MeFiNo | The MetaFilter Nomic Game

Proposal: 315. The votes and abstentions on a proposal shall not be displayed to the players until all players have voted or abstained.

I wonder if this will pass. Nobody gets anything if it fails, right?

Right: zero points for everybody if it fails.

Sort of a good test case to see if this "No" issue is really the crisis it's made out to be.

There is no crisis. The sky is not falling. However, gerryblog is currently leading in points which should be of serious concern to us all.

#

mosessis (27 pts)

It's her! It's her! She's the one!

I don't think anyone made it out to be a crisis, gerryblog. The game is played by changing the rules and at least some of us think that we would prefer to have the rules changed on this issue. No need to be dramatic about it.

zero points for everybody if it fails

I'd check the rules again, gerryblog. AFAICR I get 10 points for voting each round, yes or no, regardless of passage. See 108 and 217.

#

I believe that 217.b.iii indicates that players with a gold star lose eleventy hundred and one points for every mention of 217, the secret rule.

Which, it should be pointed out, is distinct from the rule that cannot be named.

jay: Rule 227 prohibits the mere mention of the rule that cannot be named, unless it is your turn. Now you have to sing the "I'm very sorry" song, per 226.

Sigh.

The rule, the rule, bless the blessed rule,
The rule, the rule, I'm sorry I broke the rule,
The rule, the rule, it's ours to carry on,
The rule the rule, I'm sorry I broke the rule.

That's the last friggin time you make me sing that, I swear. It doesn't even rhyme.

Why can't it be named? It can't be that hard. I'm sure if we all put our minds to it we can name anything!

Oh dear, shelleycat, now you have to sing the "I'm very sorry" song too. You aren't allowed to mention the rule that cannot be named unless it is your turn. Rule 227 is quite clear on this point.

Only 11 so far, eh? When does the clock run out on this thing?

#

A few hours, AAA. Maybe the 5 who have voted no should arrange to share the 30 points to be had by voting no if the proposal passes amongst themselves. If two players change their vote to yes, this will pass.

48 hours have passed, so the two players who have not yet voted have abstained. This proposals fails.

I calculate my points as follows: (315 - 291)(7/12) - 10 = 4

There were no judgement invocations (it turns out your turn as judge was boring anyways, shelleycat, sorry), so we are on to 316. tallus?

Ha! Listening to me sing would make you sorry :-P

For the record, I voted against this for non-strategic reasons -- I think public vote-counting is a good thing for the game. However, I've come around to the idea that something has to be done with 204 to prevent another stall.

I had some ideas in the last thread, here they are again:

* contrarian's bonus + secret ballot: being in the minority on any bill (yes or no) gets you 10 points, but it's a secret ballot.
* contrarian's bonus + no vote switch
* contrarian's bonus + no vote switching + secret ballot
* We could/should also pass a rule allowing voluntary point transfer, so people could be bribed. Maybe bump the goal up to 300 and give everyone 100 free points for bribing purposes?
* Another possibility: You get the number of points as players voting the same way you did on every rule change. Or, you get the number of points as players voting against the way you voted...

Or we could just try abolishing 204 straight up and see if that passes.

I thought there was less support for repeal of 204 than there was for secret ballots in the discussion thread, but not that many players chimed in, so that might not reflect the overall intentions of the players. I'd be happy to see it go.

I didn't intend to vote Yes for a completely secret ballot; I assumed that after the proposal was passed or failed the individual vote records would be revealed. It keeps the admins from cheating, if nothing else.

Down with 204. Don't make me open photoshop.

Yes, of course, jay. I thought the proposal was pretty clear that the votes were only secret while voting was open.

I voted against this for non-strategic reasons -- I think public vote-counting is a good thing for the game.

So I'll ask gerryblog, did you mean that publishing public voting specifically before the close of vote is good?

Yeah, that's what I meant -- I didn't mean to cause confusion. I shared ssg's understanding of 315; I'd never thought that this would result in a truly secretly ballot. And I voted against it because I think having an open vote in which we can see who has voted already and how will be better for the game in terms of fostering participation, negotiation, bribery, deals, etc.

I agree with those goals, and advocating secret ballot was just a band-aid against these contrarian bonuses, which I'm warming to anyway.

What I want most is a good issue to debate against Aaron.

something has to be done with 204 to prevent another stall

You say that like any vote ever failing is some kind of huge crisis. Have you noticed the massive drop off in comments and "action" now that rule proposals are smoothly flowing off the assembly line? I do not think anything has to be done, at least not in terms of making it even easier to get rules passed. If someone is willing to vote no in order to get 10 points, then it must be a rule they aren't all that committed to seeing passed anyways. We had about 10 rounds of NOTHING getting passed, and now we've had what, 5 or 6 things pass in rapid succession? Let's not get all panicked here.

I will vigorously campaign against any further messing with the voting mechanisms for the time being.

What I want most is a good issue to debate against Aaron.

What I want most is an ice pick in the forehead. *THWACK* Ahh, much better.

#

Have you noticed the massive drop off in comments and "action" now that rule proposals are smoothly flowing off the assembly line?

AAA, this is Reason A1 that I voted no on this. It's a problem, you were right to anticipate it, and I think adding more excitement to votes through bribery, etc. could start to repair it. This also was part of my motivation in my abortive attempt to mess with the player's list.

Have you noticed the massive drop off in comments and "action" now that rule proposals are smoothly flowing off the assembly line?

To reframe this, arguing about cheating was more fun than starting the game.

For the record, I voted no not for the 'contrarian bonus' but because I like seeing who has voted and how as it happens. I agree with gerryblog about the exciting possibilities of smoky backroom deals etc. I'm also just nosy.