about a week which covers a lot of real life stuff.

I like the latest version, with the last "shall" changed to "may".

Ooo, actually that works. Then we can remove a player if we want to but don't have to. So if I magically win lotto (despite never buying a ticket) and go on a three month world cruise you can just let my account lie dormant for that time. Whereas if I say I want to play then just randomly disappear you can remove me.

314 is an amendment to 201 and as such replaces rule 201.

Players shall alternate in alphabetical order by http://blogshares.com/mefino/ username. Turns may not be skipped or passed, and parts of turns may not be omitted. All players begin with zero points.

New players may join the mefi nomic via the outlined procedure as long as they fulfil the conditions described in rule 311. A previously removed or resigned player who fulfils the conditions of rule 311 may also rejoin the mefi nomic at any time with their existing http://blogshares.com/mefino account, in which case all previous vote history and points scored shall be reinstated upon rejoining.

The procedure to join (or rejoin) the mefi nomic is as follows:
* create an account at http://blogshares.com/mefino/
* add their username to the official list of players (section marked "Players"), slotting their username into the list alphabetically
* update the total number of players and total needed for a vote to pass listed on that page

The new or rejoining player will become an eligible player (and thus allowed to participate in the game) at the start of the next turn after this procedure has been completed.

Any player who has abstained from four votes in a row by non-voting may be removed from the player list regardless of join date.

I don't like the "may" wording. Are we to invoke judgement to remove players or can anyone just remove them if they want? Who decides if a player is to be removed?

I'm with jay and ctmf on the MeFi names though. While someone could spend $5 to create a sockpuppet, that small barrier is much better than no barriers at all.

Don't worry shelleycat - ssg, ctmf, and jay will vote for this whether or not you force the MeFi names, so leave it out for maximum acceptance.

#

Oh, we will, will we?

Yes, I have seen the future in a vision.

#

OK, I'll update the "may" part to make it a judgement issue. I think that's the appropriate way to deal with it? The alternative would be to have a poll and I know some people don't like that. Either way there should be some way to take external factors into consideration, for when I win my world cruise.

Oh, we will, will we?

I don't think judgement is the best way to deal with it. We don't need to deal with the erratic actions of judges if we have a firm rule. I don't see any reason not to make non-player status automatic after x abstentions (or only after x default abstentions). Anyone can rejoin after their world cruise.

Yes, I have seen the future in a vision.

Pay that no mind. That's just the residual glue fumes.

Heh, I'm torn now and don't know which way to go. Shall or may with judgement? Because while may works adding in judgement dilutes it down to the point we might as well not add it. And I do rather like that little clause.

I like may, and any player can do it. I envision that nobody will remove idle players unless we get a big bunch of them, or unless it's a problem having them on the list for some reason. I can't really see a reason that would be a problem, now that we have time limits and non-unanimous voting.

If someone gets a bee in their bonnet and deletes somebody right away (after the 4 abstentions,) well, should have voted, I guess.

I don't like making it mandatory because then you need to assign someone the responsibility for tracking that. You can't just say "someone must" - who? And what if it doesn't get done and a game action happens in the meantime, is it invalid?

Better to just say "may".

OK so how close are we to this being ready? I can either put it up for voting soon (before I go to bed) or wait until tomorrow morning if there is still stuff to discuss. Personally I'm pretty happy with how things are in my last draft.

Any player who has abstained from four votes in a row by non-voting may be removed from the player list regardless of join date.

I'm not thrilled about that part. We can already move on w/o everyone voting.

I don't think removing people for abstention by non-voting is a huge issue; really, it's only hurting their own standing in the game by not playing, since points can be awarded based on how one votes. We'll get into a crunch when it comes time to propose a rule and the player is gone.

So, if the intent of adding that language was to keep the game running (i.e., not have it hang up because someone went missing), then I think the notion of missing rule-proposers needs to be addressed. This could possibly be accomplished by skipping turns based on non-voting, for example. "Any player who has abstained from the most recent n votes shall skip their turn during the present round" or something like that. Or maybe a time limit - if a player who should be proposing a rule has had no activity on the site for the past 24/48/whatever hours, then their turn is skipped.

Let's vote.

#

It seems that the only part we're really quibbling on is the last clause and it's really the least important. So I'll put it up for vote minus that part and if it becomes more of a problem then someone else can address it in more detail later on.