MeFiNo | The MetaFilter Nomic Game

We don't need a 24h wait if we get consent from 8 players.

I maintain that I am not the judge.

AAA is right, though: one of you has to crack and admit you're the judge.

I rule that it is tallus' turn already, and that ssg is the judge.

I assert my authority from 313, the relevant passage (emphasis mine):

New Judges are not bound by the decisions of old Judges. New Judges may, however, settle only those questions...

Here the rules define two classes of judges: old judges, who are not bound by the second quoted sentence, and new judges, whose actions are more specifically proscribed.

Having previously been a judge, earlier in this round, I am an old judge. As the current question requires a meta-judgement, and we have two intransigent judges who are in disagreement as to the current turn and the current occupant of the new judgeship, there is at this moment no new judge. Therefore, with the powers I have just now appropriated as an old judge, my lawful ruling is as follows:

It is currently tallus' turn, and ssg is judge. The fact that ssg did initially use his common sense and natural human powers of reason to pass judgement iundicates to me that his mind is not yet completely corrupted, and he is therefore still conditionally fit to hold office.

However, it is a shameful mark on this court that we now have multiple instances of judges not respecting the office entrusted to them, and not taking their work seriously - this is evident here in the loose and careless thinking that led ssg to change his mind in such an illogical and ill-concieved manner. I direct future judges to chill, consider their position carefully, and STFU until they are certain that their opinion on any matter brought before them is fully-formed.

The judgement by ssg in the prior thread shall stand, and unless their is further evidence of massive deterioration of ssg's thought processes, he shall remain the laqwfully constituted judge for the remainder of tallus' turn.

So it is written, so it shall be done.

#

Damn, I thought I was being clever and getting round the problem but now I see it's not quite so easy. This is what I get for playing from work and giving only half my attention (hopefully my work is not equally suffering).

Overall I think I was right the first time and ssg is the judge. It makes sense and I'm pretty sure everyone is arguing the same thing.

The best thing to do would actually be to go back through previous judgements and see how this has been handled before. I'm sure this isn't the first time there was some quibbling about timing. I vaguely think that in the past the next person was considered judge but I don't have time to go look right now.

Also, tallus need to post something to discuss. He doesn't need his turn to officially start to be able to do this and shouldn't wait for anything game related before doing so. So waiting 24 hours probably isn't a big deal as we can easily discuss something for that long or logner.

Neither this judgment nor the previous one has been ruled on by anyone empowered to do so. It is impossible for someone to "rule" they are not the judge, as a person who is not the judge has no power to rule. It's self-negating.

One of you has to rule you *are* the judge and settle these two questions. Most of the commenters who have thrown their two cents in have said it is ssg, but it's got to be one of you, and nothing can happen until this has been done.

I'm half-inclined to run with AAA's judgment to head off this LEGAL CRISIS.

I knew you would respect my lawfully constituted authority, gerryblog. It is comforting to know that I am playing this game with at least one other sane and reasonable person.

#

It occurs to me now that the precedent for this was established during the tumultuous flatluigi/gerryblog transition, during which I wisely ruled that one becomes the judge immediately following the taking of points. That's more evidence towards the idea that ssg is judge.

I sure do love a game-custom argument.

I strongly urge ssg to rule himself as judge whenever he is next back at the game (I'm assuming with the he part, sorry if I'm wrong), because I'm not going to do it. ssg should now be judge.

I'd like to propose a different solution to this problem. I try to follow the rules as best as I can, so I find it difficult to accept that I am the judge when the rules pretty clearly indicate otherwise. 313 tells us: 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.. My turn has clearly ended as I have calculated my points. tallus' turn has not begun because no proposal has been made or discussed. Since tallus' turn has not yet begun, no one is moving, thus no one precedes the one moving. I'd prefer that shelleycat continue as the judge (one Judge settles all questions arising from the game until the next turn is begun), but since that isn't an option, I think I'll have to try something different.

313: 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.

Since there is no current turn, tallus' invocation does not affect the completion of any turn. It is not a question that can be settled by a judge. I think tallus' invocation can be safely ignored until his/her turn begins, at which point I become the judge and will be happy to settle it.

And yes, shelleycat, I'm a he.

I have a problem with this ruling because it creates a state of lawlessness (the space between turns) where none needs to exist. Isn't it better to conclude that a person's turn begins at the moment the previous player's turn ends, and therefore that it is always someone's turn, rather than insist upon an interpretation of 313 that isn't mandated by anything but your claim that tallus isn't actually moving until he performs a particular action (which is mandated nowhere by the rules)?

...and needless to say, I misspoke when I called it a "ruling," because no one (legitimately) claiming to be a judge has yet issued any judgment.

gerryblog: Actually, the definition of a turn is 202: One turn consists of two parts in this order: (1) proposing one rule-change and having it voted on .... There is no turn if there is no proposal being discussed.

I don't want to create a period of lawlessness, nor do I think one exists. I still think shelleycat is the judge until the next turn begins. However, I don't think there is any need to judge tallus' question until tallus' turn begins (and the rules back me up on this point), so we might as well wait. I'd say the same of this invocation as well: it doesn't affect the completion of a turn, so it should not be answered by a judge.

In the interests of moving on I withdraw this invocation.

When a baseball game starts, who's at bat?

The first player in the lineup. Whether he's standing there yet or not. Before the pitcher throws the ball. It's his turn.

Otherwise there would be a paradox. It's not tallus' turn until tallus makes a proposal, but tallus may not make a proposal unless it's his (or her) turn. Makes no sense.

What ssg is suggesting also means that the discussion period isn't really someone's turn because nothing has been officially proposed. Which doesn't make sense to me. Closing a vote and ending a turn is a decisive action with point taking and usually a specific declaration. Whereas posting a new rule for vote can take some time to sort out and shouldn't be rushed too much. Just because tallus hasn't posted a vote yet doesn't mean he's not in the process of sorting that out and certainly doesn't means someone else can push in. It's clearly his turn to go.

We can't expect a vote to be posted immediately after the previous one closes, not without all living in the same time zone and keeping the same schedule. Just because it is now someone's turn doesn't mean they have to take their turn right that second, just like in any other turn based game. I assume tallus will come back with something to discuss as soon as is suitable for him, and I'm quite happy for to wait for him to do so. But given there is nothing left for ssg to do with 315, it's no longer his turn and I'm no longer judge.

This could potentially become more of an issue if new players join (i.e. when does each turn start) so I think it's safer to go with what makes sense, a new turn starts immediately after the old one is decisively finished even if it takes time for the person who's turn it is to actually go.

And I find it weird that we're both in here arguing that we're not judge and we don't want that power. Being judge is supposed to be how we push our own crap through in this game so far! If it wasn't for issues with new players joining and also the obvious logic that it's no longer ssg's turn I'd be trying to grab as much judgely power as possible.

In the interests of moving on I withdraw this invocation.

You may not withdraw your invocation, as a judge has already ruled on it.

#

AAA, which judge? They both say they're not the judge, so it hasn't been ruled on.

Actually ssg ruled then took it back. And I agreed with his ruling before he took it back. So it's a bit murky. Personally I think we should accept ssg's ruling and move on, but I'm not judge :D

Ooo, no, this is the other thread. So ssg didn't rule on this one and gerryblog can take it back if he likes.

Ssg: the problem is the invocation absolutely *does* affect the completion of my turn, thats why I made it when I did. I went to start making a proposal and found that, as you have clearly admitted "203 and 311 are clearly in conflict." preventing me from making the proposal. So this conflict does need to be resolved by a judge, and that requires there to be a judge.This is true regardless of whether it s my turn, or any vote of consent to move on.

As an aside I have no problem with whoever the judge is over ruling my narrow framing of the question. I might disagree with them, but the important point is that all of the possible judges agree with me that there is a conflict, and therefore it needs to be resolved -- by a legitimate judge.

AAA, which judge? They both say they're not the judge, so it hasn't been ruled on.

Me, scroll up. Look, I am not in any way trying to claim that this is normal or standard procedure, but if both judges continue to say they are not the judge, I will argue that the next turn is hung, and the game is done. Someone with strength and wisdom needed to step up to move us past this (manufactured) constitutional crisis.

I might disagree with them, but the important point is that all of the possible judges agree with me that there is a conflict, and therefore it needs to be resolved -- by a legitimate judge.

This question has been answered by a legitimate judge, who has ruled that ssg is in fact the judge for the remainder of the current turn. It is tallus' turn. ssg is the judge. There is nothing to be voted on, we are in the turn, so consent to move on is nonsensical.

Tallus, you have your ruling, from ssg. Let's move along now.

#

I'm not speaking as the judge here, tallus, but the "conflict" between 203 and 311 is resolved by the wording of 311. The status quo reading is quite correct and there is no need to worry about it. Also, you can start your turn by proposing a rule change, i.e. putting something up for discussion.

I don't think it makes any sense for the next player's turn to being right after the previous player calculates their points.

For one thing, that would make it impossible for us to have a consent to move on poll after points have been calculated. The wording of 313 makes it clear that beginning one's turn is an active act, not something that just happens by default (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). This would make no sense if turns began automatically.

Also, it opens the door to chicanery with the points calculation or vote closing - someone can give themselves more points or close a vote prematurely and then immediately become the judge to legitimize it.

Finally, if the next player turns out to be a no-show for whatever reason, it seems silly to say that they have begun their turn when they aren't even here.

BTW, I think that if you are to accept the judgehood, shelleycat, you would not be required to and should not rule on tallus' invocation anyways: it doesn't affect the completion of any turn.

But going by the very strict wording that you prefer ssg it's not tallus' turn until he actually posts something for us to vote on. So even putting something up to discuss means nothing.

I think it's pretty clear that once we've done all the things necessary for the previous turn, i.e. taken points and resolved judgements and whatever then it's the new turn. There is a difference between it being someone's turn and them taking their turn and there's nothing wrong with that. Turn 315 is over, everything that needs to be done is done, so it's now 316 and will be until everything that needs to be done with 316 is finished with.

If it's no ones turn then anyone can go next, the order is broken and it's all a mess. Which doesn't at all fit previous game custom and is just silly.

And I'm starting to think ssg is doing this just to stir up shit and give something to talk about. He already made judgement and everything was fine then he rethought and took it all back and started this crap. I have limited patience for such play, have all kinds of other fun things to do this weekend and will be back in a few days once it's resolved.

shelleycat, I resent your accusation. I'm not trying to stir anything up, but merely trying to follow the rules. I was temporarily fooled by the sidebar, but I soon saw that I was not the judge.

Also, I think the that "proposing one rule-change and having it voted on" allows discussion of your proposal to count as part of your turn. I've repeatedly said that I think tallus' turn starts when discussion starts.

There is a difference between it being someone's turn and them taking their turn and there's nothing wrong with that.

I agree. It is tallus' turn to play; however, tallus has not yet begun his/her turn. 313 explicitly says that the judge remains the same "until the next turn is begun". In this case, the rules refer to the latter case, and so you remain the judge until tallus begins the turn.

You need to think about both our game custom, and the common sense understanding of it being your turn and you actually taking your turn.

Two guys staring at a chess board... nothing happening for 5 minutes... "Whose turn is it?" "It's Bob's turn." By ssg's logic it is not actually Bob's turn until he moves his piece, although common sense tells us his turn begins once Fred has removed his hand from the piece he moved.

A Monopoly game. Bob is masturbating in the washroom. "Hey, Bob, hurry up, it's your turn!" He rushes himself and rejoins the game, because it is time to roll the dice; even while he is playing with his schwantzenschtuk in the toilet it is his turn.

Hey, tallus. It's YOUR TURN. Stop doing that thing you are currently doing, and TAKE YOUR TURN.

#

The chess game is a good analogy. I like that.

I liked the one about j/o

I realised later on that my last post here totally sounded like I was storming off in a huff which was not at all the intention. When I sound abrupt it's generally because I don't have a lot of time (I really did have better things to do and it was all a lot of fun), and because I'm not good at weasly words in general (ego stroking just isn't a big part of kiwi culture I think). If I ever am angry about something I'll say so in so many words.